COPYRIGHT - whether site blocking orders should be made under s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) - Held: site blocking and related orders made
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
COPYRIGHT - whether site blocking orders should be made under s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) - Held: site blocking and related orders made
Judgment (16 paragraphs)
[1]
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
In these orders, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) Aussie Broadband means the forty-ninth Respondent.
(b) Domain Name means a name formed by the rules and procedures of the Domain Name System (DNS) and includes subdomains.
(c) DNS Blocking means a system by which any user of a Respondent's service who attempts to use a DNS resolver that is operated by or on behalf of that Respondent to access a Target Online Location is prevented from receiving a DNS response other than a redirection as referred to in Order 4.
(d) IP Address means an Internet Protocol address.
(e) Optus means the second to tenth Respondents.
(f) Target Online Locations means the online locations as referred to in Schedule A and that are or were accessible:
(i) at the URLs listed in Schedule A to this Order (together, the Target URLs);
(ii) at the IP Addresses listed in Schedule A to this Order (together, the Target IP Addresses);
(iii) at the Domain Names listed in Schedule A to this Order (together, the Target Domain Names); and
(iv) any other domain names, URLs and IP addresses that the Applicants notified to the Respondents pursuant to Order 12 (subject to the procedure set out in that Order).
(g) New Target Online Locations means the locations referred to in Order 13.
(h) New Target Online Location Orders refers to orders sought or made under Orders 13 or 15 hereof.
(i) Telstra means the first Respondent.
(j) TPG means the twenty-eighth to the forty-sixth Respondents.
(k) URL means a Uniform Resource Locator.
(l) Vocus means the thirteenth to twenty-seventh Respondents.
(m) Vodafone means the forty-seventh and forty-eighth Respondents.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Each Respondent must, within 15 business days of service of these Orders (and thereafter within 15 business days of an obligation to disable access to a Domain Name, IP Address or URL arising under Order 12), take reasonable steps to disable access to the Target Online Locations.
Order 1 is taken to have been complied with by a Respondent if that Respondent implements any one or more of the following steps:
(a) DNS Blocking in respect of the Target Domain Names;
(b) IP Address blocking or re-routing in respect of the Target IP Addresses;
(c) URL blocking in respect of the Target URLs and the Target Domain Names; or
(d) any alternative technical means for disabling access to the Target Online Locations as agreed in writing between the Applicants and a Respondent.
If a Respondent in complying with Order 1 does not implement one of the steps referred to in Order 2, that Respondent must, within 15 business days of service of these Orders, notify the Applicants of the step or steps it has implemented.
Each Respondent must use reasonable efforts to redirect any communication by a user of its service seeking access to the Target Online Locations which have been disabled pursuant to Order 1 to a webpage established, maintained and hosted by either:
(a) the Applicants, or their nominee, pursuant to Order 5; or
(b) that Respondent or its nominee.
The Applicants' obligations pursuant to Orders 5 and 6 only arise if a Respondent notifies the Applicants that the Respondent will redirect a communication pursuant to Order 4(a) and for so long as at least one Respondent redirects communications to that webpage.
The Applicants, or their nominee, must establish, maintain and host a webpage which informs users of a Respondent's service who have been redirected to the webpage pursuant to Order 4 that access to the website has been disabled because this Court has determined that it infringes or facilitates the infringement of copyright.
Within 5 business days of these Orders, the Applicants will notify each of the Respondents in writing of the URL of the webpage established, maintained and hosted under Order 4 and, if the webpage ceases to operate for any reason, will notify each of the Respondents in writing of a different URL that complies with Order 5.
If, in complying with Order 4, a Respondent redirects any communication by a user of its service to a webpage established, maintained and hosted by it, that Respondent or its nominee must use reasonable efforts to ensure that the webpage informs the user of that Respondent's service that access to that the website has been disabled because this Court has determined that it infringes or facilitates the infringement of copyright.
In the event that any of the Applicants has a good faith belief that:
(a) any Target URL, Target IP Address or Target Domain Name which is subject to these Orders has permanently ceased to enable or facilitate access to any Target Online Location; or
(b) any Target URL, Target IP Address or Target Domain Name has permanently ceased to have the primary purpose or effect of infringing or facilitating the infringement of copyright,
a representative of the Applicants must, within 15 business days of any of the Applicants forming such a good faith belief, notify each Respondent of that fact in writing, in which case the Respondents shall no longer be required to take steps pursuant to Order 1 to disable access to the relevant Target URL, Target IP Address or Target Domain Name that is the subject of the notice.
A Respondent will not be in breach of Order 1 if it temporarily declines or temporarily ceases to take the steps ordered in Order 1 (either in whole or in part) upon forming the view, on reasonable grounds, that suspension is necessary to:
(a) maintain the integrity of its network or systems or functioning of its blocking system;
(b) upgrade, troubleshoot or maintain its blocking system;
(c) avert or respond to an imminent security threat to its networks or systems; or
(d) ensure the reliable operation of its ability to block access to online locations associated with criminal content if it reasonably considers that such operation is likely to be impaired, or otherwise to comply with its statutory obligations including under section 313(3) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth),
provided that:
(e) unless precluded by law, it notifies the Applicants or their legal representative(s) of such suspension, including the reasons and the expected duration of such suspension, by 5.00 pm on the next business day; and
(f) such suspension lasts no longer than is reasonably necessary and, in any case, no longer than 3 business days or such period as the Applicants may agree in writing or the Court may allow.
The owner or operator of any of the Target Online Locations and the owner or operator of any website who claims to be affected by these Orders may apply on 3 days' written notice, including notice to all parties, to vary or discharge these Orders, with any such application to:
(a) set out the orders sought by the owner or operator of the Target Online Locations or affected website; and
(b) be supported by evidence as to:
(i) the status of the owner or operator of the Target Online Locations or affected website; and
(ii) the basis upon which the variation or discharge is sought.
The parties have liberty to apply on 3 days' written notice, including, without limitation, for the purpose of any application:
(a) for further orders to give effect to the terms of these Orders;
(b) for further orders in the event of any material change of circumstances including, without limitation, in respect of the consequences for the parties and effectiveness of the technical methods under Order 2;
(c) for orders relating to other means of accessing the Target Online Locations not already covered by these Orders; and/or
(d) for an order in this proceeding extending the operation of the orders.
If a website the subject of any of the Target Online Locations is at any time during the operation of these Orders provided from a different Domain Name, IP Address or URL outside Australia, the Applicants may, by their solicitor:
(a) file and serve a notice in writing to the Respondents and the Court that:
(i) identifies the different Domain Name, IP Address or URL; and
(ii) certifies that, in the good faith belief of the Applicants and their solicitor, the website operated from the different Domain Name, IP Address or URL is a new location for any of the Target Online Locations the subject of these Orders and brief reasons therefore;
(b) within 7 business days of the notice given pursuant to Order 12(a), the Respondents must notify the Applicants and the Court in writing if they object to taking steps pursuant to Order 1 to disable access to the Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 12(a);
(c) if any Respondent objects to disabling a Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 12(a), or the Court otherwise considers it appropriate to do so, the proceeding will be relisted for further directions; and
(d) If, within the time period specified in Order 12(b) no Respondent objects to disabling access to any Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 12(a) and the Court does not otherwise require the proceeding to be relisted, then upon receipt of a notification from the Applicants that the Court does not require the matter to be relisted, that Respondents must take steps pursuant to Order 1 to disable access to the Domain Name, IP Address or URL notified in accordance with Order 12(a).
The Applicants have leave to file and serve an amended originating application seeking further orders (New Target Online Location Orders) in respect of any additional target online location (New Target Online Location) that appears to the Applicants' solicitors to be associated with any of the Target Online Locations (based on its name, branding or the identity of its operator) and making available online or facilitating access to the same or substantially the same content that the Target Online Location is or was previously making available online.
Subject to any further order or direction, the leave granted under Order 13 continues to apply for the duration of these Orders.
Subject to any further order or direction, if the Applicants file any amended originating application pursuant to Order 13, then the following shall apply:
(a) The Applicants must serve on the Respondents a copy of the amended originating application together with any supporting affidavit evidence to be relied on in support of the application for the New Target Online Location Orders within 7 days of filing the amended originating application;
(b) The Applicants must give notice of their application for the New Target Online Location Orders in accordance with the requirements of s 115A(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth);
(c) Any Respondent who wishes to be heard in relation to the New Target Online Location Orders must notify the Applicants and the Court within 7 business days after being served in accordance with Order 15(a) above;
(d) If no notice is given by any Respondent in accordance with Order 15(c) above, then the Applicants may approach the Court for the purpose of seeking the New Target Online Location Orders and the Court may in its discretion, consider and determine the application for the New Target Online Location Orders on the papers without further notice and without any oral hearing.
These Orders are to operate for a period of 3 years from the date of these Orders.
If an Applicant makes an application under Order 11(d) to extend the period of operation of these Orders, the following procedure applies:
(a) the application must be made at least 28 days prior to the expiry of the operation of the orders by filing a minute of the orders sought together with a solicitor's certification in accordance with (b) below;
(b) a solicitor on behalf of the Applicant must certify that:
(i) within the 6 weeks prior to the application, the solicitor or another representative of the Applicant has attempted to access each Target Online Location via each Target Domain Name;
(ii) following the exercise in (b)(i) above, the solicitor has a good faith belief that each Target Online Location that is the subject of the application has not permanently ceased to have the primary purpose or effect of infringing or facilitating the infringement of copyright, and that each Target Domain Name, Target URL or Target IP address that is the subject of the application has not permanently ceased to enable or facilitate access to a Target Online Location;
(iii) the Applicant has given the Respondents at least 7 days' notice of the application;
(c) the accompanying minute of order may specify any Target Domain Names, Target URLs or Target IP addresses that are excluded from the application;
(d) within 7 days of receiving notice of the application, any Respondent objecting to the extension of these orders must notify the Applicant and the Court in writing of the objection and the reasons therefor;
(e) if any Respondent objects in accordance with (d) above, the proceeding will be relisted for directions, unless the Court otherwise orders;
(f) if no Respondent gives notice of any objection, then the Court may make orders in terms of the Applicant's minute without any further hearing;
(g) the Applicant must serve on the Respondents any such orders made; and
(h) the Applicant must attempt to give each relevant Target Online Location notice of the Orders made by sending an email to one email address identified by such Location as providing a means to contact its operator or administrator (if any is identified), further notifying it that it may seek to vary or set aside such Orders upon the filing of a notice of appearance with the Court and an appropriate application, supported by affidavit evidence.
The Applicants pay Telstra's, Optus', Vocus', TPG's, Vodafone's and Aussie Broadband's compliance costs calculated at the rate of $50 per Domain Name the subject of DNS Blocking undertaken for the purposes of complying with Order 1.
There be no order as to costs.
To the extent necessary, the Applicants are excused from taking any further steps to give notice to the Respondents under s 115A(4) of the Act.
The Applicants have leave to file a further amended originating application and further amended statement of claim in the form handed up in Court on 3 December 2024.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Schedule A - Target Online Locations
No. Target Online Location Target Domain Names Target URLs Target IP Addresses
INTRODUCTION
1 This is an application for orders under s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) including site blocking and ancillary orders in respect of Target Online Locations (as defined in the applicants' proposed orders). Most of the Target Online Locations are accessible via one or more domain names (Target Domain Names), URLs (Target URLs) and IP addresses (Target IP Addresses). The relevant copyright works are cinematograph films.
2 The applicants move on a further amended originating application and further amended statement of claim, copies of which were handed up in Court with an undertaking that the documents would be filed immediately following the hearing. By these amended documents, the applicants abandoned their claims for relief in respect of three inactive New Target Domain Names (in respect of which the evidence was deficient) and against two entities in the Optus respondent group, Vaya Pty Ltd and Vaya Communications Pty Ltd (previously identified as the 11th and 12th respondents) who are no longer carriage service providers. These party designations are not used in the final iteration of the documents that will be filed.
3 This proceeding is the latest in a line of proceedings which commenced with Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2016] FCA 1503; 248 FCR 178 (NSD 239 of 2016) (Roadshow No 1) which I will refer to collectively as the Roadshow Proceedings. The applicants seek orders substantially in the same form as the orders made in Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Limited [2024] FCA 246; 178 IPR 231 (Roadshow No 14) and Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v Telstra Limited [2024] FCA 485 (Roadshow No 15). In these reasons I have assumed familiarity with the decisions in the earlier Roadshow Proceedings to which I refer.
[3]
THE PARTIES
4 The applicants are producers and/or distributors of commercially released motion pictures and television programs throughout the world, including Australia. Largely the same groups of applicants and copyright works as were relevant in the previous Roadshow Proceedings are involved and/or relevant to this application. The exception is the 11th applicant, Viacom International Inc., which is part of the same corporate group as the fourth applicant, Paramount Pictures Corporation. Viacom is relevantly the owner of copyright in five cinematograph films (television series episodes) that have not been previously relied on in the Roadshow Proceedings, but which are relevant to this application.
5 The applicants were represented at the hearing by Ms F St John of counsel, instructed by Baker McKenzie. In advance of today's hearing, I was grateful to receive detailed written submissions carefully referenced to the evidence on which the applicants intended to rely. The written submissions were updated at the hearing and supplemented by oral submissions.
6 The respondents are carriage service providers within the definition in s 87 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth). They are the same groups of respondents as in previous Roadshow Proceedings. The respondent groups are: Telstra Limited (first respondent); Optus (second to 10th respondents); Vocus (13th to 27th respondents); TPG (28th to 46th respondents); Vodafone (47th and 48th respondents); and Aussie Broadband Limited (49th respondent). Telstra, Aussie Broadband and the Optus, TPG and Vodafone respondent groups have filed submitting appearances. The Vocus respondents have been served but have not appeared or sought to be heard.
7 When the matter was called for hearing, including outside the Courtroom, there was no appearance on behalf of any of the respondents.
[4]
EVIDENCE
8 The applicants read the following affidavits:
(1) Andrew Gavin Stewart (solicitor for the applicants) affirmed 2 December 2024, save for paragraph 43 and pages 105 to 107 of the Annexure marked AGS-1 which were not read;
(2) Min Sung Choo (solicitor for the applicants) affirmed 8 November 2024; and
(3) Min Sung Choo affirmed 2 December 2024.
9 The applicants tendered Exhibit MC-2 to Ms Choo's first affidavit which was a USB portable hard drive disk containing videos of examples of certain Target Online Locations and Target Domain Names. The applicants handed up an aide memoire as an accompaniment to Exhibit MC-2 which comprised a table which included screenshots taken from the videos accompanied by descriptions in the form of supplemental submissions.
10 The applicants also tendered a list of signatories to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works as at 1 August 2023.
[5]
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES
11 The legislative framework and applicable principles have been set out in a number of the Roadshow Proceedings. I will not repeat the relevant framework and applicable principles here. I gratefully adopt and apply the principles set out in Roadshow No 1 at [25]-[26] (Nicholas J) as supplemented by Burley J in Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Corporation Limited (Extension of Orders) [2023] FCA 1167 at [7]-[12] and Halley J in Roadshow No 15 at [12]-[13] and [23].
[6]
CONSIDERATION
12 Based on the evidence led, and applying the principles identified in the Roadshow authorities to which I have referred, I am satisfied that the applicants have established:
(1) service of the proceedings and other documents on the respondents, or that sufficient steps have been taken to bring the proceedings to the attention of the respondents;
(2) the respondents' status as carriage service providers (s 115A(1));
(3) the Target IP Address of the Target Online Locations, as those terms are defined in the orders sought;
(4) infringement (s 115A(1)(a));
(5) the primary purpose and/or primary effect of each of the Target Online Locations (s 115A(1)(b));
(6) copyright subsistence, ownership and licensing of the copyright works (s 115A(3)(a)); and
(7) notice to owners or operators of the Target Online Locations (s 115A(4)(b)) or that sufficient steps have been taken to give such notice.
13 I will address each of these issues in turn before turning to consider the matters identified in s 115A(5).
[7]
Service
14 I am satisfied that the operators of the Target Online Locations have been duly notified of this proceeding and the orders sought by the applicants or, to the extent they have not been so notified, that reasonable efforts to notify them have been made. The applicants' solicitors sent notices about the proceedings, by email and post, to the addresses identified at the Target Online Locations, and also to addresses identified in the domain name and IP address searches conducted by the applicants' solicitors. The owners or operators of the Target Online Locations did not provide any substantive response to the applicants' notification of this proceeding. Most owners or operators did not respond at all. Some owners or operators provided automated responses, which were generated by Cloudflare, Inc., an online service described by Nicholas J in Roadshow No 1 at [22]. None of the owners or operators of the Target Online Locations the subject of the applicants' proposed orders applied to be joined or otherwise appeared in the proceeding.
[8]
Status as carriage providers (s 115A(1))
15 The extant respondents are carriage service providers within the definition in s 87 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth). The applicants rely on the deemed admissions arising as a result of the allegation to this effect made in the pleadings. Submitting appearances have been filed by all respondents other than the Vocus respondents. The Vocus respondents were directed to file an address for service or submitting appearance but have not done so. They have not sought to dispute or put the applicants to proof on this issue.
[9]
IP Address of Target Online Locations
16 The Target Online Locations are listed in the updated version of Table 1 annexed to Ms Choo's second affidavit. The applicants have identified both "streaming" locations and where relevant, a "linking" location. The Target Domain Names include both "primary" domain names, which are the main locations that provide the functionality which facilitates the infringement of which the applicants complain; and "secondary" domain names, which redirect users to corresponding primary domain names.
17 The applicants rely on the presumption in s 115A(5A) of the Act that the online location is outside Australia, unless the contrary is established. Further to the statutory presumption, searches undertaken by the applicants' solicitors demonstrate that each of the Target IP Addresses was registered or created, and each of the Target Domain Names was registered, overseas.
[10]
Infringement
18 I am satisfied that each of the Target Online Locations infringes the applicants' copyright in one or more of the copyright works.
19 Ms Choo gives evidence that she was able to access at least one cinematograph film owned or exclusively licenced by the applicants on each of the Target Online Locations. She gives evidence of the steps taken in order to view the relevant film and then proceeded to watch segments of the relevant film from the beginning, middle and end of the film. Exhibit MC-2 includes three examples of the process by which Ms Choo accessed and watched the opening credits, parts of the film and closing credits of films owned or exclusively licenced by the applicants. As mentioned, an aide memoire handed up as an accompaniment to Exhibit MC-2 further illustrates summarily the effect of the evidence on this issue. Ms Choo watched the authorised copies of the relevant films so as to be able to confirm that the parts of the films that she accessed on the Target Online Locations were to her observation the same as the authorised copies of the applicants' films.
[11]
Primary purpose or primary effect of each of the Target Online Locations (s 115A(1)(b))
20 The evidence established that the primary purpose or effect of each of the Target Online Locations is to infringe, or to facilitate the infringement of, copyright. The primary service offered by the Target Online Locations is facilitating online access to motion pictures and television programs, without charge. The Target Online Locations offer vast catalogues and include directories, indexes or categories of motion pictures and television programs to facilitate easier access to content.
21 In addition to the films relied on by the applicants for standing, each Target Online Location makes available a significant number of other recent and well-known motion pictures and television programs. Ms Choo gives evidence of the relevant content available on the Target Online Locations. In Table 3 annexed to Ms Choo's first affidavit, she sets out other recent and/or well known films made available on the Target Online Locations
22 A majority of the Target Online Locations carry advertising which is displayed to users. I would infer that the advertising generates revenue for the owners or operators of the sites.
23 Many of the Target Online Locations include statements about copyright compliance, claiming to have a copyright infringement notification regime, or claiming that the website does not infringe copyright. However, the evidence demonstrates that the operators of the relevant sites have been unresponsive to notifications from the applicants in relation to complaints about what is alleged to be infringing conduct. To the extent that responses were received in relation to allegations of infringement, Ms Choo gives evidence and provides examples of the responses received. Counsel for the applicants described the responses as lacking in substance and being akin to chasing a series of rabbits down barren burrows. The analogy is apt. It is stark that none of the responses in evidence, including those which appear to be generic or automatically generated, include any assertion as to being authorised in relation to the copyright works.
[12]
Copyright subsistence, ownership and licensing of the copyright works (s 115A(3)(a))
24 The applicants are the owners or exclusive licensees of the copyright in Australia of 47 relevant films and television program episodes. As mentioned, this includes five new cinematograph films owned by Viacom that have not been previously relied on in the previous Roadshow Proceedings. The applicants also rely on the statutory presumptions in ss 126 and 131 of the Act, and on deemed admissions on the pleadings. To the extent that the applicants rely on deemed admissions arising on the pleadings, the relevant allegations were contained in the iteration of the pleadings that were served on the respondents.
25 The evidence on this issue extends to the use of copyright notices on the DVD sleeves of the applicants' films and in the closing credits of episodes of the applicants' television series and international copyright certificates.
26 The applicants have not granted any licence or consent to the owners or operators of the Target Online Locations to copy or communicate the cinematograph films. That is an inference which I draw based on the evidence of Mr Stewart and Ms Choo read on this application.
27 To the extent that it is necessary to do so, noting that the evidence led in relation to Roadshow Films Pty Limited (the First Applicant) being the exclusive licensee of the copyright in Australia in the cinematograph film "The Lego Movie" is in the form of hearsay, I admit that evidence notwithstanding that it is hearsay by exercising my discretion to waive the rules of evidence under s 190 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) on the basis that this issue does not appear to be genuinely in dispute in circumstances where the respondents have submitted or not appeared and Village Roadshow Films (BVI) Ltd (the Second Applicant) is the owner of the said copyright.
28 The applicants have demonstrated that the relevant cinematograph films which were made or first published overseas are still relevantly protected under the Act by reference to sections 90 and 184(1)(a) of the Act, regulation 4(1) of the Copyright (International Protection) Regulations 1969 (Cth) and by reference to the Berne Convention, of which the United States is relevantly a signatory.
[13]
Notice to owners or operators of Target Online Locations (s 115A(4)(b))
29 Based on Ms Choo's detailed evidence of the steps taken to notify the owners or operators of the locations comprising the Target Online Locations and the New Target Online Locations (as those terms are defined in the orders sought), I am satisfied the applicants have made reasonable efforts to comply with s 115A(4) of the Act. Accordingly, to the extent necessary, I will dispense with need for the applicants to take any further steps to effect the notice stipulated in s 115A(4) of the Act.
[14]
Discretion
30 I now turn to consider whether I should exercise the discretion to make orders substantially as sought by the applicants.
31 Having considered the matters in s 115A(5) of the Act, I am satisfied that an injunction should be granted in the terms sought by the applicants against each of the respondents in respect of each of the Target Online Locations. I accept the applicants' submissions that the evidence amply demonstrates that the Target Online Locations infringe copyright and do so in a manner which is flagrant. The sites are simple to use, they offer large catalogues of infringing material and many of them display advertising to users. I infer that the owners or operators of the locations profit from the advertising. The owners or operators of the locations display a disregard for copyright generally. The evidence demonstrates that some of the locations include copyright statements directed to give the impression, falsely, that the locations are copyright compliant. One of the Target Domain Names, 'aniwave.to', has been the subject of orders made by the High Court of Delhi on 21 November 2023.
32 The applicants submit, and I accept, that disabling access to the Target Online Locations is a proportionate response. There is no evidence or indication that there will be any impact on any person or class of persons likely to be affected by the grant of the injunction, except that users will not be able to access infringing material, and that the operators of the site will be deprived of visits by Australian users.
33 Finally, I note that the applicants maintain their claims for relief in respect of 11 Target Domain Names which were found to be inactive. Mr Stewart, having exposed his qualification to do so by dint of his professional practice in this area, deposed to his opinion that inactive domain names can be reinstated quickly and easily. For this reason, the applicants submit, and I accept, that making orders in respect of the inactive sites is likely to be utile and is also an appropriate exercise of discretion. It is proportionate for an order to be made at this time in relation to these inactive domain names, rather than requiring the applicants to apply to the Court afresh at a later date in the event that access to these domain names from Australia is re-enabled or proves to be only temporarily inactive.
34 Having regard to the evidence outlined above and taking into account the matters identified in s 115A(5) of the Act, I am satisfied that the copyright infringement engaged in, or facilitated by, the Target Online Locations is flagrant and that the operators display a blatant disregard for the rights of copyright owners. The relief sought is a proportionate response in all of the present circumstances. This is an appropriate case for making the site blocking and ancillary orders sought by the applicants.
[15]
CONCLUSION
35 I will make orders for the relief sought by the applicants.
I certify that the preceding thirty-five (35) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Cheeseman.
[16]
Associate:
Dated: 3 December 2024
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
NSD 1035 of 2024
Applicants
Fourth Applicant: PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION
Fifth Applicant: COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC.
Sixth Applicant: UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC
Seventh Applicant: WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.
Eighth Applicant: NETFLIX STUDIOS, LLC
Ninth Applicant: NETFLIX WORLDWIDE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC
Tenth Applicant: APPLE VIDEO PROGRAMMING LLC
Eleventh Applicant: VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC.
Respondents
Fourth Respondent: OPTUS ADSL PTY LIMITED
Fifth Respondent: OPTUS SATELLITE PTY LIMITED
Sixth Respondent: UECOMM OPERATIONS PTY LIMITED
Seventh Respondent: OPTUS INTERNET PTY LIMITED
Eighth Respondent: OPTUS MOBILE MIGRATIONS PTY LIMITED
Ninth Respondent: OPTUS WHOLESALE PTY LIMITED
Tenth Respondent: AMAYSIM MOBILE PTY LIMITED
Thirteenth Respondent: M2 WHOLESALE PTY LTD
Fourteenth Respondent: M2 WHOLESALE SERVICES PTY LTD
Fifteenth Respondent: M2 COMMANDER PTY LTD
Sixteenth Respondent: PRIMUS NETWORK (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
Seventeenth Respondent: PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD
Eighteenth Respondent: PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
Nineteenth Respondent: DODO SERVICES PTY LTD
Twentieth Respondent: ENGIN PTY LTD
Twenty First Respondent: EFTEL CORPORATE PTY LTD
Twenty Second Respondent: EFTEL RETAIL PTY LTD
Twenty Third Respondent: EFTEL WHOLESALE PTY LTD
Twenty Fourth Respondent: WHOLESALE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP PTY LTD
Twenty Fifth Respondent: VOCUS PTY LTD
Twenty Sixth Respondent: AMNET BROADBAND PTY LTD
Twenty Seventh Respondent: NEXTGEN NETWORKS PTY LIMITED
Twenty Eighth Respondent: TPG INTERNET PTY LTD
Twenty Ninth Respondent: TPG NETWORK PTY LTD
Thirtieth Respondent: FTTB WHOLESALE PTY LTD
Thirty First Respondent: CHARIOT LIMITED
Thirty Second Respondent: SOUL PATTINSON TELECOMMUNICATIONS PTY LIMITED
Thirty Third Respondent: SPT TELECOMMUNICATIONS PTY LIMITED
Thirty Fourth Respondent: SPTCOM PTY LIMITED
Thirty Fifth Respondent: SOUL COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD
Thirty Sixth Respondent: PIPE NETWORKS PTY LIMITED
Thirty Seventh Respondent: INTRAPOWER TERRESTRIAL PTY LTD
Thirty Eighth Respondent: IINET LIMITED
Thirty Ninth Respondent: INTERNODE PTY LTD
Fortieth Respondent: TRANSACT CAPITAL COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD
Forty First Respondent: TRANSACT VICTORIA COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD
Forty Second Respondent: WESTNET PTY LTD
Forty Third Respondent: ADAM INTERNET PTY LTD
Forty Fourth Respondent: AAPT LIMITED
Forty Fifth Respondent: REQUEST BROADBAND PTY LTD
Forty Sixth Respondent: TPG TELECOM LIMITED
Forty Seventh Respondent: VODAFONE NETWORK PTY LIMITED
Forty Eighth Respondent: VODAFONE PTY LIMITED
Forty Ninth Respondent: AUSSIE BROADBAND LIMITED