Introduction
The sports industry in India is booming at a massive rate and has, at present, become one large sector including entertainment, games and Monetary transactions. Long gone is the time when sports were just viewed as a hobby or something that was played by people on their spare time. In the present scenario, the commercial engagement in the sports industry has vastly increased, leading to the subsequent development of the IP laws protecting the economic value of the sports industry.
One such money-maker in the sports industry is the broadcasting and media rights that are obtained by major broadcasting corporations that provide the companies with the exclusive rights to broadcast the events. However, with the development of technology, the cases of piracy are at a steady growth. According to one Study, Approximately USD 28 Billion is the real cost of global sports piracy, which means a huge loss for the sports industry especially the broadcasting corporations[1]. This blog critically examines the current situation of piracy in sports broadcasting while majorly focusing on the analysis of the case of Star India Private Limited vs. Crichd-Live.Top and Ors.[2]
Facts of the Case
Parties involved in the case:
- Plaintiff: Star India Private Limited
- Defendants: Multiple defendants
- Defendant Nos. 1-6 (Multiple Rogue websites)
- Defendant Nos 7-12 (Domain Name Registrars)
- Defendant Nos 13-21 (Internet service Providers)
- Defendant Nos. 22 & 23 (Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology)
- Defendants: Multiple defendants
Star India Private Limited, one of India’s largest broadcasters, acquired exclusive media and television rights for several international cricket events including the India Tour of Australia 2024-25 and Big Bash League 2024-25 in a legally binding agreement that CA signed with it. These rights covered several countries, including India, and had been acquired for seven years from 2023 to 2030. It broadcasts these matches, and their total revenues will accrue from digital viewership as well as advertisements, on its popular streaming platform, Disney+ Hotstar.
However, Star India found that many rogue websites were transmitting some of these matches without permission. These “rogue websites” were permitting access to free, live games, which was severely eroding the financial interests of Star India. Based on precedent cases, the company knew that even more infringements and mirror/proxy sites would pop up after the initial ones were blocked.
To protect its legal rights, Star India filed a suit in the Delhi High Court, naming several parties as defendants, including the infringing websites, domain registrars, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and government agencies like the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). The organization sought a “Dynamic+ Injunction,” which would allow for the quick shutdown of not just the listed infringing websites but also any other websites that may be involved in similar unauthorized broadcasting activities.
The case revolved around the enforcement of copyright law and the need for anticipatory judicial intervention to prevent online piracy, thus allowing Star India to protect its broadcasting rights and recover its financial investments.
Issues of the case
- Unauthorized Streaming and Copyright Violation: Star India enjoyed exclusive rights for major cricket matches; however, some unauthorized websites were illegally live streaming the matches. This illegal sharing violated the copyright of Star India and undermined its revenue model, which is subscription and advertisement based.
- Need for a “Dynamic+ Injunction” to Fight Piracy Online: The conventional one-off blocking orders were unsuccessful, with infringing websites re-emerging with new domain names or mirror sites. Star India advocated an actual-time, dynamic court order that would permit instant blocking of newly found illegal streaming websites without requiring standalone legal proceedings every time.
Cited Cases in the Judgement
Universal City Studios LCC v. Dotmovies.baby[3]
This case highlighted the need to use dynamic injunctions to deal with online piracy effectively. The court held that an injunction not only had to deal with existing copyright infringement but also its ambit had to be widened to deal with future infringement as well, especially in the digital age where unauthorized sites can pop up overnight. This ruling was to be pivotal in the case of Star India, as it vindicated their plea for a real-time blocking system of illegal streaming sites.
Star India Pvt. Ltd. V. Crichd.pk & Ors.[4] & Star India Pvt. Ltd. V. Live flixhub.net & Ors.[5]
Mr. Sidharth Chopra, advocate for the plaintiff, argued that previously, although a preliminary injunction has usually been granted in respect of the websites specified in the complaint, many illegal websites are always found later, which keep on illegally telecasting the sporting events. With the citing of the above-mentioned cases, the counsel for the plaintiff emphasised the need for restraining the rogue websites on a real time basis, which would not require the parties involved to first approach the court, by filing affidavits in respect of each such website which starts unauthorizedly telecasting matches.
Key Findings of the Judgement
The Delhi High Court upheld the validity and legal protection of Star India’s exclusive broadcasting rights under copyright law. The court mentioned that unauthorized streaming of cricket matches by pirate websites posed a serious economic threat to the broadcaster, endangering its monetary investment in the acquisition of media rights. With the rapid development of online piracy, the court held that a traditional injunction would be inadequate, as criminals could easily open new domains or mirror sites to continue illegal streaming activities.
To address this problem, the court granted a “Dynamic+ Injunction” which allowed blocking of any new infringing websites in real time without requiring individual orders from the court each time. The court also directed domain registrars to shut down the existing infringing websites and instructed ISPs and government departments (DoT & MeitY) to block these websites permanently in India. The judgment stated that copyright protection in the digital age needs to be proactive and dynamic. It claimed the necessity of speedy legal action to block financial loss and protect the rights of the creators of the content. With this precedent set, the judgment put the limelight on the judiciary’s evolving strategy in curbing digital piracy in a technologically dominated world.
Impact of the Judgement in the current scenario
This judgment sets an important precedent in the war against digital piracy, particularly in the entertainment and sports industries, where broadcasting rights are a significant revenue source. In the age of digitization, pirate streaming sites are constantly changing, and rights owners struggle to guard their content with conventional legal mechanisms. By granting a Dynamic+ Injunction, the court has acknowledged the requirement for an enforcement mechanism that can act in real-time to prevent piracy in action, as opposed to waiting for lengthy legal processes for every new infringement.
The main focus in the judgement of the case was the Dynamic+ Injunction provided by the Delhi High Court. This injunction blocks websites that infringe on the copyrighted material or other IP rights. It is Known as Dynamic injunction because it also extends to any future websites that may infringe on the same rights. Such kind of injunctions are more adaptable than static injunctions, which are available for specific acts or parties. They can also prevent the dissemination of infringing material, particularly in the case of extended events such as sporting events. They are also employed as a tool to combat online piracy, which usually takes place immediately following an injunction.
This decision is timely given as the increasing popularity of internet streaming sites and the increasing threat posed by rogue sites, continuously find new ways to evade legal blocks. The decision also places the onus on ISPs, domain registrars, and government agencies to assist actively in enforcing copyrights, making illegal streaming sites more difficult to thrive. It contributes to the view that copyright protection must be technology-driven and dynamic in addressing evolving pirating tactics. In the future, this ruling can have global ramifications for anti-piracy campaigns, encouraging other jurisdictions to employ similar proactive approaches in safeguarding intellectual property rights in the digital era.
Conclusion
There is a major role played by copyright in the sports industry, especially in the broadcasting of sports events. The above case of Star India Private Limited vs. Crichd-Live.Top and Ors., highlights the same. The sports events, either live or recorded both yield a large amount of economic value that cannot be ignored and is of immense value to the corporations. Hence there is a need for copyright protection in the sector as if there is no protection for the rights of the broadcasters then there would be no corporation willing to invest in the sector resulting in the death of the whole broadcasting industry in the sports sector.
There is still an ongoing fight against the illegal streaming sites that infringe the rights of the broadcasters who have the exclusive rights, but are unable to provide sufficient measures that can be taken to completely eradicate such illegal streams. Also the need of the audience to watch such sports events for free instead of paying for them is also leading to creations of more illegal sites which is making it more difficult for the broadcasters to exercise their exclusive rights and make an earning. Hence there is a strong need for the courts to take strict measures like the Dynamic+ injunction which can lead to complete erasure of such illegal streaming sites and give back the power in the hands of the broadcasters who have actually invested in obtaining the streaming rights.
[1] Synamedia, https://www.synamedia.com/whitepapers-reports/pricing-piracy-the-value-of-action/, [ Last visited Feb 4, 2025]
[2] Star India Private Limited vs Crichd-Live.Top and Ors., MANU/DEOR/131464/2024
[3] Universal City Studios LLC v. Dotmovies.baby, MANU/DE/5295/2023
[4] Star India Pvt. Ltd. V. Crichd.pk & Ors, (CS(COMM) 840/2024)
[5] Star India Pvt. Ltd. V. Live flixhub.net & Ors., (CS(COMM) 157/2022)
Author: Dipto Dasgupta is a 6th Semester BBA LLB Student at Alliance University.
