Copyright Infringement in the Digital Age: Legal Remedies and Challenges

Abstract

The rapid growth of digital technology has led to the transformation of digital works while enhancing the access to knowledge and culture globally also it has resulted a negative impact like copyright infringement. So, this digital era hides the boundaries between private and public use, raising complex issues with respect to enforcement, liability, and remedies. This article covers the nature of copyright infringement in digital era, legal remedies to tackle it and the challenges faced while controlling infringement. 

Introduction 

The copyright law has evolved mainly to protect the authors right which has been misused in this digital era. The use of internet, peer to peer network, and online streaming that transformed the basic of copyright enforcement. The traditional legal framework was primarily made for tangible works, but digital technologies allow instant copying and global distribution at zero cost. 

This condition has led to the rise of several questions including How can copyright enforced without developing innovation? what are the legal remedies available for copyright holders? What are the challenges faces by policymakers and courts in addressing online infringement?

This article provides the solution for these questions by exploring the concept of copyrights infringement in digital era, examining the remedies available under both domestic and international laws and finally analysing the challenges and potential reforms necessary to create a balanced regime.

Evolution of Copyright Law in the Digital Era

The evolution of the internet and digital technologies has changed the production, distribution and consumption of creative works. In India, copyright law – originally designed for paper, print and analog media – has been repeatedly amended to address these changes. The Copyright Act, 1957 extended its scope on protecting computer programs and digital communications. The Act protects literary, dramatic, musical, artistic and cinematographic works, among others, granting authors exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and “communication to the public” of their works. Digital content such as e-books, online streaming audio/video, and online art fall within these protections. Notably, the 2012 Amendment introduced provisions covering digital rights management as given under Sections 65A and 65B which criminalize the circumvention of technological protection measures and the removal of electronic rights-management information. In effect India’s copyright regulation recognises and criminalizes activities like bypassing encryption or watermarking which protects the digital works.

India is also a signatory to international treaties Berne Convention, TRIPS, WCT/WPPT that require minimum copyright protections. However, the pace of digital innovation – streaming platforms, file‐sharing networks, peer‐to‐peer exchanges – has continuously posed novel challenges. Early piracy concerns involved photocopying and home-taping; today they involve global online distribution and user-generated content. Courts and policymakers have had to reinterpret old concepts. For example, when Super Cassettes Industries Ltd  sued MySpace Inc. for permitting users to upload infringing songs, the Delhi High Court held that Section 51(a) of the Copyright Act applies broadly to online platforms: the term “place” in s.51(a)(ii) was interpreted to include the internet, so hosting infringing content online can amount to “permitting a place for communication of [infringing] works”. In this way, the Act’s infringement provisions have been applied to the digital environment.

Meanwhile, policy measures have been enforced at the national level. India’s National Intellectual Property Rights Policy (2016) and other government initiatives have emphasised enforcement of digital copyright. Rules under the Information Technology Act (e.g. the 2011 and 2021 Intermediary Guidelines) impose notice-and-takedown obligations on online intermediaries. Even though Indias legal framework has expanded to protect digital works there are certain gaps in enforcement and policy due to the rapid growth of technology. 

Concept of Copyright Infringement  

Copyright infringement means a person uses a work such as reproduction, distribution, and communication to the public without the permission of the copyright owner who holds the actual right over the work. The international copyright protection was established by the Berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic work (1886) [1] requires the member states to provide minimum rights to authors for reproduction, adaptation and public performance.  Other than reproduction digital infringements include 

• Uploading or downloading copyrighted works without authorization.
• Sharing files through P2P networks.
• Circumventing technological protection measures (TPMs).
• Streaming or broadcasting copyrighted content without license.

Nature of Infringement in the Digital Environment

Digital infringement causes unique challenges which is not found in physical reproduction. The challenges are as follows: 

• Scale and speed – Files which is uploaded in one online platform can be copied millions of times in other platforms instantly across the globe.
• Anonymity – Online platforms create a situation where the names is not known which provides infringers a benefit of mask identity.
• Jurisdictional complexity – Since infringement occurs in different places and multiple jurisdictions it makes difficult to define the relevant laws under which it will be punished. 
• User-generated content (UGC) – Platforms like YouTube, social media holds a massive volume of content some of which cause infringement automatically raising questions of platform liability.

In the case, A &M Records v Napster, Inc, exemplified these challenges when Napster was found liable for contributory and vicarious infringement for providing a P2P service that facilitated widespread sharing of copyrighted music [2].

Legal Framework for Digital Copyright Protection

International Instruments

• Berne Convention (1886) – This is significant international treaty on copyright which is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This convention provides three core principles which includes national treatment, automatic protection and independence of protection. Though it is a oldest convention it holds flexible standards which enables adaptation to digital environment such as reproduction rights under article 9 of the convention applies to digital copying and online uploads.
• Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994) – It is the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property rights established by the World Trade Union (WTO). TRIPS did not explicitly anticipate internet piracy, digital platforms, AI-generated works, or streaming rights. However, TRIPS obligations are being interpreted to extend to online infringements. Later treaties, such as the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT, 1996) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT, 1996), built upon TRIPS to address the digital environment. India has aligned its law (2012 Amendment) with these standards, though it has not formally ratified WCT/WPPT [3].
• WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT, 1996) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT, 1996) – Since Berne Convention (1886) and TRIPS Agreement (1994) lacks clarity on digital issues like online distribution, storage, and technological protection the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has adopted two “Internet Treaties” in 1996 namely WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT, 1996) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT, 1996) is emphasized  on making available rights, DRM, and performers’ rights directly addresses issues of streaming, online piracy, and digital licensing [4]. 

National Frameworks

• Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (DMCA) United States: In late 1990s United States faced online piracy, peer-to-peer sharing platforms, and increasing digitisation of works to tackle these challenges the UN enacted Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998. Its key provisions include Anti-Circumvention Rules which prohibits the circumvention of Technological Protection Measures (TPM), Online Service Provider (OSP) Liability & Safe Harbour, Copyright Management Information (CMI) and Fair Use Preservation [5].
• Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market 2019 (DSM Directive) European Union: The primary goal is to create a harmonised framework across EU member states, balancing protection for creators with access for users. Its key provision includes Press Publishers’ Right which grants press publishers’ new rights over the online use of their content by news aggregators and search engines, Platform Liability where platforms that host user-uploaded content (like YouTube, Facebook) are directly liable for copyright infringement, Text and Data Mining (TDM) Exceptions and Fair Use & Exceptions Harmonisation [6]. 
• Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012 India: This act was enacted to protect the copyright in India by enacting legal frameworks and remedies to reduce the infringement of copyright in India and it also extends its scope covering digital works and their copyright infringement [7].  

Remedies for Copyright Infringement

There are several legal remedies available for copyright infringement worldwide which can be categorised into three types namely civil, criminal, and technological remedies. 

Civil Remedies: 

• Injunctions-  In the event of copyright infringement courts may grant injuction to restrain the infringing acts. For example in the case of Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd the UK courts ordered ISPs to block websites selling counterfeit goods [8].
• Damages and Account of Profits- In case of infringement copyright owners can recover damage and claim profit from the infringer. 
• Delivery up and Destruction – Courts may order delivery and destruction of infringing copies.

Therefore, in India civil remedies are granted under Sections 55–62 of the Copyright Act 1957 [9].

Criminal Remedies 

• Infringement has been criminalized in many jurisdictions including India which prescribes imprisonment upto three years under section 65 of Copyright act 1957. 

Technological Remedies 

• It includes Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) such as encryption, digital watermarks, and access control mechanisms but circumvention of TPM is prohibited under DMCA AND WCT.

Challenges in Enforcing Copyright in the Digital Age

• Jurisdictional Issues

Courts may often face difficulties in determining applicable laws and enforcing judgments internationally since the infringement occurs in one country, servers may be in another, and users may access content globally. 

• Safe Harbour and Intermediary Liability

Though safe harbour provisions under the DMCA encourage innovation, they also enable infringers to exploit gaps but role of intermediaries like ISPs, hosting services, and social media platforms remains contested. Critics argues the EU DMU Directive contains risks over blocking and chilling expression even though it imposes greater responsibility. 

• Balancing Rights and Public Interest

It becomes difficult in balancing both rights and public interests since protection of copyright and ensuring freedom of speech are equally important. In the case of Indian Express Newspapers v Union of India, the Supreme Court of India also stressed the importance of balancing copyright with freedom of speech even, debates around parody, criticism, and educational use reflect the tension between rights-holders and public interest [10].

• Technological Limitations

Despite the presence of many technology portion mechanisms infringers finds many ways to bypass those measures. Legitimate users have been blocked due to automated systems which undermines their rights. 

• Emerging Challenges: AI and NFTs

Authorship, originality, and enforcement has been a question due to the rise of artificial intelligence and non-fungible tokens. Judiciary need to establish a clear legal framework for addressing these issues. 

Comparative Case Law Analysis

• A&M Records v Napster, Inc (US, 2001): In this case Napster is a software and network which was launched in 1999 allows users to share MP3 music files directly from their computers by connecting to Napster’s centralized servers. This led to millions of users downloading songs without the permission of the owners which was can infringement. Record companies like A&M Records sued Napster claiming that it was liable for the infringement since it facilitated and encouraged the mass piracy. So, the main issue was whether Napster is liable for the copyright infringement. The court ordered that Napster was liable for the copyright infringement because it had the knowledge of ongoing infringement. 
• Capitol Records v Thomas-Rasset (US, 2012): So, in this case Thomas-Rasset used a Kazaa which was a peer-to-peer file sharing network that allows to download and share copyrighted songs. The Capitol Records found that 24 copyrighted songs have been shared through her account, and it sued Thomas-Rasset for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C) that provides statutory damages ranging from $750 to $150,000 per work infringed. The main issues includes whether Thomas-Rasset is liable for wilful copyright infringement and whether damages are provided against her. The court ordered that she was liable for the infringement, but damages were kept being reconsidered and finally the Court upheld the $222,000 judgment [11].
• University of Oxford v Rameshwari Photocopy Services (India, 2016): In this case Rameshwari photocopy services prepared a course pack under the permission of Delhi university for the students for educational purpose which has copied the contents from books published by the University of Oxford. The Oxford sued Rameshwari photocopy services claiming that it has made a copyright infringement by reproducing and copying a part of their work without permission and royalties. The issue was whether photocopying for the purpose of education leads to copyright infringement. The court ordered in favour of Rameshwari since under section 52(1)(i) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 which provides fair dealing exceptions for education Rameshwari photocopy service has not made a copyright infringement [12]. 

Recommendations for Reform

• Strengthen International Cooperation – A well drafted and harmonised mechanism is required to address the cross-border infringement. 
• Balanced Liability for Intermediaries – Safe provisions should be enforced to ensure accountability without burdening the innovation.
• Adaptive Fair Use Provisions – Legislatures should include fair dealing exceptions for education, parody, and digital innovation. 
• Investment in Technological Enforcement – Over blocking can ne reduces by establishing a transparent and accurate content recognition technologies. 
• Address Emerging Technologies – Clear rules are necessary for AI generated works, blockchains, and NFTs. 

Conclusion

Even digital technologies empower creator and consumers they also undermine the traditional mechanisms as a result reduction of copyright infringement faces multiple challenges. There is a significant limitation in cross-border enforcement, intermediary liability and technological adaptability even in the presence of existing legal remedies. Ultimately the future copyright law must balance the protection of copyright and public interest policymakers must deliver a flexible and future looking legal frameworks to respond with changing technology without violating fundamental freedoms. 

References

1. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (adopted 9 September 1886, last amended 28 September 1979).
2. A&M Records v Napster, Inc 239 F 3d 1004 (9th Cir 2001), 2001.
3. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (1994) 1869 UNTS 299.
4. WIPO Copyright Treaty (adopted 20 December 1996, entered into force 6 March 2002).
5. Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (US)
6. Directive (EU) 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market [2019] OJ L130/92
7. Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012 (India).
8. Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch).
9. Copyright Act 1957 (India), ss 55–62.
10. Indian Express Newspapers v Union of India AIR 1986 SC 515.
11. Capitol Records v Thomas-Rasset 692 F 3d 899 (8th Cir 2012).
12. The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v Rameshwari Photocopy Services (2016) 234 DLT 385.