Introduction

In real time, the rapid expansion of music-streaming services has remodelled the way in which copyrighted music can be accessed and commercially exploited. Traditionally, physical distribution of music sold permanent ownership of tangible items like CDs; streaming makes platforms capable of making vast classifications of musical works, and digital networks make continuous availability of sound recordings possible. Such access to services remains subject to the copyright owner’s exclusive rights and the extent of the licence permitted to the platform.

In the guidance of the Copyright Act, 1957, the term “communication to the public” extends to the work available to the public at large for being heard or otherwise enjoyed; as a result, it brings digital music services within the framework of copyright regulation.

The legal proposition is especially notable when music streaming continues to make thousands of songs available to its subscribers even when their contractual licence granted by a music label has expired. The continued use after the expiry period falls outside the scope of contractual permission and plausibly constitutes a copyright infringement. Section 51 of the Act specifically deals with infringement when any person, without the licence or in contravention of its conditions, does an act which falling within the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.

This issue raises a significant question: what are the legal consequences when a streaming platform continues to exploit copyrighted music after the expiry of the licence? Its answer involves more than a contract dispute between the platform and the music label. It needs proper examination of the nature and scope of copyright infringement, licenced rights, statutory rights and a clear distinction between streaming and downloading.

Copyright and Licensing in the Music-Streaming Ecosystem

The exploitation of music commercially through streaming platforms involves diverse layers of copyright. A single song contains separate rights, fundamentally in music composition, sound recording and lyrics; performers may enjoy independent rights in their performance.¹ The Copyright Act recognises copyright in musical works and sound recordings.² Section 14 of the Act defines the exclusive rights constituting copyright. Regarding the musical work, it includes reproduction, storage, public performance and communication to the public. These rights of the music streaming platform can be accessed through contractual licensing arrangements only. The copyright owner gets an interest in the copyright by licence in writing under the guiding provision of Section 30 of the Act. The platforms may exploit the relevant repertoire within the legal boundaries determined by the licence. Its terms may specify the duration of the licence, territory, catalogue covered, permitted modes of exploitation, royalty obligations, and rights relating to downloads or offline access.³

The question is whether the word “broadcast”, which is defined in Section 2(dd) of the Copyright Act 1957 which often used to refer to radio and television, also applies to online streaming. The highly debated section of the Act is section 31D, which deals with the statutory licences for broadcasting of literary and musical works as well as sound recordings by notifying them of their intention to broadcast the work and paying a royalty fee determined by IPAB. Section 31D may not apply to online music streaming because the final user in it have control over the audio output, as it has the feature of downloading/reproducing the song, which differs from broadcasting.⁴

Accordingly, a streaming licence should not be understood as an unrestricted or general permission to use music. Once the contractual arrangement period expires, the streaming platform must establish another legal basis for its continued use.

When the Licence Expires: From Authorised Use to Copyright Infringement

A copyright licence functions within the boundaries of its terms granted for a specified period; the platform’s power to exploit the licence repertoire extends only for that period and in accordance with the conditions agreed between the parties. The expiry of the licence is legally more significant because the platform cannot implicitly rely upon the original contractual authorisation, citing that it had previously been permitted to use copyrighted work.

Copyright infringement is where a person, without a licence or in violation of the conditions of a licence, does anything that the Act grants exclusively to the copyright owner.⁵ Thus, where a platform continues to use a label’s repertoire after the relevant licence has expired, the central question is whether the continuing activity amounts to an exercise of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights without authorisation.

The expiry of the licence raises issues related to copyright infringement, contract law, and intellectual property rights. It can create additional legal risk for streaming platforms, as they may be held liable for distributing music without proper authorisation.⁶

In the context of keeping copies of songs in music streaming, this issue is significantly important because the platform is not only merely instead it may continue making the recordings available to subscribers through its digital services.

The licence’s expiration may create two distinct but possibly overlapping consequences. Firstly, the streaming platform may face copyright infringement under section 51 where it continues to exercise the right reserved only to the copyright owner after the licence expiry without authorisation. Secondly, it may face contractual consequences which can arise from the contract terms of the licensing arrangement.⁷ All these legal consequences depend upon the terms of the licence, the nature of the continuing exploitation and the availability of a statutory exception.

It becomes very important to distinguish between different forms of digital exploitation. On-demand streaming, permanent downloads and offline listening may involve different rights and thus cannot necessarily be treated as legally the same. The Bombay High Court’s analysis in Tips Industries Ltd v. Wynk Music Ltd⁸ significantly centres on this distinction.

Tips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Ltd.: The Indian Position

The legal dispute between Tips Industries Ltd. and Wynk Music Ltd. is a notable Indian case dealing with copyright licensing and online music services. Tips Industries possesses copyright in a large repertoire of sound recordings and had previously licensed this repertoire to Wynk, an online music streaming service. The licence arrangement expired, and the parties were unable to agree upon its continuation. Tips initiated proceedings alleging that Wynk, after the expiry of the licence, continued exploitation of its repertoire, including its downloading, purchasing and streaming services.

In 2019, the Bombay High Court, in its judgment, examined several questions concerning the relationship between digital music services and copyright. It also considered whether Wynk could rely upon Section 52, and whether Wynk could invoke the Statutory Licence under Section 31-D for its activities.⁹

The court made a distinction between different forms of exploitation. It was held that Wynk’s feature of download and purchase implicated the rights of the copyright owner under Section 14(1)(e); on the other hand, the on-demand streaming services implicate rights related to communication of sound recording to the public. Wynk’s attempt to rely on Section 31-D as a statutory basis for its internet-based services was also rejected by the Court.¹⁰

Importantly, the Tips v. Wynk litigation was ultimately settled. The parties agreed that the 2019 judgment would govern their rights concerning Tips’ repertoire and Section 31-D, which is again subject to contractual arrangements.¹¹ This judicial reasoning remains important in understanding the legal treatment of streaming, downloading and statutory licensing, especially when a platform continues to exploit copyrighted music without a fresh contractual licence.

Remedies and Compliance for Music-Streaming Platforms

Where it is the continued exploitation amounts to copyright infringement, the copyright owner is not limited to ending the contractual and commercial relationship. The Copyright Act has provisions for civil remedies, including injunctions, damages and accounts of profits.¹²

If an infringement is of a continuing nature, an injunction may be particularly important in the digital environment. If, after the expiry of the licence, thousands of songs remain available to subscribers, every continued act of making the repertoire available may have commercial consequences. A rights holder may seek an order preventing further unauthorised exploitation.¹³

The Copyright Act also acknowledges damages and accounts among the remedies available for infringement. A monetary relief claim may also arise for the infringement. It depends upon the facts, evidence of exploitation and applicable contractual terms and legal framework.¹⁴

The licensing arrangements should clearly mention the territory, duration of licence, royalty obligations, what forms of exploitation are permitted, termination and post-termination access. This framework can reduce uncertainty when a dispute arises and can help the platforms reveal that their digital operations remain within the scope of the rights actually acquired.¹⁵

Conclusion

The rise of music streaming has fundamentally changed how copyrighted works reach listeners, but it hasn’t changed the basic legal principle that access to a copyright owner’s repertoire is a matter of contract, not entitlement. A licence defines the boundaries of lawful use, its duration, its permitted modes of exploitation, its territory, and once that licence lapses, the platform’s authority to keep exploiting the work lapses with it. Continuing to make songs available after that point isn’t a grey area; it’s an exercise of rights that belong exclusively to the copyright owner, and Section 51 treats it accordingly.

The Tips Industries v. Wynk dispute illustrates why this distinction matters in practice, not just in theory. The Bombay High Court’s willingness to separate downloading and purchasing from on-demand streaming shows that “continued use” isn’t a single, uniform act; different modes of exploitation implicate different exclusive rights, and each needs its own legal justification. The court’s rejection of Section 31-D as an alternative for internet-based streaming further confirms that platforms cannot lean on statutory licensing to paper over a gap left by an expired commercial agreement. Broadcast-style statutory mechanisms were built for a different kind of transmission, and courts have so far declined to stretch them to cover on-demand digital access.

For streaming platforms, the practical lesson is straightforward: licence expiry is a compliance deadline, not a formality. Continued availability of a label’s catalogue beyond that date exposes platforms to infringement claims, injunctions, and potentially significant damages, quite apart from any separate breach-of-contract liability under the underlying agreement. The safest course is for licensing arrangements to address these questions upfront, specifying not just duration and royalties but also what happens to previously streamed or downloaded content once the term ends, and building in operational safeguards so that access is actually switched off when the legal right to provide it is. As streaming continues to displace older models of music distribution, this kind of contractual precision, backed by the clarity offered by decisions like Tips v. Wynk, will only become more important in keeping platforms on the right side of copyright law.

References

1. Copyright Act 1957, s 38.
2. Copyright Act 1957, s13.
3. Copyright Act 1957, ss 19 and 30A.
4. Shreya Rastogi, ‘The Way Forward for Online Streaming: Analyzing the Copyright Issues in Music Licensing’ 5 JIPL (2020) 27.
5. Copyright Act 1957, s 51.
6. Novika Ishar, ‘What Happens When TV Show Music Licensing Expires?’ (Romano Law, 11 February 2025) https://www.romanolaw.com/what-happens-when-tv-show-music-licensing-expires/
7. Indian Contract Act 1872, s 73.
8. Tips Industries Ltd v Wynk Music Ltd, Commercial IP Suit (L) No 113 of 2018 (Bom HC, 23 April 2019).
9. K Srivalli Vaishnavi, ‘Copyright Laws – Rise of Digital Music Streaming In India’ 2.1 JCLJ (2021) 716.
10. Tips Industries (n 7).
11. Tips Industries (n 7).
12. Copyright Act 1957, s 55.
13. Copyright Act 1957, s 55(1).
14. Copyright Act 1957, s 55(1).
15. Copyright Act 1957, ss 19(2)(3), 30, 30A.