Digital Privacy vs. Content Protection: The Legal Conflict on Indian OTT Platforms

This research paper examines the growing legal tension in India between copyright enforcement on Over-The-Top (OTT) platforms and the fundamental right to privacy. As India's OTT market has expanded rapidly since 2016, platforms have increasingly relied on invasive technologies like Digital Rights Management (DRM), forensic watermarking, and Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) to combat digital piracy. While these tools are legally supported by the Copyright Act of 1957 to protect massive financial investments, they necessitate the collection of extensive personal data—such as IP addresses, device IDs, and viewing habits—thereby clashing with the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act of 2023 and the constitutional right to privacy established in the Puttaswamy judgment. Indian courts, particularly through the landmark UTV Software case, have introduced "dynamic injunctions" and "Ashok Kumar" orders to block pirate mirror sites efficiently. However, these measures often lead to over-blocking and prioritize economic interests over user anonymity. The DPDP Act contains a significant "legitimate use" loophole that OTT platforms may exploit to bypass user consent under the guise of IP enforcement. Furthermore, there is a lack of transparency and independent oversight regarding how private companies update internet block lists. To enforce court orders, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) act as "digital private investigators," scanning the traffic of millions of innocent users to catch a small percentage of pirates. The paper concludes that India currently favors copyright holders at the expense of ordinary internet users. It recommends legislative reforms to amend the DPDP Act to strictly define the limits of data collection for anti-piracy purposes, establish an independent technical oversight board to verify dynamic injunction requests and prevent corporate censorship, and encourage "Privacy-by-Design" tools that allow platforms to protect content through anonymized tracking rather than mass surveillance. Ultimately, the research advocates for a balanced framework where the protection of intellectual property does not necessitate the sacrifice of the fundamental right to be let alone.