Cybercrime Laws And India’s Legal Framework: Are We Doing Enough?

This Article is writen by Manshi Joshi, student at Army Institute of Law, Mohali

INTRODUCTION

In the digital era, where information flows seamlessly across borders, cybercrimes have evolved into a sophisticated challenge, particularly in the domain of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)[1] and Copyright law. India, being one of the largest digital economies, faces an unprecedented rise in cyber offenses, ranging from online piracy, digital content theft, and software counterfeiting to AI-generated deepfakes and copyright infringement in cyberspace.

Despite the existence of legal frameworks like the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000[2], the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)[3], and the Copyright Act, 1957[4], India’s cybersecurity and copyright protection mechanisms remain inadequate to tackle the dynamic threats posed by cybercriminals. The complexity of jurisdiction, cross-border enforcement, and technological loopholes further exacerbate the issue. This article critically examines the legal challenges of cybercrime and copyright in India, the jurisdictional dilemma, the role of WTO-TRIPS in Copyright enforcement, and industry-specific violations in entertainment, music, and academia.

UNDERSTANDING CYBERCRIMES AND COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IN CYBERSPACE

Cybercrime laws encompass various illicit activities carried out through digital platforms, with copyright infringement being one of the most rampant and economically damaging forms. Technological advancements have made copyrighted content easier to duplicate. Furthermore, it is challenging and sometimes impossible to prevent copyright violations. Publications, audio cassettes, videotapes of movies, and software applications may easily be transported from one nation to another, manufactured into countless copies, and disseminated.[5]

Copyright Infringement in Digital Space

1. Online Piracy- the illegal downloading and streaming of movies, music, and e-books is one of the most prevalent forms of copyright infringement. Torrent websites, P2P networks, and unauthorized streaming platforms enable users to access copyrighted content without permission, causing huge financial losses to content creators. Courts have repeatedly upheld that facilitating piracy, even indirectly, constitutes infringement.[6]
2. AI-Generated Deepfakes- the deepfake technology, powered by Generative Adversarial Networks GANs),[7] has raised serious concerns over IP theft and defamation.[8] AI-generated manipulated videos and images can be used to steal likenesses, forge identities, or infringe copyrights, often violating personality rights and privacy laws. Courts worldwide have recognized deepfake as a threat to digital security and copyright laws.[9]
3. Unauthorized Reproduction of Digital Content- the unlicensed reproduction of software, academic journals, and digital books undermines the IP ecosystem. Software counterfeiting, e-book piracy, and illegal distribution of academic papers are widespread, with platforms like Sci-Hub challenging traditional copyright enforcement under the right-to-access knowledge argument.[10] Indian law, under Section 51[11] and 63[12] of the Copyright Act, 1957, criminalizes unauthorized reproduction, while fair use exception (Section 52)[13] provides limited allowances for education and research. Balancing copyright protection with accessibility remains a key challenge in the digital space.
4. Circumvention of Digital Protection Measures (DPM)- the bypassing of copyright protection technologies, such as CAPTCHA, encryption, and access controls, has become a major cybercrime. AI-powered bots can exploit security mechanisms, enabling large-scale copyright infringement.[14] Courts have recognized CAPTCHA as a Technological Protection Measure (TPM), with rulings like Ticketmaster (US)[15] and Delhi High Court affirming that breaching TPMs constitutes copyright infringement.[16]

LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING CYBERCRIME AND COPYRIGHT IN INDIA

The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 (Amended in 2008)

The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 is India’s primary legislation governing cybercrimes, including unauthorized access, hacking, identity theft, and digital copyright violations. It provides a framework for penalizing cyber offenses and establishes legal recognition for electronic transactions, digital signatures, and cybersecurity standards.

1. Section 43- imposes penalties for unauthorized access to computer systems, networks and database, which includes hacking and illegal copying of copyrighted digital content.[17]
2. Section 66- covers hacking and identity fraud, which applies in cases where copyrighted content is modified or distributed without authorization.[18]
3. Section 66B- punishes the dishonest receipt of stolen computer resources, which includes pirated movies, software, or e-books illegally downloaded from torrent sites.[19]
4. Section 66C- penalizes identity theft, relevant in deepfake-relates offenses where personal likenesses or copyrighted images are manipulated without consent.[20]
5. Section 66D- covers fraud committed using electronic means, which includes phishing scams and impersonation using copyrighted digital content.[21]
6. Section 66E- criminalizes violations of privacy, applicable in cases of unauthorized sharing of copyrighted images, videos, or personal data.[22]
7. Section 66F- defines cyber terrorism, which extends to attacks on copyright databases, digital content theft, and large-scale intellectual property breaches.[23]
8. Section 67- punishes the publication and transmission of obscene content, including revenge porn and explicit deepfake videos, often created using stolen copyrighted material.[24]

While the IT Act, 2000 provides a broad framework for cybercrime regulation, it lacks specific provisions for addressing emerging digital threats, such as AI-driven copyright violations, cryptocurrency-based digital piracy, and deepfake-generated content theft.

The Copyright Act, 1957 (Amended in 2012)

The Copyright Act, 1957 is the primary legislation governing intellectual property rights in India, providing protection for literary, artistic, musical, and cinematographic works, as well as software and digital content. The 2012 amendment modernized the law to address digital piracy, online copyright violations, and the circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs).

1. Section 52- defines copyright infringement, as covering unauthorized reproduction adaptation, and distribution of copyrighted material, including software, movies, and e-books.[25]
2. Section 63- establishes criminal liability for copyright infringement, imposing fines and imprisonment for commercial piracy and large-scale unauthorized reproduction.[26]
3. Section 65A- prohibits the circumvention of digital rights management (DRM) technologies, making it illegal to bypass encryption or access control measures that protect copyrighted content.[27]
4. Section 65B- protects copyright management information (CMI), punishing those who remove or alter copyright ownership details from digital content, such as metadata stripping in pirated files.[28]

One of the most notable cases under the Copyright Act is the Sci-hub [29] case which raised critical questions about the balance between copyright enforcement and the right to education. While Sci-hub argued for universal access to academic content, copyright holders emphasized the economic impact of piracy on publishers’ content creators.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Provisions for Cybercrime

1. Section 294- penalize obscene acts and songs, applicable in cases of explicit deepfake content and unauthorized pornographic material circulating online.[30]
2. ii) Section 77 (Voyeurism)[31] & 78 (Stalking)[32]– relevant for cyberstalking, unauthorized surveillance, and deepfake exploitation. These provisions help combat the non-consensual use of images and videos in manipulated content.
3. Section 336 (1) (Forgery) & 336(2) (Forgery Punishment)- apply to digital document tampering, creation of fake profiles, and unauthorized modification of copyrighted material.[33]
4. Section 336(3) (Forgery for the purpose of cheating)- covers cases where deepfake videos, AI-generated content, or manipulated digital materials are used for fraud, impersonation, or identity theft.[34]

WHEN IS COPYRIGHT CONSIDERED VIOLATED

Copyright infringement in cyberspace occurs when protected content is reproduced, distributed, altered, or commercially exploited without proper authorization from the copyright holder. The rise of digital platforms, AI-driven modifications, and decentralized file-sharing technologies has made it increasingly challenging to enforce copyright laws.

India, like many other jurisdictions, struggles with unauthorized streaming, software piracy, AI-generated deepfakes, and circumvention of digital protection measures, all of which undermine intellectual property rights. While laws such as the Copyright Act, the IT Act, and the BNS address these violations, technological advancements often outpace regulatory measures, making enforcement a critical challenge.

1. Unauthorized Reproduction and Distribution of Copyrighted Content: one of the most rampant forms of copyright infringement is the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material, including-
2. Piracy of digital content, such as illegal downloading and streaming of movies, music, software, and e-books.
3. Unlicensed reproduction of academic papers and journals, as seen in the Sci-Hub CASE, where copyrighted research materials were made freely available without permission.
4. Illegal use of copyrighted material in digital content, including YouTube videos, social media, and blogs, without attribution or authorization.

A notable case is the Kickass Torrents (KAT) Case[35], where one of the largest file-sharing platforms was shut down after its owner was arrested in Poland. The court ruled that even if a platform itself is not copyrighted, facilitating the illegal sharing of copyrighted material is an offense. This decision reinforced global efforts to curb digital piracy, especially since Indian users accounted for 24% of the KAT’s total revenue, highlighting the widespread impact of piracy in India.

• AI-Generated Deepfakes and Copyright Violations: the advent of AI and deepfake technology has introduced new dimensions to copyright infringement. Deepfake tools, powered by Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), allow users to manipulate digital content, leading to potential violations of IPR and personality rights[36]. Some of the key concerns regarding deep-fake-related copyright infringement are-
• Unauthorized modification of copyrighted images and videos, such as altering movies, advertisements, or personal footage.
• Misrepresentation of the original creator’s work, leads to reputational and financial damage.
• The use of AI-generated content that incorporates copyrighted audio, video, or written material without obtaining proper license.

Legal precedents in India and abroad have recognized deepfake manipulation as a violation of copyright laws.

JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES IN CYBERCRIME AND COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT

Jurisdiction for cybercrime, remains a critical challenge in prosecuting cybercrime and copyright violations, as digital offenses frequently transcend national boundaries.[37] Unlike traditional crimes, internet-based offenses are not confined to a single jurisdiction, making enforcement difficult when perpetrators, victims, and digital infrastructure are spread across multiple countries.

Jurisdiction is a fundamental aspect of state sovereignty but the internet does not recognize territorial limits. A single message, data packet, or transaction can travel through multiple jurisdictions before reaching its destination, making it unclear which country has the legal authority to investigate and prosecute. Cybercriminals exploit these jurisdictional gaps by hosting pirated content on servers located in different countries, using proxy networks, and relying on legal loopholes to evade prosecution.

Some of the major challenges in jurisdictional enforcement are[38]:

Lack of uniform copyright laws across the countries- different nations have varying copyright protections and enforcement mechanisms, leading to inconsistencies in how cybercrime is prosecuted. While agreements like the Berne Convention and TRIPS set min. standards for copyright protection, enforcement remains uncertain, especially in jurisdictions with weaker intellectual property laws.

Difficulties in tracing cybercriminals due to VPNs and anonymization tools- cybercriminals frequently use Virtual Private Networks (VPNs),[39] the Dark Web, and anonymization techniques to mask their identities and location. This makes it nearly impossible for law enforcement agencies to track and apprehend them, even when copyright infringement is detected.

Limited International cooperation on extraction and prosecution- even when offenders are identified, extradition treaties and international cooperation are often inadequate to bring them to justice. Countries may refuse to extradite individuals for copyright-related offenses, viewing them as minor infractions rather than serious crimes. The lack of a centralized international cybercrime enforcement body further complicates legal proceedings.

Addressing jurisdictional challenges: countries must strengthen international treaties like the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and establish bilateral agreements for real-time data sharing and cross-border cooperation. A global cybercrime enforcement framework, modeled on universal jurisdiction for maritime piracy, could enable nations to prosecute offenders regardless of their location. Additionally, enhancing cybersecurity infrastructure, improving digital forensics, and promoting coordinated legal standards will help bridge enforcement gaps and combat cybercrime more effectively.

WTO TRIPS AND COPYRIGHT PROTECTION IN CYBERSPACE

The World Trade Organization (WTO) plays a crucial role in setting global intellectual property standards through the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) establishes minimum standard/requirements for copyright protection and mandates that WTO member countries enact strict, non-discriminatory intellectual property laws to safeguard creators’ rights and ensure fair market competition. This agreement applies to literary works, films, music, software, and digital content, reinforcing the global legal framework against copyright infringement.[40]

While TRIPS aims to harmonize copyright laws across nations, its enforcement and interpretation vary significantly depending on a country’s economic priorities, technological capacity, and legal infrastructure. Developed nations with robust intellectual property enforcement mechanisms impose strict copyright protections, whereas developing nations often struggle to balance copyright enforcement with broader social concerns, such as access to knowledge and education.[41]

This ongoing conflict[42] underscores the limitations of TRIPS in addressing the digital age’s complexities, as traditional copyright enforcement models often fail to accommodate modern technological realities and societal needs. Moving forward, reforms in global copyright governance may need to incorporate fair-use exceptions, open-access policies, and alternative licensing models to strike a balance between protecting intellectual property and promoting universal access to knowledge.

COPYRIGHT ISSUES IN THE ENTERTAINMENT AND MUSIC INDUSTRY

the entertainment and music industries have suffered severe financial setbacks due tot widespread digital piracy. The accessibility of torrent websites, illegal streaming platforms, and modified applications has significantly undermined the revenue models of content creators, production houses, and musicians. With the rise of high-speed internet and file-sharing technologies, unauthorized distribution of copyrighted content has become a global challenge, affecting established industries and independent artists.

Online Piracy in the Film Industry

Film piracy has reached alarming levels, with a substantial number of movies failing to recover their production costs due to unauthorized online distribution. According to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the average Hollywood film requires an investment of approximately $98 million for production and marketing, yet rampant digital piracy causes billions in annual losses to the industry.[43]

Illegal streaming websites,[44] peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, and leaked digital copies have made it easy for audiences to access newly released films without paying. This issue is not confined to Hollywood- Bollywood, regional film industries, and global cinema all suffer from the same challenges. Indian crime, one of the largest film-producing industries in the world, losses substantial revenue to online piracy, with platforms leaking high-budget films within hours of their theatrical release.

Efforts to curb film piracy include strict anti-piracy laws, real-time content takedowns, and advanced digital rights management (DRM) systems. However, enforcement remains difficult as pirated content is often hosted on offshore servers, making legal action challenging. In India, the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2019,[45] criminalizes unauthorized recording and leaking of films, but practical enforcement remains a major hurdle.

Music Industry & Copyright Violations

The music industry has also experienced extensive revenue losses due to unauthorized streaming, illegal downloads, and modified applications. Streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube Music have attempted to counter piracy by offering affordable subscription models, but illegal alternatives persist.

One of the most notable cases involved Spotify banning all modded versions of its app after repeated instances of users bypassing subscription fees and accessing premium features without paying.[46] Such modifications violate digital copyright laws and undermine the financial sustainability of artists and record labels.

Moreover, unauthorized streaming platforms, music-ripping websites, and illegal downloads continue to deprive musicians of rightful earnings. Many artists rely on royalty-based streaming models but piracy cuts into their primary source of revenue, forcing them to depend on live performances and sponsorships for financial stability.

To combat these violations music industry stakeholders are investing in AI-driven copyright protection tools, blockchain-based licensing, and stricter enforcement of intellectual property rights. However, as digital piracy methods evolve, industry players must continuously innovate to safeguard copyrighted content in the digital age.

STRENGTHENING COPYRIGHT AND CYBER LAWS IN INDIA

As cybercrime and digital copyright infringement continue to evolve, India’s existing legal framework must be updated and reinforced to tackle emerging threats such as AI-driven copyright violations, deepfake manipulation, and large-scale digital piracy. While the IT Act, 2000, the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 provide a foundation for addressing digital offenses, rapid technological advancements have exposed gaps in enforcement and regulatory oversight. Strengthening copyright and cyber laws requires a comprehensive approach, combining legislative reforms, global collaboration, and enhanced enforcement mechanisms to protect intellectual property rights in the digital space.

Amending the IT Act to Address AI-Driven Cybercrimes and Deepfake Violations

The IT Act, 2000, India’s primary law governing cybercrimes, was last amended in 2008- long before AI, deepfake and large-scale digital piracy became a major threat. To effectively tackle modern cyber threats, amendments should-

• Define and criminalize AI-driven copyright violations, ensuring unauthorized AI-generated content does not escape legal scrutiny.
• Introduce penalties for deepfake-related offenses, particularly in cases involving intellectual property theft, manipulated digital content, and privacy violations.
• Expand liability for online platforms that host or distribute AI-generated infringing material, making them accountable for content moderation.
• Create AI-powered monitoring mechanisms for detecting and removing pirated content and manipulated media rin eal time.

Establishing a Cyber Copyright Tribunal for Digital Piracy Disputes

The traditional legal system (application of the four-factor test)[47] is often slow in resolving copyright disputes, particularly in online piracy and digital content theft. Currently, copyright holders must pursue litigation through civil or criminal courts, leading to delays, high costs, and ineffective enforcement. A specialized Cyber Copyright Tribunal would provide a dedicated forum for handling digital piracy cases efficiently. The Tribunal should-

• Offer expedited hearings for cases related to unauthorized streaming, online piracy, and software counterfeiting.
• Enable copyright owners to seek swift takedowns of infringing material without prolonged legal battles.
• Ensure technology-based enforcement, using AI-driven tools for identifying copyright violations and implementing automated penalties.
• Provide legal expertise in digital copyright issues, allowing judges with specialized knowledge in cyber and intellectual property rights to handle cases.

Strengthening Global Cooperation for Cybercrime Prosecution

Cybercrimes including copyright violations often involve offenders operating across multiple jurisdictions, making prosecution difficult. Pirated content is frequently hosted on foreign servers, and cybercriminals exploit jurisdictional loopholes to avoid accountability. To improve intentional enforcement, India must-

• Strengthen bilateral and multilateral agreements with countries hosting major file-sharing and piracy websites.
• Join and actively participate in international cybercrime enforcement efforts, such as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.
• Collaborate with global tech companies to improve cross-border takedown mechanisms for infringing content.
• Improve data-sharing protocols with international law enforcement agencies, facilitating action against copyright violators operating outside India.

Enhancing Digital Forensics for Better Cybercrime Detection

Enforcing copyright laws in the digital era requires advanced technological capabilities. Many piracy websites, deepfake creators, and AI-driven copyright infringers use encryption, VPNs, as anonymization techniques to evade detection. Without robust digital forensics, tracking and prosecuting such offenders remains challenging. To strengthen cybercrime detection, India should-

• Invest in AI-driven forensics tools capable of tracing pirated content, identifying deepfake manipulation, and detecting unauthorized digital reproductions.
• Develop blockchain-based copyright tracking systems, ensuring better transparency in content ownership and distribution.
• Integrate automated anti-piracy mechanisms, enabling real-time content filtering and take-down actions.

Imposing Stricter Penalties for Online Piracy

Despite existing anti-piracy laws, online piracy continues to thrive due to weak law enforcement and insufficient penalties. Many copyright violators profit [48]from illegal streaming and unauthorized digital distribution. To deter piracy effectively, India must impose stricter penalties, including-

• Harsher fines and imprisonment for large-scale copyright violators, particularly for offenders running piracy networks and illegal streaming platforms.
• Mandatory takedown orders for websites hosting pirated content, backed by legal mechanisms for seizing domain names and blocking access.
• Expedited legal proceedings for piracy-related offenses, reducing delays that allow infringing websites to continue operating.
• Stronger penalties for repeated offenders.

CONCLUSION

Cybercrime and copyright violations continue to pose significant legal and enforcement challenges in India. While existing laws such as IT Act, the Copyright Act and BNS, provide a foundational framework, technological advancements in AI, deepfake technology, and digital piracy have outpaced regulatory, mechanisms. Weak jurisdictional enforcement, cross-border digital crimes, and evolving cyber threats further complicate efforts to protect intellectual property rights.

To effectively combat these challenges, India must adopt a multi-faceted approach, including legal reforms, global cooperation, advanced digital forensics, and stronger penalties for online piracy. The establishment of a Cyber Copyright Tribunal, stricter AI-driven monitoring, and enhanced international; collaboration will be critical in ensuring robust enforcement of copyright laws in the digital age. Only through safeguarding intellectual property rights and maintain digital security in a era of rapidly expanding cyber threats.

REFERENCES

[1] Will Kenton, ‘Property Rights’ (Investopedia, 22 May, 2022) <https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/property_rights.asp> accessed 9 March 2025.

[2] Suvansh Majmudar, “Evocative Analysis of Intellectual Property Rights”, 2.1 JCLJ 516.

[3] Information Technology Act, 2000.

[4] Copyright Act, 1957.

[5] Dr. Gupta & Agarwal, “Cyber Laws” (Premier Publishing Company 2022).

[6] Bittorrent, Inc. v. Bittorrent Mktg. GmbH, Case No. 12-cv-02525-BLF (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2014).

[7] Scott Robinson, Kinza Yasar and Sarah Lewi, “What is a generative adversarial network (GAN)?”<https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/generative-adversarial-network-GAN#:~:text=A%20generative%20adversarial%20network%20(GAN)%20is%20a%20machine%20learning%20(,more%20accurate%20in%20their%20predictions> Accessed 11^th March, 2025.

[8] Todd C. Helmus, ‘Artificial Intelligence, Deepfakes, and Disinformation: A Primer’ (RAND Corporation 2022).

[9] Vaishnavi and Bhanusshre, ‘Tackling the Multifaceted Legal Dilemmas of Deep Fake Technology’ (2024) 4(3) JCLJ 217.

[10] Swaraj Paul Barooh, ‘Issues in Sci-Hub Case: A Matter of Public Importance’ (SpicyIP, 18 January 2021) <https://spicyip.com/2021/01/issues-in-scihub-case-a-matter-of-public-importance.html> accessed 12^th March, 2025.

[11] Copyright Act, 1957, s. 51.

[12] Copyright Act, 1957, s. 63.

[13] Copyright Act, 1957, s. 52.

[14] Andreas Plesner, Tobias Vontobel & Roger Wattenhofer, ‘Breaking recaptcha’ (2024) COMPSAC 1047.

[15] Ticketmaster LLC v RMG Technologies Inc., 2007 WL 2988403 (CD California 2007).

[16] Distribution of Essential Supplies & Services during Pandemic In re (2021) 7 SCC 772 [42.1].

[17] Information Technology Act 2000, s. 43.

[18] Information Technology Act 2000, s. 66.

[19] Information Technology Act 2000, s. 66B.

[20] Information Technology Act 2000, s. 66C.

[21] Information Technology Act 2000, s. 66D.

[22] Information Technology Act 2000, s. 66E.

[23] Information Technology Act 2000, s. 66F.

[24] Information Technology Act 2000, s. 67.

[25] Copyright Act, 1957, s. 52.

[26] Copyright Act, 1957, s. 63.

[27] Copyright Act, 1957, s. 65A.

[28] Copyright Act, 1957, s. 65B.

[29] Elsevier Ltd. And Ors. vs Alexandra Elbakyan and Ors.; CS(COMM) 572/2020.

[30] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s. 294.

[31] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s. 77.

[32] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s. 78.

[33] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s. 336(1) & (2).

[34] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s. 336(3).

[35] United States v. Vaulin, 16 CR 438-1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2017).

[36] Hannah Smith and Katherine Mansted, ‘Weaponised deep fakes: National security and democracy’ (Australian Strategic Policy Institute 2020).

[37] M. Kalimullah, ‘Crimes in Cyber Age: Challenges to Indian Law’ (2012-13) 20 ALJ 286.

[38] M. Kalimullah, ‘Crimes in Cyber Age: Challenges to Indian Law’ (2012-13) 20 ALJ 286.

[39] “WHAT IS VPN? HOW IT WORKS, TYPES OF VPN” <https://www.kaspersky.com/resource-center/definitions/what-is-a-vpn> accessed 12^th March, 2025.

[40] Keith E. Maskus, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Foreign Direct Investment’ (IATP, May 2000) <https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Intellectual_Property_Rights_and_Foreign_Direc.htm> accessed 9 March, 2025.

[41] Rajarshi Tripathi, ‘Property Rights, Cybercrime and Cyber piracy’s Impact on Foreign and Domestic Business’ (2022) 2(4) JCLJ 1225.

[42] Elsevier Ltd. And Ors. vs Alexandra Elbakyan and Ors.; CS(COMM) 572/2020.

[43] Virupakshi. R, ‘Conspiracy of Pirated Movies: Threats and Remedies’ (2020) 1(1) JCLJ 192.

[44] Utv Software Communication Ltd. And Ors vs 1337X. To And Ors; AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 773.

[45] Cinematograph Act, 2019.

[46] Yash Gohel, ‘Spotify Bans All Modded and Cracked Apps Globally: What You Need to Know’, https://itmefeez.medium.com/spotify-bans-all-modded-and-cracked-apps-globally-what-you-need-to-know-e24739c8c86e accessed 11^th March, 2025.

[47] eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006).

[48] Kashish Jain, ‘Cyberspace and IPR Issues’ (4 march, 2023) < chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.juscorpus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/16.-Kashish-Jain.pdf> accessed 12^th March, 2025.