The infringing conduct
22 Each targeted site engages in various infringements by one or more of the following processes: linking, streaming, BitTorrenting (that is, sending parcels of a film in packets of digitised information that are later assembled on a viewer's computer with a program that enables the torrented material to be reassembled coherently), or permitting the downloading of infringing copies of the owners' films. Nicholas J described the way in which each of these technologies operates in Roadshow 248 FCR 178 that I need not repeat here. Sometimes the online location will do this through the use of a proxy site, being one that provides a link to another infringing site from which the linking, streaming, torrenting or downloading can then take place.
23 Some of the targeted sites appear, in effect, to be a replica or clone of another site that this Court, or an overseas Court, had made the subject of a blocking order. In other words, once the online location overseas realises that access to it has been blocked, its operator carries on the infringing conduct on a lookalike site that will be found readily by the previous users of the now blocked site. The new site has substantively the same user interface or get up as that of the blocked site and continues to engage in the same infringing activity.
24 Many of the targeted sites either display advertising material that appears, or is associated, with the provision of the infringing copies, or facilitate what appear to be pop-up advertisements. The pop-ups do not appear directly on the site itself, but present to the viewer as he or she attempts to navigate on the targeted site to obtain the infringing copy of the film that the site displays as being available through its servers.
25 A site which, without the authority of the owners or exclusive licensee, either links directly to, streams or torrents a copyright work, necessarily infringes or facilitates the infringement of copyright by making available the copyright work directly to the computer of the person accessing the site. A proxy site facilitates, at the very least, infringement by providing a link to an online location that in turn will itself link, stream, torrent or permit downloading of an infringing copy. Some of the targeted sites offer many of the same films, albeit that the sites appear to be operated by different persons in overseas locations.
26 I am satisfied that each of the sites is a site that, first, infringes or facilitates an infringement of copyright, and secondly, has the primary purpose, or the primary effect, of so infringing or facilitating that infringement of copyright. The evidence establishes that these sites display as available, not only the various films as pleaded in the further amended statement of claim in which the owners own the copyright in Australia (or, in Madman's case, exclusively license it), but also a vast number of other apparently well known, popular films.
27 I have also had regard to the relevant matters in s 115A(5) as disclosed in the evidence. The infringements of copyright in evidence are flagrant. Because of the large number of instances and the significant volume of materials in evidence it is not possible or necessary to analyse in detail the circumstances of each and every targeted site or instance of infringement.
28 Gregory Fraser is the content protection investigations manager Australia/New Zealand for the Motion Picture Association. His affidavits explored in detail the way in which many of the targeted sites operate, and the nature of the infringing conduct. This evidence demonstrated that the expressed purpose of those sites is to facilitate users of the internet to access websites that infringe or facilitate the infringement of copyright and that that is the primary purpose or effect of each targeted site.
29 The applicants' solicitor, Andrew Stewart, explained, in respect of many of the MPA applicants' films (but also more generally), that some of the targeted sites, or those from which they had been cloned, were the subject of blocking measures, such as injunctions granted by this Court, by the High Court of Justice for England and Wales, the High Court at Dublin, Ireland, and the High Court at Delhi in India. Mr Stewart provided a number of untranslated orders by Courts of other countries, including Italy, that appear to be analogous blocking orders against some of these sites.
30 One example of an operator that appears to have recreated a blocked site through various emanations trades on online locations under the brand name "The Pirate Bay". The three versions of sites for the brand "The Pirate Bay" display brazenly a logo featuring a pirate ship with a skull and crossbones on her sails. Some emanations of "The Pirate Bay" have already been made the subject of blocking orders. Another such site is called RapidMoviez. A person who goes on the internet to these targeted sites is presented with an array of available content that appears to comprise films, including those in issue here, that the site offers for access at no charge.
31 Wu Kam Ming, TVB's head of IP technology in its legal and regulatory department, explained how he had established that some of the targeted sites had engaged in a similar pattern of infringement of the copyright of TVB's films that Mr Fraser described. One of the online locations that Mr Wu investigated was Dramanice. That comprised two domain names, "dramanice.movie" and a mirror site, "dramanice.site" which operated in the same way as Mr Fraser explained about the targeted sites that he visited.
32 Joel Vagnoni, the business and legal affairs executive for Madman, gave similar evidence of targeted sites' conduct that infringed the copyright in Tokyo Ghoul and other films for which Madman held an exclusive licence for Australia from other copyright owners trading under the Anime brand.
33 All of the targeted sites contain directories, indices or categories of the means to infringe or facilitate the infringement of copyright in the owners' films and those of third parties. Some of the operators of the targeted sites demonstrate disregard for copyright generally by seeking to avoid blocking measures while offering access to films that they must know are copyright. Numerous operators have so configured their targeted sites that the operator cannot be contacted and its identity is disguised, through the reverse proxy process. Thus, there is no practicable means by which anyone who might wish to alert them to the infringements of copyright can do so.
34 In some cases the targeted sites use advertising or other means of obtaining reward, such as through the enabling of pop-up advertisements when their sites are accessed, to exploit their provision of the owners' copyright material, adding insult to the copyright owners' injury.
35 In my opinion, an order requiring the sites and providers to disable access to each of the targeted sites is a proportionate response to the scale and flagrancy of infringing conduct in the circumstances. I am mindful that the impact on each of the target site operators, or owners, will be to interfere with whatever is either their business model or their motivation in unlawfully infringing, or facilitating the infringement of, the owners' copyrights. However, that interference is necessary to protect the owners' copyright and does not appear to infringe any right of the persons who own or operate the target sites. Moreover, I consider that it is in the public interest to disable access to each targeted site. That is because the sites seek to undermine the lawful rights of the owners and others to the protection of their intellectual property.