FROM THEATRES TO TELEGRAM: INDIA’S STRUGGLE WITH DIGITAL PIRACY AND THE LAW

I. INTRODUCTION

India is one of Asia’s largest screen content markets, with US$5.8 B invested in 2024. While television still leads with 51% share, digital formats across SVOD, AVOD, and UGC now account for 37% up from 15% in 2019 making it the fastest-growing segment

In the digital era, a ₹200-crore blockbuster film can be illegally accessed for just ₹10 not in shady market stalls, but through encrypted apps, pirated websites, and peer-to-peer networks. For example, HIT: The Third Case and #Single were pirated and leaked online within hours of their theatrical release. The TFCC (Telugu Film Chamber of Commerce) reported losses across Telugu cinema estimated at ₹3,700 crore in 2024.

India’s online video sector generated an estimated US$4.2 billion in 2024, with 75% of revenue driven by advertising and 25% from subscriptions (SVOD). While premium video-on-demand platforms both freemium (ad-supported) and subscription-based are growing in popularity, the full monetization potential of the sector remains constrained by rampant digital piracy.

A significant case underscoring this threat is Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Moviestrunk.com, in which 67 infringing websites were found to be pirating and streaming the film Mission Mangal. Despite the issuance of a John Doe order by the Delhi High Court to block access to these domains, the websites used mirror links and anonymity tools to reappear within days—demonstrating how enforcement mechanisms are frequently outpaced by piracy operators.^[i]

At the global level, content giants like Netflix, Apple TV+, and Amazon Prime Video have joined forces under the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), a leading coalition focused on combating piracy through coordinated legal action, intelligence sharing, and cross-border enforcement. ACE works with regulators and national enforcement agencies to dismantle piracy networks and protect the value of legitimate [1]content distribution. However, the Indian legal ecosystem, though evolving, is still playing catch-up.

The problem is not only about lost revenue but suppressed sectoral growth. According to Ministry of Information and Broadcasting India, the recent industry estimates are as follows:

• • Approximately 90 million users in India accessed pirated video content in 2024, resulting in an estimated US$1.2 billion in revenue loss, roughly 10% of the legal video industry.

• • If unaddressed, piracy is projected to reach 158 million users by 2029, potentially causing cumulative losses of US$2.4 billion.

• • This threatens not just revenues but also content investment, employment, and tax contributions.

In contrast, targeted anti-piracy interventions could yield measurable recovery:

• • Recover up to US$1.1 billion in lost revenue by 2029,

• • Inject US$0.5 billion into original content creation, and

• • Generate 47,000 new jobs in the video content sector by 2029.

• • With broader implementation, these measures could lead to over 158,000 new direct and indirect jobs between 2025–2029, while improving platform sustainability and government tax receipts.^[ii]

The situation is compounded by new piracy hotspots like Telegram, which, as reported by the Times of India, is increasingly seen as the “new Palika Bazaar.” Pirated content, films, web series, live sports, and premium OTT shows, is now regularly distributed through encrypted Telegram channels with tens of thousands of subscribers, often within hours of official release. The platform’s end-to-end encryption and lack of regulatory oversight make enforcement particularly difficult.^[iii]

Despite a growing legal framework, ranging from site-blocking orders and copyright infringement claims to intermediary liability under the IT Act, the enforcement ecosystem in India remains reactive and fragmented, often struggling to match the agility and anonymity of digital piracy networks.

These developments prompt a pressing question: Can prosecution and the judiciary adapt to the technological complexity and cross-jurisdictional nature of modern digital piracy?

 

II. DIGITAL PIRACY & IPR LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ENFORCEMENT

Digital piracy refers to the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of digital content, such as software, movies, music, eBooks, and other digital media, without proper authorization from the copyright holder through any medium such as torrent websites, file-sharing platforms, unauthorized streaming sites, peer-to- peer (P2P) networks, and even social media platforms.

 

A. COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957

Copyright is a bundle of rights vested with the original creator or author of a literary, artistic, dramatic, musical and cinematographic work. Initially, the fundamental concept of violation of copyright or the act of imitation as a violation of the intellectual property belonging to another was based on the English Commandment, ‘thou shall not steal’ dealing with the immorality of such an act. But, in case of digital piracy, the violations occurs to following provision:

• Communication to the Public (Section 14): Section 14 of the Copyright Act grants copyright holders the exclusive right to communicate their works to the public. This provision is relevant to digital media, as it covers activities such as streaming, broadcasting, or making works available online. Section 14 also grants copyright holders the exclusive right to reproduce their works. In the context of digital media, reproduction includes creating digital copies, such as downloading or saving files. The act provides copyright holders with the exclusive right to create adaptations or derivative works based on the original work. In the digital realm, this could include creating remixes, adaptations, or translations.

• Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Section 37): Broadcasting organizations have specific rights under the Copyright Act, including the right to communicate broadcasts to the public.

• Technological Protection Measures (Section 65A and 65B): These sections were introduced as amendments to the act and deal with technological protection measures (such as DRM) used to safeguard digital content. They prohibit circumvention of such measures and also provide for penalties for unauthorized decryption of encrypted works. (Inserted through  Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012)

Section 65A: if a person attempts to deceive others and infringe on the rights of another person or entity, he or she faces two years in jail and a fine, or both. An example of such deception is a person creating a site named ‘Amazon Prime Video’ which is phonetically and visually, a replica of ‘Prime Video’.

Section 65B: the Act states that “any person who tries to edit, remove any information or distributes as well as broadcast it to the public shall be behind bars for at least 2 years or with a hefty fine and if the rights management information has been tampered with in any work, the owner of copyright in such work may also avail of civil remedies provided under Chapter XII against the persons indulging in such acts”.

• Safe Harbour Provisions (Section 52): Section 52 of the act outlines exceptions to infringement, including fair dealing, which might apply to certain uses of copyrighted content in the digital domain, such as for research, criticism, news reporting, education, or parody. However, these exceptions have limitations and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

 

B. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

Some key provisions of the IT Act that relate to digital copyright :

    a. Section 79 of the Information Technology Act further clarifies the liability of intermediaries in the context of user-generated content. An intermediary is usually exempted from liability arising therein, but not in the following circumstances:

• If an intermediary actively helps or encourages an unlawful act, or
• fails to remove illegal content after being officially notified, it can be held legally responsible.

1. b. The IT Act enables parties to use digital signatures to authenticate copyright assignments, licenses, and other related agreements. This ensures the legal validity of electronic contracts related to copyright transactions.

1.  

C. KERALA ANTI-SOCIAL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 2007

Copyright piracy is included within the purview of ‘anti-social activities’ and a person who engages in such activities is covered under the definition of a ‘Goonda,’ a term which is used to refer to the extreme anti-social elements in the society. (Section 2(a) read with Section 2(h))[iv]

 

D. CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952

Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 : The Amendment Act seeks to reduce piracy by imposing a minimum of a three-month prison sentence and a fine of “Rs. Three lakhs to 5% of the audited gross production cost on those found guilty of film piracy through cam-cording in theatres (recording the movie in a movie theatre using a camera) or unauthorised copying, online spreading and exhibition of a pirated edition of any film.” According to Section 6AA of the Act, “no person shall use any audio-visual recording device in a place licensed to exhibit film with the intention of making or transmitting or attempting to make or transmit or abetting the making or transmission of an infringing copy of such film or a part thereof.”

Along with this, Section 6AB of the Act provides for instances in which it is illegal to use or assist in the use of an unauthorised copy of a film for profit. They are:

a) At an exhibition location that has not obtained a licence under this Act or its rules; or

b) In a way that would be considered an infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957 or any other law that is currently in effect.

This bill aids in resolving the long-standing issue of piracy by extending the scope of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, by addressing ways of copyright protection. The Act, before the 2023 Amendment was primarily focused on the censorship of movies rather than the issues of piracy.

 

E. CONVENTION

• Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works

• WIPO Copyright Treaty

• Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

• WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT): It works in conjunction with the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) to update and harmonize international copyright standards for the digital era.

 

F. USA:

Stop Online Piracy Act and Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, 2011 or the Protect IP Act were legislations introduced in the US as an attempt to tackle the menace of piracy. These laws were intended to block websites that pirate content to preserve the rights of the artists or the copyright owners. However, these acts faced severe criticism in the US and were thought to be capable of “breaking the internet” by infringing upon the people’s right to freedom of expression because the punishments were quite strict under the acts. Although not codified, India has used basic principles of SOPA/PIPA in its judgments by blocking websites which pirate content online.

III. PROACTIVE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY

The current trend of the judiciary is to issue injunctions against the perpetrators. A court orders an injunction against specific specified domain names that are found to be illegally hosting the copyrighted, protected content. Despite removing the original websites, mirror websites promptly and effortlessly emerge under different domain names, remaining untouched by the first injunction ruling. Hence, regular website blocking has become ineffective. Thus, to make the process of website blocking more effective, there is a need to shift towards dynamic injunction being issued instead.

1. 1. Dynamic Injunction

According to the European Commission, dynamic blocking injunctions are defined as follows:

“Injunctions which can be issued, for instance in cases in which materially the same website becomes available immediately after issuing the injunction with a different IP address or URL and which is drafted in a way that allows to also cover the new IP address or URL without the need for a new judicial procedure to obtain a new injunction”.

Dynamic injunctions arise when a continuing injunction is issued; the specific targets of which are not mentioned in the primary order but rather an emphasis is laid on the impugned subject matter and protected right, thereby including in its ambit any potential infringements. A dynamic injunction protects the affected party from rogue websites mirroring themselves after an injunction is passed against one of them. This relief of dynamic injunction was first granted in India in UTV Software Communication Ltd v. 1337x.to 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002. In this case, the Applicant was permitted to approach the Joint Registrar of Delhi High Court directly to extend the already-granted injunction order to similar mirror websites containing the same content as the original website. Similar to such an order, dynamic injunctions were issued in Snapdeal (P) Ltd v. Snapdealluckydraws.Org.in 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2125

The width and breadth of dynamic orders have now been furthered in the Delhi High Court judgement of Universal City Studios LLC and Ors. v. Dotmovies.baby and Ors through the evolution of the dynamic+ injunctions. The traditional John Doe orders or dynamic injunctions were ex-post remedies given by Courts to parties in case of trademark infringement. However, this judgement adds another dimension to such injunctions by providing protection to any future works or creations from being illegally hosted transitioning from an ex-post (after the event) to an ex-ante (before the concerned event) remedy. The dynamic+ injunction pre-empts a copyright infringement on works that haven’t even been expressed yet and seems excessively disproportionate, since at an injunction stage, there is only a prima-facie determination of infringement.

Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has granted a Dynamic+ injunction in favor of JioHotstar, restricting the illegal streaming of the India Tour of England 2025. The Court restrained rogue websites from unauthorized broadcasting and ordered their suspension, protecting JioStar’s exclusive digital rights.

1. 2. John Doe order/Ashok Kumar Order

A John Doe order is a kind of injunction accorded by the courts where the state of affairs is such that an anonymous person is violating the IP rights of the IP rights owner and cannot be discerned at the time of filing of the suit.

1. 3. Three Strikes Policy (3SP) [Not applicable in India]

Three Strikes Policy is a policy that calls for the termination of internet subscriptions and accounts of repeated infringers of copyrighted content. When a person is caught infringing copyrighted content online, they receive a notice. If the user gets a notice three times within a specified period, the user might be suspended from all domestic internet access providers for a specified period.

By encapsulating the above changes, an effective Three Strike Policy can be implemented in India for a smoother fight against digital piracy.

 

IV. CONCLUSION

Digital piracy, once confined to black markets and bootleg CDs, has today morphed into a highly agile, anonymous, and transnational threat—undermining not only the rights of creators and copyright holders but also the very economic foundation of India’s digital content economy. With 90 million users consuming pirated content in 2024 alone, the problem is no longer marginal—it is structural.

India’s legal and judicial responses have undoubtedly evolved. Landmark provisions under the Copyright Act, strengthened by the Information Technology Act, the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023, and even regional statutes like the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, represent important milestones in adapting IP law to the digital age. Courts have shown proactive leadership with instruments like John Doe orders, dynamic injunctions, and most recently, dynamic+ injunctions—reflecting an important shift from reactive to preventive justice.

However, these tools must be matched by institutional agility, cross-platform enforcement, and technical capacity-building. The piracy ecosystem is constantly evolving—now leveraging messaging apps like Telegram, decentralized servers, streaming bots, and global mirror networks. In this context, static enforcement or fragmented prosecution is no longer sufficient.

India stands at a crossroads: one path leads to lost revenues, stunted content creation, weakened investor confidence, and regulatory opacity. The other paved by bold legal innovation, digital infrastructure reform, and coordinated industry-judiciary effort leads to sustainable growth, global competitiveness, and a thriving creative economy.

If we are to protect the future of storytelling, creativity, and cultural capital, IP enforcement must be as dynamic as the piracy it seeks to stop. As technology accelerates, so must the law and in doing so, it must defend not just ownership, but the integrity of imagination itself.

 

Note: If you or your organization are facing challenges related to digital piracy or intellectual property enforcement, feel free to reach out to RVR Associates for expert legal support and strategic guidance.

 

^[i] IIPRD – Digital Piracy and Copyright Infringement:
 https://www.iiprd.com/digital-piracy-and-copyright-infringement/

^[ii] Ministry of Information & Broadcasting:
https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-06/the-impact-of-piracy-on-india-s-video-sector-creative-economy_ip-house-x-mpa-x-cii_compressed_0.pdf

^[iii] Times of India – Telegram is the new Palika for pirated films:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/telegram-is-the-new-palika-for-pirated-films/articleshow/122220838.cms

[iv] Section 2 (a) – ”anti-social activity” means acting in such manner as to cause or is likely to cause, directly or indirectly, any feeling of insecurity, ……any activities referred in clauses (c), (e), (g), (h), (i), (l), (m), (n), (q) and (s) of this section.

Section 2 (h) – ”digital data and copyright pirate” means any person who knowingly and deliberately violates, for commercial purposes, any copyright law in relation to any book, music, film, software, artistic or scientific work and includes any person who illegally enters through the identity of the user and illegally uses any computer or digital network for any illegal personal profit by deceiving any person or any computer system.

 

 

Author By: Kasak Srivastava,

ICFAI University

Under guidance of Rishita pandey