Actions by Rival Music Platforms and Legal Implications: A Comprehensive Legal Analysis of Copyright and Competition Law in India

Abstract

The Indian music streaming market has been consolidated partially, and its competitors are beginning to behave in a manner that creates serious legal problems under Competition Act 2002 and Copyright Act 1997. Having a narrower focus on the statutory licensing provision, abuse of dominance, exclusive dealing, and the restriction of licensing, this paper will examine the primary legal risks caused by competitor actions. This paper explains ways in which courts and regulators restrict the conduct of copyright owners and sites with reference to important Indian case law. The paper also dwells on the GenAI and the way it can influence these platforms.

Introduction

The music streaming ecosystem across the world has transformed tremendously in the last five years. Due to the consolidation of the market, competition has greatly reduced; competitors such as Wynk Music, Resso, and Hungama have been acquired or closed down. The legal risk encountered by smaller entrants and midsize platforms is very high due to this consolidation and the strategic decisions undertaken by the dominant platforms including exclusive licensing arrangements, bundled distribution, form of telco partnerships, and aggressive pricing. In this case, any platform that seeks to thrive in the market should understand the way Indian courts and Competition Commission understand copyright and the competition law.

Exclusive content has emerged as an important strategy due to the increased rivalry between streaming platforms. An increasing amount of sound recordings and catalogues can only be accessed on specific platforms thanks to exclusive licensing agreements that limit cross-platform accessibility and eliminates customer options. This kind of exclusivity has severe consequences as per Indian competition and copyright law wherein dominant platforms utilize market power to deny smaller or novel services access, although it can be a commercial justification as a differentiation measure. According to Indian jurisprudence and regulatory review, including that of Competition Commission of India, exclusivity has to be assessed based on its real or probable harmful effects on competition rather than on its nature.

At the same time, the rapid adoption of generative AI technologies alters the operation of music platforms and their misuse. To train, optimise recommendations, or clone a voice, as well as to generate synthetic music, the GenAI systems increasingly rely on the bulk consumption of audio material, metadata, user interaction information, which is often acquired directly or indirectly through streaming platforms. This raises problematic legal matters related to the data protection specifications, the right of performers, the derivatives, and unlicensed reproduction. Platforms should also make sure that the manner in which they use GenAI is compliant with India’s emerging copyright, competition, and new AI regulation framework as well as ensure that their own uses of GenAI are not violating their own catalogues by AI agencies.

Statutory Licensing Framework Under Indian Copyright Law

A statutory (compulsory) licensing system for broadcasting organisations is introduced by Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957. The section stated that they must pay the owner royalties and provide advance notice. By allowing traditional radio and television broadcasters to access music catalogues at statutory (court-fixed) royalty rates, the legislative intent—as determined by parliamentary deliberation—was to prevent copyright owners from charging unreasonably high rates and preventing broadcast access.

Apart from this, if any person uses the work (literary work or artistic work) of other without their permission is considered to be have violated the rights of the copyright holder.

Wynk Music Ltd vs Tips Industries Ltd (2022)[1]

After the license agreement ended in 2016, Tips Industries' sound recordings were still broadcast and distributed by Wynk Limited, an online music streaming service that provides downloads, on-demand streaming, and offline access. In response to Tips' request for royalties for renewal, Wynk invoked Section 31D, asserting his right to a statutory licence and calculating royalties at 10 paise per stream (Rs. 1.41 crores). Tips filed a copyright infringement lawsuit.

The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that internet-based music streaming services are exempt from Section 31D and issued an injunction prohibiting Wynk from streaming or distributing Tips' music.

Competition Law: Abuse of Dominance and Copyright Licensing

Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 prohibits abuse of dominance by an enterprise holding a dominant position. Section 4(2) of the Act states –

“There shall be an abuse of dominant position [under sub-section (1), if an enterprise or a group],-

(a) directly or indirectly, imposes unfair or discriminatory--

(i) condition in purchase or sale of goods or service; or

(ii) price in purchase or sale (including predatory price) of goods or service. Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, the unfair or discriminatory condition in purchase or sale of goods or service referred to in sub-clause (i) and unfair or discriminatory price in purchase or sale of goods (including predatory price) or service referred to in sub-clause (ii) shall not include such [condition or price] which may be adopted to meet the competition; or …”[2]

HT Media Ltd v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd: CCI (2014)[3]

T-Series (Super Cassettes Industries) and HT Media, an FM radio station operator, entered into a licensing agreement for Bollywood music. HT Media believes that T-Series abused its dominant position by imposing Minimum Commitment Charges and charging exorbitant royalties. T-Series declined to discuss new conditions.

T-Series was found guilty of abuse of dominance by the Indian Competition Commission. Everyone agreed that T-Series dominated the market. In the end, the CCI fined T-Series Rs. 2.83 crores and ordered them to stop enforcing unfair licensing terms. 

Other Legal Frameworks (Copyright Act 1957)

From a legal standpoint, the Copyright Act of 1957 establishes a complex framework for music licensing that may appear contradictory at first. By allowing the owner of an existing work or the potential owner of a future work to grant any interest in the copyright through a license, provided that the license is in writing and executed by the owner or a duly authorised agent, Section 30 of Chapter VI expressly recognises the proprietary autonomy of the copyright owner. This clause upholds the fundamental idea that copyright, as a collection of exclusive rights, can be freely licensed by its owner as an incident of ownership.

Chapter VII, Section 33(1), on the other hand, has a regulatory limitation on the industry of licensing. It provides that no individual, group of individuals or corporate entity registered a copyright society under the Act shall conduct the business of issuing or licensing literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works to the extent that same is embodied in cinematograph films or sound recordings. This appears to go against the broad enabling language of Section 30 as it appears to preclude the licensing activity to any registered copyright society.

In the case of PPL v. Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court harmonised Sections 30 and 33 by making a crucial distinction between an owner exercising its proprietary right to license its own repertoire and an entity operating as an intermediary in the licensing business on behalf of multiple rightsholders, thereby resolving this statutory tension.

Azure Hospitality Pvt Ltd V. Phonographic Performance Ltd (2025)[4]

Phonographic Performance Limited filed an action against Azure Hospitality, which operates restaurants and hospitality establishments, for public communication of sound recordings without a valid licence. PPL claimed rights in the relevant sound recordings by assignment deeds executed under Section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1957, thereby having acquired the right to license public performance rights. Azure, on the other hand, objected to the locus standi of PPL on the ground that PPL was not registered as a copyright society after the 2012 amendments to the Act, having given up its earlier registration and not obtaining re-registration thereafter. Azure thus argued that in the absence of such registration, PPL was statutorily prohibited under Section 33(1) from carrying on the business of issuing licences.

The Delhi High Court considered the prima facie conflict between Sections 30 and 33 of the Copyright Act and reiterated the distinction between an owner licensing its own copyrighted works and an entity carrying on the business of licensing as a collective intermediary. While acknowledging that Section 30 preserves the right of a copyright owner to grant licences in its individual capacity, the Court insisted that Section 33(1) regulates organised licensing activities to prevent unregulated monopolisation and ensures transparency. The balance of these considerations precipitated the Court to uphold the Judge’s interim arrangement directing Azure to pay compensation to PPL at rates applicable for the registered copyright society for sound recordings, while taking note of the larger regulatory concerns raised by Azure. The ruling thus clarified that ownership-based licensing rights cannot be exercised in a manner that circumvents the statutory framework governing copyright societies, a question that is now pending final determination before the Supreme Court.

Generative AI

Competing music platforms are also adopting a combination of technologies, contracts and enforcement strategies which affect considerably the access to the market, the power of licensing as well as the legal liability to the competing music platforms. These activities encompass the application of AI-detection tools, harsh takedown and demonetisation policies, catalogue exclusivity/withdrawal policies, stricter licensing and indemnity models, and active litigation policies like pursuing dynamic injunctions against infringing services. These actions have been further intensified by the emergence of generative AI, in which platforms and rights-owners seek to regulate not only unauthorised sharing of sound recordings but also synthetic imitation of voices, styles, and performances which pose a threat to the economic worth of music catalogue.

Differentiation at the technological level, where leading platforms are starting to automated enforcement and AI moderation tools as a competitive advantage. Labels have a perception of lower-risk partners offering platforms with the capacity to identify infringing or AI-generated content on scale, and can thus be negotiated to sign more favourable licensing deals. Meanwhile, these platforms can also lead to the indirect increase of compliance threshold to the rivals, who in turn become described as poor enforcement points in the distribution chain. This energy is a reflection of judicial anticipation that is expressed in Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. MySpace Inc.[5] where the Court stated that intermediaries cannot be passive when they are aware of infringement and must show good-faith and active compliance measures.

Rival platforms are narrowing representations, warranties, audit rights, and indemnity provisions contractually, in particular with respect to GenAI risks like unauthorised training and voice cloning. Such contractual changes standardise the risk distribution throughout the industry and leave rival platforms with little room to offer softer terms to keep not seeming non-compliant or unfriendly towards artists. In the context where a platform declines to implement AI-restrictive terms, the rights-holders can react by restricting access to catalogue, or by making compliance more expensive, indirectly using the GenAI-related considerations to redefine competitive position.

Conclusion

The overall impact of competing platform behavior and the development of generative AI is an indication of something potentially radically different about the concept of legal accountability and market competitive edge in the digital music environment. The ability to enforce, the foresight of the contract, the AI governance are no longer the side issues, the measures of the legitimacy of a platform in the opinion of courts, regulators, and rights-owners. The Indian jurisprudence makes a clear pattern- the courts will be utilized to fit remedies to technological realities and the intermediary protection and commercial stability will be relied on transparency, responsiveness and respecting rights of creators.

To the Client, matching the magnitude of dominant platforms is irrelevant, the solution is to do better on legal preparedness and design of governance.

Author: Sarthak Gupta, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

[1] Legacypartners.in. (2022). Legacy Partners. [online] Available at: https://legacypartners.in/insights-and-research/wynk-music-vs-tips-industries-case-analysis [Accessed 24 Dec. 2025].

[2] Indiacode.nic.in. (2024). India Code: Section Details. [online] Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_22_29_00005_200312_1517807324781&orderno=4.

[3] Update on Interface between IPR and Competition Law. (n.d.). Available at: https://www.lakshmisri.com/Media/Uploads/Documents/Update%20on%20Interface%20between%20IPR%20and%20Competition%20Law%20-%20A%20NOTE.pdf [Accessed 24 Dec. 2025].

[4] J.P. Associates. (2025). Azure Hospitality vs. Phonographic Performance Case: Landmark Ruling in Indian Copyright Law - J.P. Associates. [online] Available at: https://jpassociates.co.in/azure-hospitality-vs-phonographic-performance/ [Accessed 24 Dec. 2025].

[5] wilmap.stanford.edu. (n.d.). My Space Inc. vs Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. | wilmap. [online] Available at: https://wilmap.stanford.edu/entries/my-space-inc-vs-super-cassettes-industries-ltd.