Music and Movie Piracy Networks in India

Piracy of films, music and other audiovisual content is thriving all over the world, driven by highly accessible online platforms. One of the notorious examples include Pikashow, a mobile application which allowed streaming free content from all major OTT channels – and HiAnime, leading anime piracy website which is currently in major discussions (considered priority target by the US Government)[1]. Both these names are/were popular and allows user to stream free content from all major content which led to streaming of large amount of copyright films without the authorization.[2] [3] According to one of the reports, HiAnime commands hundreds of millions of visits per month worldwide.[4] Through this article, I want to analyses the structure of such piracy networks in India , the legal framework governing them, relevant case law and how these illegal services evade enforcement.

Piracy Website/ App Models

Piracy networks operate via a variety of online models.  They allow users to stream through multiple sources. IT further allow the user to download the content. Rogue IPTV apps like Pikashow or IPTV smarters allow the user to premium content such as Sports on mobile or smart TV without subscription. Almost all these websites use digital advertising in order to generate revenue[5]. They often use services such as Cloudflare or VPNs in order to mask the hosting locations and often change their domain name in order to avoid blockage[6].

Indian Legal Framework Against Piracy

India’s laws include a number of rules to stop piracy and protecting the rights of copyright holders. The Copyright Act of 1957 is the main law that protects music, films, and other creative works. It gives copyright holders the only rights to reproduce, distribute, perform in public, and “communicate to the public” (Section 14). Notably, broadcast reproduction rights are specifically covered under Section 37 of the Copyright Act. Thus, these rights are violated when a copyrighted movie is streamed or broadcast without permission. Infringement is subject to criminal penalties under the Act, such as up to three years in prison (as well as fines) under Section 63. (The Jan Vishwas (Amendment) Act, 2023 decriminalised many first-time infractions and substituted harsher fines for jail sentences, changing the precise penalties). Crucially, private viewers are exempt from the law in India; merely viewing pirated streams is not illegal unless the viewer also distributes or sells the content. Therefore, rather than focussing on specific users, legal action usually targets the operators of pirated websites and applications.

Films are governed by the Cinematograph Act of 1952. Unauthorised cinematograph film recording, transmission, or public exhibition are forbidden. The Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2023 would add Sections 6AA and 6AB to prohibit unapproved film recording and unlawful exhibition of infringing copies.[7] These amendments, which were proposed in 2023 and recently approved by Parliament, specifically target piracy. Criminal penalties for breaking these provisions (added to Section 7) include significant fines and jail sentences ranging from three months to three years. As a result, the Act’s purview is being broadened to include both traditional “camcorder” piracy in theatres and digital piracy.

Yet another significant law is the Information Technology Act of 2000. The government may order intermediaries (ISPs, web hosts, etc.) to prevent access to any online content for a variety of reasons, including copyright infringement, under Section 69A. The process, which has been used to close hundreds of websites under covert executive orders, is outlined in the Blocking Rules under the IT Act (2009). In reality, authorities have used Section 69A to widely block websites and applications that engage in piracy. In 2023, for instance, the government has blocked 25000-26000 URLS between 2015- 2022 for copyright infringement[8].

When piracy websites use confusing domain names or branded names, they are subject to the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It gives trademark owners the ability to file lawsuits against unapproved use of their marks in advertising and domain names. For instance, domains that use deceptive titles or violate studio names have been frozen by courts. Furthermore, India is bound by international agreements such as TRIPS and the Berne Convention, which require it to provide robust copyright enforcement. In recent amendments, India has included provisions for technical protection measures and digital rights management.

Analysis of Relevant Cases

The litigation landscape around piracy in India has evolved rapidly. A few recent cases merit mention for their analytical insights:

• Star India v. IPTV Smarters (2025)[9]: This is the most recent case of piracy which the court took Suo Motto of. Star India’s plea recognized that its exclusive rights (e.g. to broadcast Indian Premier League cricket) were being undermined by unlicensed apps. The Delhi HC granted “real-time” reliefs – i.e. emergency blocking of the app during live events – and empowered Star to get dynamic injunctions (Superlative injunction) against other similar apps. The judgment reaffirmed that unlicensed rebroadcast of copyrighted content to the public violates Sections 37 and 39 of the Copyright Act. It also implicitly treated piracy apps not as innocent intermediaries, but as primary infringers. The case is important for broadcasters: it shows courts are willing to bend traditional injunctive processes to protect live content. The court set the precedent that authorized companies can approach the court for Superlative injunction to block not just rogue websites but also mobile application.
• Universal City v. dotmovies.baby (2023)[10]: This is also one of the most recent important case law in India regarding piracy. The Delhi High Court issued an ex parte ad-interim injunction (Dynamic injunction-legal remedy allowing immediate protection against copyright). The court further instructed the Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) that the domain names of the rogues’ websites should be locked and suspended upon the notification of the plaintiff.
• Star India v. Pikashow (2022)[11]: this case demonstrates enforcement against rogue apps. The Delhi HC termed Pikashow as a “rogue app…only to broadcast and stream illegal content.” Though the operators of Pikashow were likely abroad, and the app was not on official app stores, the court nonetheless ordered Indian telecom authorities to block the app’s traffic. This is a novel use of blocking: rather than targeting a web domain, the injunction effectively asked regulators to disable the app itself at the ISP level. Its analytical takeaway is that courts may take creative steps, like blocking whole apps or protocols, to target methods of distribution beyond traditional websites.

Continuing Challenges and Evasion

Despite strong laws and aggressive enforcement, piracy networks have proved remarkably resilient. Operators routinely evade blocks by shifting domains, servers and technologies. Even multiyear injunctions have only a temporary effect. The reason being most of the operators reside outside India, which makes it difficult to file for a lawsuit against them. While courts have begun to address this-for example, asking registrars to disclose owner details and transfer domains globally-practical jurisdictional constraints remain[12].

Another issue is that of proportionality: the site-blocking orders issued by the government have been seen as overbroad. In an effort to block pirated sites, innocent services-or even whole categories of sites-may get caught in the crossfire. Besides extremist and copyrighted content, the scale is so huge that mistakes and damage to bystanders can’t be avoided. What analysts ask for is more transparent and targeted actions-such as blocking only on petition of rights-holders and only specific URLs, not entire domains.

Technology races ahead of the law-new modes of distribution, such as Telegram and Kodi addons or “fully loaded” set-top boxes with pirated IPTV subscriptions, make things more difficult. These are not websites to block but devices and apps to police. Indeed, the IPTV Smarters Pro injunction itself recognizes that the complete cut-off of such services is, for all practical purposes, difficult without international cooperation and the cutting off of financial/payment channels to be addressed via custom or banking laws, which falls outside this Legal regime.

Conclusion

To sum it up, India’s music and movie piracy network pose a serious challenge to the right holder. These network exploits the right of these holders by not giving them the sole authority to distribute their work. I think that even thought The Copyright Act and Cinematograph Act criminalize and civilly punish unauthorized copying and exhibition, and the IT Act empowers blocking of infringing sites, the operators are able to avoid this punishment by operating from a different country. Courts have likewise been proactive, issuing broad injunctions – even globally-enforced domain suspensions– to choke off piracy at its source. However, because of changing the domain name, such copyright content are still available to public at large.

The recent judgements have tried to counter the evading strategies of the operators; however, I believe that there is a long way to go. In the end I would like to mention that India is not the only one which is facing issue with piracy, it is also the rest of the world, and I think that countries should come together to counter this issue.

Author:–Sarthak Gupta,  in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

[1] HiAnime returns: Why the US Government put the world’s largest piracy site in ‘priority streaming’ watch list IMDb. Available at: https://www.imdb.com/news/ni65505793/.

[2] Jha, P. (2022) Delhi High Court orders blocking of Pikashow app after star files copyright infringement suit, Bar and Bench – Indian Legal news. Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-orders-blocking-of-pikashow-app-after-star-files-copyright-infringement-suit#:~:text=Pikashow%20is%20an%20app%20that,in%20piracy%20of%20copyrighted%20content.

[3] Thapliyal, N. (2022) Delhi High Court orders blocking of ‘PikaShow’ app in India, says ‘large amount’ of copyrighted content being streamed illegally, Live Law. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-high-court-orders-blocking-pikashow-mobile-app-214231#:~:text=The%20Delhi%20High%20Court%20has,Technology%20to%20issue%20blocking%20orders.

[4] Hianime outranks DisneyPlus in the U.S. with a record 364m monthly visits * TorrentFreak Go to TorrentFreak. Available at: https://torrentfreak.com/hianime-outranks-disneyplus-in-the-u-s-with-record-364m-monthly-visits-250104/.

[5] MPA’s response to USTR’s request on the 2025 special 301 out-of-cycle. Available at: https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/MPA-Notorious-Markets-2025-Submission-.pdf.

[6] Id.

[7] The RMLNLU Law Review Blog (2023) Cracking down on piracy: A closer look at the cinematograph (amendment) Bill, 2023, The RMLNLU Law Review Blog. Available at: https://rmlnlulawreview.com/2023/10/28/cracking-down-on-piracy-a-closer-look-at-the-cinematograph-amendment-bill-2023/.

[8] Agrawal, A. India blocked 55,607 websites in seven years. here’s Everything you need to know, Newslaundry. Available at: https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/01/17/india-blocked-55580-websites-in-seven-years-heres-everything-you-need-to-know.

[9] Admin (2025) Copyright in real time: What the star india v. IPTV Smarter Pro Case Teaches Us, The IP Press. Available at: https://www.theippress.com/2025/06/04/copyright-in-real-time-what-the-star-india-v-iptv-smarter-pro-case-teaches-us/?utm_source=perplexity.

[10] Shete, A. (2023) Protecting copyright in the digital age: A case analysis of universal city studios llc. & ors. V. DOTMOVIES.BABY & Ors., The IP Press. Available at: https://www.theippress.com/2023/10/15/protecting-copyright-in-the-digital-age-a-case-analysis-of-universal-city-studios-llc-ors-v-dotmovies-baby-ors/.

[11] www.ETLegalWorld.com (2022) Delhi HC orders blocking of streaming app ‘Pikashow’ over alleged copyright violation, ETLegalWorld.com. Available at: https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/delhi-hc-orders-blocking-of-streaming-app-pikashow-over-alleged-copyright-violation/95573955.

[12]  MPA’s response to USTR’s request on the 2025 special 301 out-of-cycle. Available at: https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/MPA-Notorious-Markets-2025-Submission-.pdf