Digital piracy is a growing threat to India’s creative economy, draining USD 1.2 billion in revenue in 2024, with projections indicating a potential doubling to USD 2.4 billion by 2029, according to the MPA-CII report[i]. India relies on a robust yet fragmented legal framework, including the Copyright Act, 1957, Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, and Cinematograph Act, 1952, [ii]to combat this issue. However, the absence of a dedicated digital piracy law creates significant enforcement challenges. This blog dives deeply into India’s legal provisions, prosecution processes, filing mechanisms, judicial remedies, recent court rulings, international approaches, and actionable strategies to strengthen the fight against digital piracy while fostering a vibrant creative ecosystem.[iii]
Understanding the Legal Framework for Digital Piracy
India’s approach to tackling digital piracy hinges on a combination of statutes, each addressing specific aspects of intellectual property (IP) infringement. Below, we explore the key provisions in detail, clarifying their scope and application in combating digital piracy.
Key Legislation and Its Provisions
- Copyright Act, 1957: The core law protecting films, music, and software. Section 63 makes unauthorized copying or sharing, like hosting pirated movies or cracked software, a serious crime with 6 months to 3 years in jail and fines of ₹50,000–₹2 lakh. Section 63A ups the penalties for repeat offenders. Section 64 allows police to seize pirated goods, like DVDs or servers, without a warrant. Section 65A punishes bypassing digital locks, such as streaming platform DRM, to curb modern piracy.
- Cinematograph Act, 1952: This governs film distribution and exhibition. Section 7 penalizes illegal streaming or distribution with 3 months to 3 years in jail and fines up to 5% of a film’s budget. Subsections 7(1A) and 7(1B) target websites and platforms hosting pirated films, holding both individuals and services accountable.
- Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000: This law targets cybercrimes and platform responsibilities. Section 66 hits hard on unauthorized access or sharing of digital content, like hacking streaming services or distributing pirated files, with up to 3 years in jail and ₹5 lakh fines. Section 67B tackles piracy of obscene content, carrying up to 5 years’ imprisonment. Section 79 holds platforms like ISPs accountable, offering a safe harbor if they remove illegal content upon notice; otherwise, they face liability.
- IT Rules, 2021: These rules back the IT Act, requiring platforms to delete infringing content within 36 hours of a notice and use tools like content filtering to curb piracy. Non-compliance risks losing safe harbor, opening platforms to legal action.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: This law addresses digital content misuse. Section 314 penalizes selling pirated software or media with up to 6 months in jail. Section 316 covers breaches of trust, like misusing a pre-release film, with up to 5 years’ imprisonment, but applies only to specific relationships. Section 317 targets scams selling fake content as legit, with up to 7 years in jail. Section 109 tackles organized piracy networks, like the 2024 Fairplay case, with penalties up to life imprisonment.
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: This guides investigations and trials. Section 173’s “Zero FIR” lets complaints be filed at any police station, vital for cross-border piracy cases. Section 176 requires forensic experts for serious offenses, ensuring proper handling of evidence like server logs. Section 193 mandates timely charge sheet filings, while Section 227 ensures transparent seizures with audio-video records, as seen in the Fairplay case. Section 356 allows virtual trials, making it easier to present digital evidence.
Challenges in the Legal Framework
Despite these provisions, enforcement is hampered by several factors. The absence of a dedicated digital piracy law forces reliance on a patchwork of statutes, complicating case framing. Jurisdictional challenges arise when offenders operate via offshore servers, limiting India’s enforcement reach. Proving “knowing” infringement under Copyright Act Section 63 is difficult, especially for end-users or intermediaries. The 2010 Committee of Parliament and the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) in recent USTR Special 301 submissions have criticized the low priority given to piracy by law enforcement, citing significant delays and a lack of police enthusiasm, which undermines the effectiveness of these laws.
The Prosecution Process for Digital Piracy
Prosecuting digital piracy in India follows a clear path under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, but technical and systemic hurdles often slow down enforcement.
Initiating a Case: Complaint and FIR
The process starts when a copyright owner, like a film studio, or law enforcement files a complaint. Since copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is a cognizable offense, police can register a First Information Report (FIR) without a warrant. The BNSS’s Zero FIR rule (Section 173) allows complaints at any police station, a key advantage for tackling digital piracy across borders. For instance, a studio might report a website streaming its latest film, providing evidence like URLs or screenshots. Units like the Maharashtra Intellectual Property Crime Unit (MIPCU) boost efficiency by targeting piracy hubs, which account for 63% of pirated content consumption, per the 2025 MPA-CII report.
Investigating Digital Piracy
Investigations, guided by BNSS Section 173, focus on collecting digital evidence like server logs, IP addresses, or blockchain-based copyright records. For serious offenses, Section 176 mandates forensic experts using tools like EnCase to analyze data. However, tracing anonymous pirates using VPNs or offshore servers is tough, and limited police training in digital forensics causes delays. The MPA-CII report notes 16% of pirated content is accessed via mobile apps, adding complexity to monitoring widespread piracy.
Filing the Chargesheet
Police file a chargesheet under BNSS Section 193, listing evidence and charges like violations of Copyright Act Section 63 or IT Act Section 66, typically within 60–90 days. Forensic backlogs, especially with encrypted data, often delay this step, weakening cases as timely filing is crucial.
Trial and Judicial Challenges
Trials occur in the Judicial Magistrate First Class or Sessions Courts, often virtually under BNSS Section 356, with digital records recognized as evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Yet, judges often lack the expertise to interpret technical evidence like IP traces. Platforms like ISPs face scrutiny under IT Act Section 79 for ignoring takedown notices, but proving negligence is hard. High-profile cases like Baahubali (2015), Thop TV (2022), and Fairplay (2024) remain unresolved, highlighting persistent judicial gaps.
Key Obstacles in Prosecution
Prosecution faces multiple roadblocks. The lack of a dedicated digital piracy law forces reliance on fragmented provisions, making it difficult to frame charges consistently. Jurisdictional limits hinder action against offshore perpetrators, as servers hosted abroad are often beyond India’s reach. Collecting volatile digital evidence, such as encrypted files or transient server logs, requires advanced forensic tools that are often unavailable or underutilized. Proving “knowing” infringement under Copyright Act Section 63 is particularly challenging for end-users downloading pirated content or intermediaries hosting it unknowingly. The 2010 Committee of Parliament noted that piracy is a low priority for law enforcement, a concern echoed by the IIPA, which describes criminal enforcement as “very daunting” due to delays and lack of police focus. Cases like Baahubali (arrests in 2015, no hearings since 2017), Thop TV (2022, ongoing), and Fairplay (2024, assets worth ₹3,310,000,000 seized but no conviction) highlight the systemic gaps in achieving deterrent outcomes.
Filing a Digital Piracy Case
- Pursuing Criminal Complaints
Copyright owners, like film studios or software firms, can kick off criminal cases by filing complaints at any police station (via BNSS Section 173’s Zero FIR), cybercrime cells, or units like MIPCU. The complaint needs evidence, URLs, screenshots, or pirated content samples, citing violations like Copyright Act Section 63 or Cinematograph Act Section 7. Police register an FIR for these cognizable offenses, requiring proof of ownership, such as copyright certificates. The 2025 MPA-CII report notes 64% of piracy users would switch to legal platforms if accessible, suggesting better alternatives could ease complaint volumes.
- Filing Civil Suits
For remedies like injunctions or damages, civil suits can be filed in District Courts, High Courts (e.g., Delhi’s IP Division), or Commercial Courts. A plaint under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, details the infringement and losses, like lost royalties, with evidence of ownership and harm. Though flexible, these suits are costly and slow, often deterring smaller creators.
- Post-Filing Procedures
Criminal Proceedings: After an FIR, police investigate under BNSS Section 173, seizing devices like servers (BNSS Section 227) with audio-video recording for transparency, as seen in the Fairplay case. Forensic experts (BNSS Section 176) analyze digital evidence using tools like EnCase, but delays in filing chargesheets (BNSS Section 193) due to forensic backlogs weaken cases. Trials in JMFC or Sessions Courts, often virtual (BNSS Section 356), struggle with judges’ limited tech expertise, leaving cases like Baahubali (2015) and Fairplay (2024) unresolved.
- Civil Proceedings
Courts may issue interim injunctions (CPC Order 39) or John Doe orders to block unidentified pirates. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam streamlines digital evidence use, but trials drag due to backlogs and complex damage calculations. Remedies include permanent injunctions or damages, though enforcing against offshore pirates is tough.
- The Critical Role of Intermediaries
ISPs and platforms must remove pirated content within 36 hours of a notice (IT Act Section 79, IT Rules 2021) to keep safe harbor status. Inconsistent compliance, like delayed site blocks, lets mirror sites thrive. The MPA-CII report estimates that effective intermediary action could recover USD 1.1 billion by 2029, vital for protecting creators.
Judicial Remedies for Digital Piracy
Courts issue tailored orders to address digital piracy, depending on whether the case is criminal or civil:
- Criminal Orders:
- Conviction: Under Copyright Act Section 63, offenders face six months to three years’ imprisonment and fines, with Section 63A imposing stricter penalties for repeat offenders. However, no recent convictions have been recorded, per the IIPA, due to weak evidence or anonymous perpetrators.
- Seizure: Infringing copies, devices, or servers are confiscated under Copyright Act Section 64 or BNSS Section 227, as seen in the Fairplay case, where assets worth ₹3,310,000,000 were seized.
- Acquittal: Common when evidence or intent is lacking, as in the Baahubali case, where the accused were granted bail and the case stalled.
- Civil Orders:
- Injunctions: Temporary or permanent orders block websites via ISPs, stopping ongoing piracy.
- John Doe Orders: Target unidentified pirates, enabling rights holders to block infringing websites or seize materials without naming specific defendants.
- Dynamic Injunctions: Allow real-time blocking of mirror sites, as seen in the JioStar case (2025), adapting to evolving piracy tactics.
- Damages: Compensatory or punitive damages compensate for losses, though quantifying damages is challenging due to piracy’s widespread nature and speculative metrics like lost sales.
- Challenges: Enforcing orders against offshore websites is limited by jurisdictional constraints, and inconsistent ISP compliance delays action. Quantifying damages often relies on speculative estimates, reducing deterrence.
Global frameworks provide valuable insights for India:
- United States: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 1998, offers a notice-and-takedown system, enabling swift content removal by intermediaries. The FBI’s aggressive prosecution of piracy networks, like the Megaupload shutdown (2012) and a 2024 IPTV case resulting in convictions, contrasts with India’s lack of convictions. Adopting a DMCA-like system under the IT Act could streamline enforcement.
- European Union: The EU Copyright Directive (2019) holds platforms liable unless they demonstrate due diligence, with site-blocking orders and graduated response systems (e.g., France’s HADOPI law) deterring casual piracy. The 2025 Brein v. Ziggo ruling upheld ISP blocking of The Pirate Bay, aligning with India’s dynamic injunctions and suggesting a graduated response system to complement criminal prosecution.[iv]
- United Kingdom: The Digital Economy Act, 2017, and Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) enable rapid content removal through dynamic injunctions and ISP cooperation, as seen in a 2024 Premier League case. Expanding MIPCU nationally and codifying ISP protocols could mirror this success.
Strategies to Strengthen India’s Anti-Piracy Efforts
To effectively combat digital piracy, India can adopt the following strategies:
- Notice-and-Takedown System: Enact a statutory framework under the IT Act, modeled on the DMCA, to ensure intermediaries remove infringing content swiftly, addressing delays in ISP compliance.
- National IP Enforcement Unit: Expand MIPCU into a national body, similar to the UK’s PIPCU, equipped with dedicated cybercrime and forensic expertise to prioritize piracy cases and overcome the low enforcement priority noted by the 2010 Committee of Parliament.
- Codified Dynamic Injunctions: Incorporate dynamic injunctions into the Copyright Act, building on the JioStar precedent, to enable real-time blocking of mirror sites without requiring new lawsuits.
- Graduated Response System: Introduce warnings and fines for end-users, inspired by France’s HADOPI law, to deter casual piracy while reserving criminal sanctions for large-scale offenders. The MPA-CII report notes that 62% of pirated content consumers support stricter enforcement, indicating public readiness.
- International Cooperation: Leverage WIPO, Interpol, and bilateral agreements to pursue offshore pirates, aligning with TRIPS standards. Joining WIPO’s ALERT platform could enhance data sharing on piracy networks.
- Dedicated Digital Piracy Law: Enact a specific statute defining digital piracy and streamlining prosecution procedures, addressing the reliance on fragmented laws like the Copyright Act and IT Act.
- Technological Integration: Deploy AI-based tools, like YouTube’s Content ID, for real-time piracy detection and blockchain for tamper-proof copyright registration, improving evidence collection and prosecution efficiency.
- Public Awareness Campaigns: Partner with the Ministry of Education and media to promote IP literacy, as 84% of pirated content consumers prefer free content (MPA-CII). Anti-piracy ads on OTT platforms and educational initiatives could shift consumer behavior toward legal alternatives.
Conclusion
India’s fight against digital piracy is hampered by the lack of a dedicated law, jurisdictional issues, and weak enforcement, as seen in unresolved cases like Baahubali (2015), Thop TV (2022), and Fairplay (2024). The absence of a unified legal framework complicates prosecuting offenders, especially those using offshore servers or VPNs. Despite progress with dynamic injunctions in cases like JioStar (2025), systemic gaps persist, with no convictions in major cases despite seizures like Fairplay’s ₹3,310,000,000 haul. Adopting global practices, such as the U.S.’s DMCA notice-and-takedown system, the EU’s graduated response model, and the UK’s PIPCU framework, can strengthen enforcement.
India should enact a dedicated piracy law, expand MIPCU nationally, use AI and blockchain for detection and evidence, and promote legal platforms, as 64% of piracy users would switch, per the MPA-CII report. These steps will curb losses, protect creators, and boost a creative economy that balances innovation and access. International cooperation with WIPO and Interpol, aligned with TRIPS standards, can tackle cross-border piracy. By integrating these measures, India can address the USD 1.2 billion revenue loss projected to hit USD 2.4 billion by 2029, fostering a vibrant creative ecosystem.
[i] MPA-CII Report, 2025.
[ii] Copyright Act, 1957; Information Technology Act, 2000; Cinematograph Act, 1952.
[iii] Motion Picture Association and Confederation of Indian Industry, Economic Impact of Digital Piracy in India, 2025.
[iv] HADOPI Law, France; Motion Picture Association and Confederation of Indian Industry, Economic Impact of Digital Piracy in India, 2025.
Author By,
Kasak Srivastav (ICFAI LAW School, Hyderabad)
Under the Guidance of Ms. Jagriti Dugar, IP Associate
RVR Associates