Navigating the Waters of Copyright Law: Understanding Offences

Most people think copyright law is only about civil disputes – court battles over royalties, injunctions, and damages. But in India, using someone else’s copyrighted work without permission can land you in criminal court too. Chapter XIII of the Copyright Act, 1957 specifically deals with offences, and understanding its provisions is crucial – whether you’re a creator protecting your work or a user navigating what you can and cannot do legally.

The legal framework: Chapter XIII of the Copyright Act, 1957 🔗

The Copyright Act, 1957 provides three layers of remedies against infringement: administrative, civil, and criminal. While civil remedies like injunctions and damages are more commonly pursued, criminal remedies under Chapter XIII carry the weight of the state behind them – meaning the government itself can prosecute an infringer. The key sections dealing with offences run from Section 63 to Section 70, each addressing a specific type of wrongful conduct. These range from the primary offence of copyright infringement to possession of plates for making infringing copies, false entries in the copyright register, and offences by companies.

Section 63: the core offence of copyright infringement 🔗

Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is the cornerstone provision for criminal liability. It states that any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of copyright – or any other right conferred by the Act – is liable to punishment. The section covers not just copyright in the traditional sense, but also broadcast reproduction rights, performers’ rights, and moral rights.

The punishment under Section 63 is significant:

• Imprisonment for a minimum of six months, extendable up to three years
• A fine ranging from ₹50,000 to ₹2,00,000

The court does retain limited discretion to reduce the sentence in special cases – particularly where the infringement was not committed for commercial gain in the course of trade or business. However, this is an exception, not the norm.

Enhanced punishment for repeat offenders 🔗

Section 63A raises the stakes considerably for those who reoffend. On a second or subsequent conviction under Section 63, the minimum imprisonment increases to one year and the minimum fine rises to ₹1,00,000. The message from the legislature is clear: repeat copyright offences are treated with increasing severity.

The critical element of ‘knowledge’ 🔗

One of the most important aspects of Section 63 is the word “knowingly.” This single word determines whether an act crosses from civil infringement into criminal territory. The law does not punish accidental or innocent infringement with criminal sanctions – the prosecution must establish that the accused was aware that the work was copyrighted and still chose to infringe it.

This was affirmed in Cheria P. Joseph v. Prabhakaran, AIR 1967 Kar. 234, where the Karnataka High Court held that clear and cogent proof of knowledge is necessary to establish the commission of the offence, and the burden of proving this lies squarely on the prosecution.

However, “knowledge” should not be confused with good faith. The legal maxim ignorantia juris non excusat – ignorance of the law is no excuse – still applies. If a person had reasonable grounds to believe a work was protected but chose not to verify, courts have interpreted this wilful blindness as constructive knowledge. So “I didn’t know it was illegal” is not a defence in itself; what matters is whether the person knew (or should have known) the work was someone else’s protected property.

What acts constitute a criminal offence? 🔗

Under the Copyright Act, infringement can occur in several ways, and many of them can attract criminal liability when done knowingly:

• Unauthorised reproduction: Copying, duplicating, or reproducing a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work without the copyright owner’s permission.
• Unauthorised distribution: Selling, renting, or distributing infringing copies commercially – including digital piracy of books, music, films, and software.
• Public communication: Broadcasting or making a copyrighted work available to the public without a licence – this is increasingly relevant for online streaming platforms and social media.
• Unauthorised importation: Importing infringing copies of a copyrighted work into India.
• Public exhibition of infringing copies: Displaying or exhibiting infringing copies in a manner that harms the copyright owner’s commercial interests.
• Infringing use of computer programs: Section 63B specifically targets anyone who knowingly uses an infringing copy of a computer program on a computer. The punishment here can range from seven days to three years of imprisonment, along with a fine.

Abetment: being an accessory is also a crime 🔗

Section 63 doesn’t stop at direct infringement. It explicitly includes abetment of infringement as a punishable offence. Under Indian law, abetment means instigating, conspiring, or intentionally aiding a person to commit an offence. So if you knowingly help someone pirate software, distribute unlicensed films, or reproduce a copyrighted textbook – even if you didn’t do the copying yourself – you can face the same criminal punishment as the primary infringer.

This is particularly relevant in today’s digital ecosystem, where intermediaries, uploaders, and platform administrators can sometimes be drawn into infringement liability if they knowingly facilitate infringing activity.

Other offences under Chapter XIII 🔗

Beyond Section 63, Chapter XIII covers several other specific offences that are worth understanding:

Section 65: possession of plates for infringing copies 🔗

Any person who knowingly makes or possesses plates (in the broad sense – moulds, matrices, digital tools) intended for making infringing copies of a copyrighted work is committing an offence under Section 65. This targets the infrastructure of piracy, not just its output.

Sections 65A and 65B: technological protection measures 🔗

Inserted by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, these provisions address digital-era concerns. Section 65A criminalises the circumvention of technological protection measures (like DRM systems) applied to copyrighted works. Section 65B makes the unauthorised removal or alteration of rights management information – such as watermarks or metadata identifying the copyright owner – a punishable offence. Both carry imprisonment of up to two years and a fine.

Sections 67 and 68: false entries and false statements 🔗

Section 67 penalises making or tendering false entries in the Register of Copyrights. Section 68 targets those who make false statements to deceive or influence any authority or officer under the Act – for example, providing forged documentation to the Copyright Office. These provisions protect the integrity of the copyright registration system itself.

Section 69: offences by companies 🔗

When an offence under the Copyright Act is committed by a company, every person who was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business at the time of the offence is deemed guilty – unless they can prove the offence was committed without their knowledge or that they exercised due diligence. This makes directors and senior management personally accountable for corporate copyright violations.

Section 70: cognizance of offences 🔗

No court below the rank of Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class can take cognizance of offences under the Copyright Act. This ensures that copyright criminal cases are handled by appropriately senior judicial officers. A copyright owner can initiate criminal proceedings either by filing an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or by filing an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

Police powers: search and seizure 🔗

Under Section 64, a police officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector or above is empowered to seize without a warrant all copies of a work that appear to be infringing, along with any plates used for producing them. This gives law enforcement a swift tool to act against piracy operations. The seized materials are then produced before the magistrate, who can order their disposal under Section 66.

In practice, bodies like NASSCOM and the Business Software Alliance (BSA) coordinate closely with police – especially units like Delhi’s Economic Offences Wing and the Crime Branch’s IPR section – to conduct raids against large-scale piracy networks. The scale of the problem makes these enforcement mechanisms vital: piracy costs the Indian media and entertainment industry an estimated $2.8 billion per year, with India ranking among the top five countries globally for peer-to-peer piracy.

Cognizable vs. non-cognizable: an ongoing debate 🔗

One area of continuing legal uncertainty in India is whether copyright infringement is a cognizable offence (where police can arrest without a warrant) or a non-cognizable offence (where a warrant or magistrate’s approval is needed). The Copyright Act, 1957 does not explicitly classify the offences, leaving this determination to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Courts have debated this question in cases like Abdul Sathar v. Nodal Officer, Anti-Piracy Cell, AIR 2007 Ker 212, and the Delhi High Court in State Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Naresh Kumar Garg has held copyright offences to be bailable. The lack of explicit statutory clarity continues to create inconsistency in enforcement across different states.

Why ‘knowledge’ makes copyright law a balancing act 🔗

The emphasis on “knowingly” in Section 63 reflects a deliberate policy choice. Copyright law must balance two legitimate interests: the rights of creators to protect their work, and the rights of the public to access knowledge, culture, and information. Treating every inadvertent use as a criminal offence would be both unjust and unworkable. At the same time, allowing infringers to escape by simply claiming ignorance would hollow out the protections the law provides.

This is why the courts require the prosecution to prove knowledge beyond reasonable doubt, while simultaneously holding that a person cannot bury their head in the sand. If you are in the business of selling CDs, distributing software, or running a content platform, you are expected to verify the copyright status of the material you deal in. Wilful blindness – deliberately avoiding knowledge of infringement – is treated the same as actual knowledge by Indian courts.

The Copyright Act, 1957, as amended over the decades, continues to adapt to new forms of infringement. The 2012 amendments specifically tackled digital piracy, circumvention of DRM, and rights management information – areas that simply did not exist when the Act was originally drafted. As technology continues to evolve, the law’s challenge remains the same: to deter intentional exploitation while protecting good-faith users.

What do you think? Given that the law requires proof of “knowledge” for a criminal offence, how should courts determine the threshold of what a person in a particular trade or profession ought to have known about copyright? And as digital platforms make infringement easier than ever, should India consider stricter minimum punishments for online copyright crimes, or would that risk overcriminalising ordinary internet use?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1367?sam_handle=123456789/1362
2. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6526199f-85cd-4291-989d-155a7dc50272
3. https://ssrana.in/litigation/ip-litigation/copyright-litigation/
4. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/In_Copy.htm
5. https://www.indiafilings.com/learn/copyright-infringement-in-india
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_India
7. https://www.theipmatters.com/post/analyzing-criminal-liability-arising-from-copyright-law-an-india-perspective
8. https://www.copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copyrightrules1957.pdf