- within Criminal Law, Real Estate and Construction and Coronavirus (COVID-19) topic(s)
As the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) marks ‘IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate!’ as this year’s theme for the World IP Day (World Intellectual Property Day: April 26, 2026, 2026), the important question arises whether the current digital protection frameworks in India are sufficient to protect the time-sensitive commercial value of transient events like sports broadcasting? Broadcasting of sports events presents an interesting intersection of Intellectual Property(IP) law and Cyber law. IP laws are critical in sports broadcasting as major business deals in sports events are based on the exclusive use of IP assets such as live game footage, trademarks, and logos (Bansal, 2024). Although the sports event itself is not directly protected under copyright law, its broadcasting is.
With the rise of piracy in India at an alarming rate, the answer to this question becomes more important. Live sports piracy causes viewer substitution, which undermines broadcasters’ commercial investment and thereby defeats the obvious goal of IP law in sports broadcasting.
The problem highlighted here is not the absence of substantive protection or remedy under current laws, but the procedural limitations inherent in the notice-based intermediary liability under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Information Technology Act, 2000). In time-sensitive contexts such as sports event broadcasting, where amassing commercial value is temporal, the notice and take-down mechanisms are too slow to prevent irreversible economic harm.
Why Sports Event Broadcasting Rights Are Fragile?
In sports events, their unscripted form and uncertain nature drive commercial value, which rises during the short-lived broadcast window. These events are real-time digital ecosystems that support mass engagement through real-time viewership. It also inspires the broadcasters to increasingly use modern technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) for better advertisement precision and engagement through real-time analytics (Mr. Raghav Tiwari, 2025). However, illegal piracy diverts this real-time engagement, causing an irreparable loss, as once a sports event ends, it cannot generate any revenue and results in simultaneous brand dilution which disrupts the broader sports broadcasting ecosystem. This makes infringement of sports broadcasting riskier compared to conventional IP infringements defined under Section 51 of the Copyrights Act, 1957. (The Copyright Act, 1957) These infringements happen through the intermediaries hosting illegal live broadcasts of sports events.
The Limits on Liability of the Intermediaries
Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 provides safe harbour immunity to the intermediaries hosting third-party content unless they fail to meet certain conditions, which include:
(a) Their function is limited to providing access to the communication system over which information by third parties is transmitted, temporarily stored, or hosted.
(b) There should not be an active control in the form of initiating the transmission, selecting the receiver, or modifying the information in transmission.
(c) The intermediary should observe due diligence and follow the guidelines of the Central Government while discharging his duties under this Act.
Slowing Down Enforcement: Notice and Take-Down Procedure
Section 79(3)(b) of IT Act further states that if the intermediaries fail to remove or disable access to the infringing content upon receiving knowledge or notice from the appropriate government or its agency, they lose the protection under this doctrine. In Shreya Singhal v Union of India, the Supreme Court interpreted the term ‘actual knowledge’ to mean knowledge acquired through a court order or an authorised government direction (Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I, 2015). This would mean that a direct notice by the broadcasters to the intermediaries cannot initiate the removal of infringing content. The notice and take-down procedure, being contingent on a court order or government notification, often results in significant delay, rendering this procedure insufficient in the context of time-sensitive sports events where the economic loss is instantaneous and irrecoverable once the streaming window closes. Consequently, the application of this doctrine in sports broadcasting creates a structural enforcement gap. The question, therefore, is how cyber law can better supplement IP law in India in the context of such transient events.
Indian Position and comparison with France
The protection given to sports broadcasters in India is highly dependent on judicial intervention rather than systematic regulatory actions. When infringement occurs, the substantive rights arise under Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which grants broadcasters exclusive reproduction and communication rights. These rights may be enforced under Section 55 of the Act, which provides the remedy of an injunction requiring the broadcaster to approach the court. Only after an injunction is granted can the infringing content be taken down by the intermediary under Section 79 of the IT Act.
In contrast, France has adopted stronger enforcement and integration for sports piracy. Under French law, a dedicated regulatory authority called the Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique (ARCOM) coordinates with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and monitors compliance with the French Intellectual Property Code and the anti-piracy reforms (ARCOM: French regulator’s ongoing campaigns against piracy, both technical and informational, 2026). This facilitates rapid blocking measures and reduces repeated judicial intervention. This model demonstrates how improved regulatory coordination under the existing legal framework in India could better equip the present system to deal with sports broadcasting piracy.
Conclusion
The enforcement procedure under the present IT framework regarding sports piracy remains insufficient. The requirement for a court order or government notification causes significant delay, during which the sports events may conclude. By the time the infringing content is taken down, the broadcaster has already suffered loss of an irreparable nature, despite having invested substantial resources to create economic value through intellectual property protection.
Given the transient nature of sports broadcasting, where the revenue generation is done within a very short window, there is a need for an expedited enforcement mechanism. This can be achieved through stronger institutional and regulatory coordination. Therefore, better integration between IP law and cyber law is essential to protect the right holders in cases involving time-sensitive content such as sports broadcasting.
References
- "ARCOM: French regulator’s ongoing campaigns against piracy, both technical and informational" (2026) https://piracymonitor.org/arcom-french-regulators-ongoing-campaigns-against-piracy/ (last accessed 22 February, 2026).
- Rohit Bansal, "Intellectual Property Rights in Sports Broadcasting", Manupatra Articles (2024) https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Intellectual-Property-Rights-in-Sports-Broadcasting (last accessed 22 February, 2026).
- Information Technology Act, 2000.
- Raghav Tiwari, Use of AI and Technology in Sports Broadcasting: Transform the Live Experience (2025) International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research.
- Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I, (2015) 5 SCC 1
- The Copyright Act,1957.
- World Intellectual Property Organization, 'World Intellectual Property Day: April 26' https://www.wipo.int/en/web/ipday/2026/index, last accessed [22 February, 2026]
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
