--- layout: default title: "Accessing Pirated Content Might Lead to Prison Term & Rs 3-Lakh Fine" description: "A Business Standard report by Alnoor Peermohamed on government warnings to users accessing blocked torrent websites, featuring commentary from Sunil Abraham on copyright enforcement and the impracticality of prosecuting individual consumers." categories: [Media mentions] date: 2016-08-22 authors: ["Alnoor Peermohamed"] source: "Business Standard" permalink: /media/accessing-pirated-content-prison-fine-business-standard/ created: 2026-01-08 --- **Accessing Pirated Content Might Lead to Prison Term & Rs 3-Lakh Fine** is a *Business Standard* article published on 22 August 2016 by Alnoor Peermohamed. The report examines warning messages displayed to users accessing blocked torrent websites on Tata Communications' network, following Bombay High Court directives. The article features analysis from Sunil Abraham, then Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society, critiquing the government's approach to copyright enforcement and discussing the limitations of consumer-targeted crackdowns. ## Contents 1. [Article Details](#article-details) 2. [Full Text](#full-text) 3. [Context and Background](#context-and-background) 4. [External Link](#external-link) ## Article Details

📰 Published in:: Business Standard
📅 Date:: 22 August 2016
👤 Authors:: Alnoor Peermohamed
📄 Type:: News Report
📰 Article Link:: Read Online

## Full Text

The central government is putting the onus of downloading and viewing of copyrighted content from sites it has blocked (with the help of internet service providers) on users.

Visiting torrent (a particular type of files) websites while on Tata Communications' network recently had users being shown a message that viewing or downloading content on those sites could land them in prison for up to three years and a fine of up to Rs 3 lakh.

"There is not enough room in our prisons to keep these infringers and enough time in our courts to try them. It might sound very exciting as a message to put out but, essentially, they're trying to scare people into good behaviour," said Sunil Abraham, executive director at research firm Centre for Internet and Society.

There has been no change to the Copyright Act of 1957 or the Information Technology Act of 2000 for the updated notice being shown to users upon visiting blocked sites. Under these provisions, visiting a site, which is blocked is not illegal, unless it is child pornography.

"Copyright infringement happens all the time and even in developed countries, the rates are very high. Crackdowns on individuals and consumers are never going to solve the problem," added Abraham.

Experts say the most the government could do is prosecute a couple of people and make examples of them, to dissuade others. This practice is followed globally. There are no examples, though, in India of prosecution for copyright infringement of online content.

The recent alteration of the statement seen by users on Tata networks was done on the directives of the Bombay High Court, after the company appealed that showing individual messages for why each website was blocked was not feasible. The resulting message sparked media frenzy that visitors of blocked websites could now be imprisoned.

Other media reports revealed that the recent blocking of websites by internet service providers was prompted by court orders to prevent piracy of Dishoom, the Bollywood movie.

Globally, there's been a move to clamp down on torrent websites which host pirated content, aided by large information technology entities such as Apple or Facebook. Last month, the US authorities arrested Kickass Torrents' founder, Artem Vaulin, and blocked all the domains of the website, only to have it resurface a day later.

{% include back-to-top.html %} ## Context and Background This article emerged during a period of intensified efforts by copyright holders and courts to combat online piracy through website blocking orders issued to internet service providers. The Bombay High Court's practice of directing ISPs to block torrent websites and file-sharing platforms had become routine, typically following applications by film studios seeking to protect theatrical releases from online infringement. However, the legal basis and practical implications of such blocking orders remained contested terrain. Abraham's observation about prison capacity and court time highlighted the fundamental impracticality of mass prosecution approaches to copyright enforcement. India's judicial system faced enormous backlogs, with millions of pending cases across district and high courts. Prosecuting even a small fraction of individuals who accessed blocked websites would overwhelm already-strained judicial infrastructure, making such threats largely symbolic rather than operationally feasible. The article's clarification that no changes had been made to the Copyright Act or Information Technology Act underscored that the warning messages represented enforcement theatre rather than substantive legal developments. Merely visiting blocked websites—excluding child sexual abuse material—did not constitute a criminal offence under existing Indian law. Copyright infringement required actual reproduction, distribution, or commercial exploitation of protected works, not passive viewing or downloading for personal use, though this distinction remained poorly understood by the general public. Tata Communications' appeal to the Bombay High Court reflected practical challenges ISPs faced in implementing blocking orders. Courts often directed blocking of specific URLs or domain names associated with infringing content, but maintaining individualised explanations for thousands of blocked pages proved technically and administratively burdensome. The generic warning message represented a compromise between court-mandated transparency and operational feasibility, though it inadvertently created misleading impressions about legal liabilities. The reference to *Dishoom* illustrated how Bollywood studios increasingly relied on pre-release blocking orders as part of anti-piracy strategies. Studios would identify torrent indexing sites and file-sharing platforms likely to host pirated copies, then obtain ex-parte court orders requiring ISPs to block access before theatrical release. This preventive approach aimed to reduce initial piracy windows, though its effectiveness remained debatable given the ease of circumventing blocks through VPNs, proxy servers, and mirror domains. The global context provided by the KickassTorrents arrest demonstrated both the escalation of enforcement actions against platforms and their resilience. Despite US authorities arresting the site's alleged operator and seizing domains, copycat sites emerged within days, illustrating the whack-a-mole dynamics of combating decentralised file-sharing ecosystems. This pattern reinforced Abraham's scepticism about consumer-targeted enforcement solving systemic piracy issues. ## External Link - [Read on Business Standard](https://www.business-standard.com/article/technology/accessing-pirated-content-might-lead-to-prison-term-rs-3-lakh-fine-116082201042_1.html)