NICHOLAS J:
1 Before the Court is an application for orders under s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ("the Act") for site blocking and ancillary orders. The proceeding was commenced by an originating application and statement of claim.
2 The applicants are well-known producers and distributors of commercially released films and television programs. The respondents are carriage service providers. All except for the fifty-second respondent is a member of the Telstra, Optus, Vocus or TPG groups. The proceeding as against the twenty-fourth, twenty-sixth and twenty-eighth respondents has been discontinued. The thirteen to thirtieth respondents have not filed any submitting notice or notice of address for service. All other respondents filed submitting notices. None of the operators of the online locations which are the subject of the applicants' proposed orders applied to be joined or otherwise appeared in the proceeding.
3 The application is supported by affidavits made by the applicants' expert witness, Gregory Donald Fraser, and the applicants' solicitors, Andrew Gavin Stewart, Peter Carstairs, Jackson Moir and Tiffany Britchford. Among other things those affidavits recount the efforts made to bring to the attention of the operators of the online locations the existence of this proceeding and the site blocking orders sought by the applicants.
4 The evidence relied on by the applicants shows that each of the online locations is most likely situated overseas. The applicants also rely on the statutory presumption in s 115A(5A) of the Act. The evidence satisfies me that the primary service provided by each of the relevant online locations involves providing online access without charge to motion pictures and television programs. The vast majority of the online locations carry advertising. The motion pictures and television programs made available at the online locations include large numbers of well-known commercially released titles, the copyright in which is owned by one or more of the applicants or other copyright owners. The evidence satisfies me that the primary purpose and effect of each of the online locations is to infringe, or facilitate the infringement of, copyright in motion pictures and television programs.
5 Turning to the matters relevant to the discretion to make an order under s 115A, it is apparent from the evidence that the online locations facilitate copyright infringement on a large scale. Some act as proxy servers to other servers and some share Torrent files using the BitTorrent protocol (see Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2016] FCA 1503; (2016) 248 FCR 178) at [17]-[20]. The vast majority of the online locations provide access to directories, indexes and content descriptions which assist users in locating titles for streaming, download or sharing.
6 Many of the websites at the relevant online locations purport to provide a notification system enabling a copyright owner to give notice that its material is being made available online in breach of copyright. Many of the websites also include statements stating or implying that their activities do not infringe copyright. The notification systems do not appear to provide any genuine, reasonable or effective means for notifying operators of copyright infringement occurring at their online locations.
7 Most of the operators did not respond to communications from the applicants' solicitors and those that did respond do not appear to have taken any steps to cease making the applicants' motion pictures and television programs available online. Some of the responses received (of which there were only a few) came from persons or entities claiming to be the domain name registrar or hosting provider who said they lacked power to control content on the site.
8 The evidence satisfies me that the copyright infringement engaged in, or facilitated by, the relevant online locations is flagrant and that the operators display a disregard for the rights of copyright owners.
9 In my opinion this is an appropriate case for making the site blocking and ancillary orders sought by the applicants.
10 Orders accordingly.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Nicholas.