Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information: Sections 65A and 65B of the Copyright Act

Digital content distribution depends on technological protection measures (TPMs) — encryption, access controls, watermarking, digital rights management (DRM) systems — and on rights management information (RMI) that identifies the work, the author, the terms of use. The Copyright Act, 1957 was amended in 2012 to add Section 65A (protecting TPMs) and Section 65B (protecting RMI). The provisions criminalise circumvention of technological measures and tampering with rights management information, in line with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The framework applies across digital content categories — film, music, software, e-books, streaming services. This guide explains what each provision covers, the exceptions, the penalties, and the practical implications for content owners and platforms.

Section 65A — Technological Protection Measures

Section 65A makes it an offence to circumvent an effective technological measure applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by the Copyright Act, with the intent to infringe those rights. Imprisonment up to 2 years and fine. The key elements:

• Effective technological measure — any technology, device or component designed to prevent or restrict unauthorised acts in respect of copyrighted works. Includes encryption, access controls, copy-prevention systems, region locks
• Circumvention — bypassing, removing, disabling or defeating the technological measure
• Intent to infringe — the circumvention must be with the intent to commit acts that would infringe copyright. Innocent circumvention for permitted purposes is not within Section 65A

The provision includes specific exceptions for permitted uses — circumvention for the purpose of doing anything not constituting infringement of copyright (e.g., fair-dealing acts under Section 52, reverse engineering for interoperability under Section 52(1)(ab)).

The lock is protected. Breaking the lock is the offence. Walking around it for fair use is not.

Section 65B — Rights Management Information

Section 65B makes it an offence to:

• Knowingly remove or alter any rights management information without authority
• Knowingly distribute, import, broadcast or communicate to the public copies of works from which rights management information has been removed or altered

Imprisonment up to 2 years and fine. The provision applies to:

• Watermarks — visible or invisible identifiers embedded in digital content
• Metadata — file metadata identifying the work, author, copyright holder, licence terms
• DRM tags — tags identifying authorisation status, permitted uses, expiration
• Author identification — explicit credits, attribution information
• Licence terms — embedded statements of permitted uses and conditions

What 'effective technological measure' means

The TPM does not need to be foolproof to be 'effective' under Section 65A. Indian courts have interpreted 'effective' broadly to include:

• Encryption schemes — even those that can technically be broken with sufficient effort
• Access controls — login systems, subscription verification
• Copy-prevention systems — disabling save, screenshot, or print functions
• Region locks — geo-blocking on streaming and content platforms
• Watermarks that identify the licensed user (forensic watermarks)
• Format restrictions — proprietary formats that require specific software to access

The provision applies to measures applied 'for the purpose of protecting copyright rights' — meaning measures designed to enforce permissions tied to the copyright. General security measures unrelated to copyright (e.g., privacy-protection encryption) are not within Section 65A's scope.

The exceptions

Section 65A includes important exceptions where circumvention is not an offence:

• Circumvention for any of the acts permitted under Section 52 (fair-dealing, educational use, news reporting, criticism and review, etc.)
• Circumvention for the purpose of research undertaken by a lawful user
• Circumvention for the purposes of national security
• Circumvention for the purpose of law-enforcement or evidence-gathering
• Circumvention for the purposes of reverse engineering for interoperability of an independently created computer programme (linking to Section 52(1)(ab))

The exceptions limit the offence to genuinely infringing circumvention. Academic research, security testing of legitimately purchased products, and interoperability development remain lawful.

How content owners use the framework

Indian content owners — film studios, music labels, streaming platforms, educational publishers, coaching institutes, OTT services — combine Section 65A and 65B with the underlying copyright infringement claim:

• Civil action — seeking injunction, damages and delivery up under standard copyright infringement remedies
• Criminal complaint — adding Section 65A or 65B charges to the copyright infringement charges under Section 63
• Platform takedowns — using TPM circumvention or RMI tampering as additional grounds for Section 79 IT Act notice-and-takedown demands
• Customs interdiction — IPR recordation supports interdiction of imported circumvention devices and tools

The interaction with Section 79 IT Act

Online platforms hosting user-uploaded content that strips TPMs or RMI face exposure under the intermediary safe-harbour framework. The safe harbour requires platforms to remove infringing content on receiving actual knowledge through court orders or government notifications. Specific 65A/65B violations (e.g., a forum hosting DRM-stripping software) typically receive faster takedown response from platforms because the violation is more clearly identifiable than general copyright disputes.

The international context

Sections 65A and 65B implement India's obligations under the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), both of which India ratified. The corresponding international provisions:

• WCT Article 11 (obligations concerning technological measures)
• WCT Article 12 (obligations concerning rights management information)
• WPPT Articles 18 and 19 (similar provisions for performances and phonograms)

The Indian implementation is broadly consistent with the international framework, with appropriately calibrated exceptions for fair-dealing and research uses.

The takeaway

Sections 65A and 65B of the Copyright Act protect the digital infrastructure of copyright enforcement — the encryption, access controls, watermarks and rights management information that make commercial content distribution possible. The provisions criminalise circumvention and tampering with intent to infringe, while preserving exceptions for fair-dealing, research and interoperability. For Indian content owners operating in OTT, streaming, e-learning, e-books and digital media, the framework adds an important enforcement layer alongside underlying copyright protection. IPForte's IP litigation practice handles 65A/65B matters in conjunction with broader copyright enforcement.