Criminalizing Copyright Violations: Protection or Punishment?

By Sujit Verma

This article explores the Supreme Court of India’s Knit Pro International (2022) ruling, which classifies copyright infringement as a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Through global comparisons and legal analysis, we assess whether India’s approach strikes the right balance between protecting creators and preventing misuse.

Introduction

This article examines the Supreme Court of India’s 2022 ruling in Knit Pro International v State of NCT of Delhi, which classified copyright violation under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, as a cognizable and non-bailable offence. This means that the police can arrest an accused individual without a warrant, and bail is not granted as a matter of right. The study critically evaluates this classification, arguing that such a harsh criminalization may infringe on fundamental rights and disrupt the balance between copyright holders and the public’s right to access knowledge.

Through a comparative analysis of copyright enforcement in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, United States, South Africa, and Germany, this article argues that while criminalization of copyright infringement is necessary, making it non-cognizable and bailable would ensure fairness and prevent misuse.

Justifications for Criminalizing Copyright Violation in India

Copyright Law and its Purpose

Copyright protects authors' rights over their literary and artistic works, including books, music, films, software, and electronic databases. When someone uses a copyrighted work without permission for commercial benefit, it constitutes copyright infringement. The law provides both civil and criminal remedies to deter such violations.

The Harm Principle

J.S. Mill’s Harm Principle justifies criminalization when an act causes harm to others. Copyright infringement harms authors by reducing their financial benefits and discouraging them from creating new works. It also affects the economy — for instance, piracy has caused losses of $2.8 billion in India’s entertainment sector and ₹1000 crore in the music industry. Additionally, copyright infringement fosters a black-market economy, leading to organized crime.

However, the criminalization of copyright infringement itself can cause harm, such as:

• Over-deterrence of public access to knowledge
• Misuse of legal provisions by vested interests
• Invasion of individual liberty

The Legal Moralism Principle

The Legal Moralism Principle holds that criminalization is justified when an act is immoral. Unauthorized use of copyrighted works is ethically wrong because it exploits another person’s intellectual labour without their consent. Moral justifications for copyright law include:

• Labor Theory (authors have a right to benefit from their work)
• Personality Theory (works are extensions of an author’s personality)

Thus, the Harm Principle and Legal Moralism Principle justify criminalizing copyright infringement, but the degree of criminalization requires reconsideration.

Problems with India’s Criminal Copyright Regime

Judicial Inconsistency

Before Knit Pro International (2022), Indian courts had conflicting interpretations of Section 63 of the Copyright Act. Some courts held copyright infringement to be non-cognizable and bailable, while others ruled it was cognizable and non-bailable. The Supreme Court, rather than clarifying this issue, mechanically applied the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) classification, concluding that since the punishment was up to three years, the offence must be cognizable and non-bailable. The ruling failed to consider:

• The historical inconsistency in judicial interpretations
• The real-world consequences of this classification
• The balance between copyright holders and users’ rights

Vicious Cycle of Misuse

An empirical study of criminal copyright cases between 2013–2023 showed that:

• 94 cases in High Courts involved defective complaints (e.g., baseless or abusive claims)
• 57% of cases resulted in quashing of criminal proceedings
• Police often misused Section 64 of the Copyright Act to seize copies of allegedly infringing works

The misuse of criminal copyright laws has led to arbitrary arrests and harassment of innocent individuals, which further weakens the legitimacy of copyright enforcement.

Fundamental Rights Violations

1. Infringement of Personal Liberty

Since copyright offences are cognizable and non-bailable, individuals can be arrested without a warrant and denied immediate bail, even for minor violations. The police have wide discretion to conduct raids and seizures, often without proper verification of ownership.

2. Chilling Effect on Free Speech

• Copyright law can be used as a tool for censorship.
• In India and globally, companies and governments have abused copyright laws to silence critics by filing false infringement claims.
• This can deter research, criticism, and creativity — ironically defeating the very purpose of copyright law.

3. Disruption of the Creator-User Balance

Copyright aims to balance authors’ rights with public access to knowledge. However, if enforcement is too strict:

• Users may hesitate to engage in fair use (e.g., quoting texts, making educational copies).
• Copyright holders can weaponize copyright law to suppress legitimate access.
• Creative collaboration and knowledge dissemination suffer.

International Comparison

A study of UK, US, South Africa, and Germany reveals key differences in how copyright crimes are treated:

Key Takeaways

• In most countries, copyright infringement does not automatically lead to warrantless arrests.
• In Germany and South Africa, police need judicial approval before making an arrest.
• In the US and UK, bail depends on the severity of the crime, but discretionary safeguards exist.
• India’s law is harsher than necessary and lacks safeguards against abuse.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Knit Pro International (2022) has unnecessarily escalated the severity of copyright infringement in India. This classification threatens fundamental rights, public access to knowledge, and free speech, while also failing to effectively deter large-scale piracy.

The study shows that India’s approach to criminalizing copyright infringement diverges from international norms. Unlike many other jurisdictions, where copyright violations are subject to judicial scrutiny before arrests, India’s classification allows for immediate police action. The empirical data suggests that this has led to widespread misuse of copyright law, with a significant percentage of cases being quashed due to lack of merit or procedural irregularities.

The implications of this highly punitive system extend beyond just the accused individuals. It affects public access to information, freedom of expression, and the overall intellectual property landscape in India. The tension between copyright holders and users continues to grow, raising concerns about whether India’s copyright enforcement regime aligns with its constitutional principles and international best practices.