Broadcasters back MIB's Telegram crackdown, say intermediary rules must evolve with piracy

Broadcasters, OTT platforms and content owners have thrown their weight behind the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting's (MIB) directive asking Telegram to curb online piracy, arguing that digital platforms can no longer invoke intermediary protections while allowing copyrighted content to proliferate through public channels, mirror groups and automated bots.

The industry's backing comes even as legal experts continue to debate whether the ministry has stretched its executive authority by directing Telegram—an intermediary regulated by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)—to redesign aspects of its content moderation framework.

The MIB's July 4 notice asked Telegram to strengthen mechanisms for detecting, reporting, disabling access to and removing pirated films and copyrighted audiovisual content. It also directed the platform to prevent repeat uploads through mirror channels, successor groups and bots, preserve evidence, coordinate with law enforcement agencies and submit an Action Taken Report within 15 days.

The ministry has warned that continued non-compliance could invite proceedings under the Copyright Act and the Cinematograph Act while also prompting examination of whether Telegram continues to qualify for intermediary "safe harbour" protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.

While the notice has sparked legal questions over the extent of the ministry's powers, broadcasters believe the government's intervention addresses a longstanding regulatory gap in tackling industrial-scale online piracy.

Broadcasters dismiss jurisdiction concerns

Several legal experts had earlier questioned whether MIB possesses the statutory authority to direct Telegram's moderation systems, noting that intermediary obligations under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 fall under Part II of the Rules, which is administered by MeitY. MIB, they argued, primarily oversees publishers of online curated content and digital news under Part III.

Broadcasters, however, say the criticism overlooks the broader legal framework governing piracy.

"The debate should not be limited to whether MIB or MeitY issued the notice. The larger question is whether a platform that repeatedly receives notices regarding organised piracy can continue to claim intermediary protection while identical infringing content resurfaces through mirror channels and automated networks," a senior executive at a leading broadcasting network told e4m, requesting anonymity.

"The government is not attempting to regulate messaging platforms in isolation. It is trying to address a persistent piracy ecosystem that has caused significant losses to broadcasters, film producers, OTT platforms and rights holders despite years of notice-and-takedown requests."

Industry executives argue that the ministry's notice cannot be viewed solely through the prism of the IT Rules since it simultaneously invokes provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Cinematograph Act, 1952, including anti-piracy amendments introduced under the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act.

According to broadcasters, the fact that the notice was also copied to senior officials in MeitY and the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) indicates a coordinated government effort rather than an institutional conflict over jurisdiction.

"The Cinematograph Act empowers the government to act against unauthorised copies of films hosted through intermediary platforms. This is not a case of one ministry bypassing another; it is an example of multiple ministries addressing the same enforcement challenge," another broadcaster said.

Piracy has evolved beyond notice-and-takedown

Broadcasters argue that existing legal remedies have failed to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated piracy operations operating on encrypted messaging platforms.

According to industry executives, Telegram's existing practice of disabling individual channels after receiving complaints has proved ineffective because identical content quickly resurfaces through successor channels, mirror groups and automated bots.

"Rights holders spend enormous resources issuing notices every single day, only to discover the same content reappearing within minutes under different channel names," said the legal head of another broadcasting company.

"This is no longer about isolated copyright violations by individual users. These are organised piracy syndicates monetising newly released films and premium OTT content through automated distribution networks."

Industry executives say this is precisely why broadcasters have welcomed MIB's emphasis on platform-wide anti-piracy mechanisms rather than repeated channel-specific takedowns.

Safe harbour cannot become permanent immunity

One of the most debated aspects of the ministry's notice is its observation that continued availability of infringing content despite repeated complaints may indicate that Telegram has failed to fulfil the due diligence obligations necessary to retain safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.

Legal experts have argued that the notice effectively expands intermediary liability by expecting platforms to proactively prevent future infringements rather than merely responding to specific complaints.

Broadcasters disagree.

"Safe harbour was never intended to be unconditional immunity," said the legal affairs head of a major media company.

"It is a conditional protection available only to intermediaries that demonstrate reasonable diligence. When a platform repeatedly receives actual knowledge of recurring piracy networks and yet adopts only a reactive, channel-by-channel approach, regulators are justified in examining whether due diligence obligations are actually being fulfilled."

Another broadcaster added that intermediary protections should not become a shield for systemic failures.

"No broadcaster expects piracy to disappear overnight. But platforms must demonstrate that they are making meaningful efforts to disrupt repeat infringers rather than merely responding to one URL after another."

Technology is not an excuse, say broadcasters

The ministry's requirement that Telegram prevent re-uploading of substantially identical infringing content has also prompted questions over technical feasibility.

Cybersecurity experts have argued that encrypted platforms present unique engineering challenges and that sophisticated copyright detection systems require substantial investment and years of development.

Broadcasters, however, believe technology companies already possess the expertise to address recurring infringement.

"If platforms can deploy artificial intelligence to detect spam, phishing attacks, financial fraud, child safety violations and terrorist content, it is difficult to argue that organised copyright infringement cannot also be addressed through technological interventions," a senior broadcaster said.

Another executive compared the issue to cybersecurity.

"When software vulnerabilities expose users to ransomware attacks, technology companies redesign their systems and release security patches. They do not argue that changing the architecture is too difficult. Compliance with Indian law should similarly become part of responsible platform design rather than an optional engineering decision."

Piracy hurts the entire creative economy

Broadcasters also rejected the argument advanced by some legal experts that copyright enforcement should primarily remain a private dispute between rights holders and infringers.

According to the industry, the economic impact of piracy extends far beyond film studios.

"Every pirated stream affects broadcasters, OTT platforms, distributors, advertisers and independent producers. Ultimately, the losses reach writers, technicians, editors, actors and thousands of professionals whose livelihoods depend on legitimate monetisation," a senior television executive said.

"The government cannot remain a passive spectator while organised digital piracy erodes investments across India's media and entertainment sector."

Industry executives also argue that piracy has evolved into an organised commercial activity rather than isolated acts of infringement, making stronger regulatory intervention both necessary and inevitable.

A defining test for intermediary liability

Telegram is expected to submit its Action Taken Report detailing measures adopted to curb piracy, tackle repeat infringers, preserve evidence and strengthen compliance mechanisms.

The response is likely to be closely watched across the media, technology and legal communities as it could shape the future interpretation of intermediary liability under Indian law.

For broadcasters, however, the larger issue extends beyond questions of ministerial jurisdiction.

"This is not about expanding executive powers," a senior broadcasting executive said.

"It is about recognising that organised piracy has evolved faster than regulation. If platforms derive value from large public content ecosystems, they must also accept greater responsibility for ensuring those ecosystems are not repeatedly exploited to undermine India's creative economy."