Delhi HC Issues Interim Injunction Under Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 CPC Against Rogue Cyberlocker Doodstream in Warner Bros. Copyright Suit, Directs Takedown and Disabling of Link Regeneration

Delhi High Court Orders Rogue Cyberlocker Doodstream to Disable Link Regeneration in Major Copyright Suit

New Delhi: In a significant development concerning online content piracy, the Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction directing rogue cyberlocker websites Doodstream.com, doodstream.co, dood.stream, and their operators to not only take down infringing content but also disable features that allow users to regenerate links and re-upload copyrighted material.

The order, passed by Justice Anish Dayal on March 18, 2024, comes in a suit filed by a consortium of major entertainment companies, including Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Amazon Content Services LLC, Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., Netflix US, LLC, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions LLP, and Apple Video Programming LLC.

The plaintiffs, represented by Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal and others, contended that the defendant websites (D-1 to 3) are specifically designed to incentivize and facilitate the unauthorized uploading, hosting, streaming, and downloading of copyrighted material. These platforms allegedly allow users to create a library of content accessible globally.

A key grievance highlighted by the plaintiffs was the 'hydra-headed' nature of the infringement. Despite efforts to notify defendants and request takedowns since June 2023 (after identifying operators D-5 and 6 in Coimbatore), the defendants' platform architecture immediately allowed the generation of a new link the moment a takedown occurred, rendering policing ineffective.

Expert testimony presented by Mr. Daniel Seymour (BCGuardian LLP) and Mr. Nikhil Kumar Gakhar (MarkScan) differentiated the defendant websites from simple content aggregators, noting the lack of filters and the immediate subversion of takedown requests through link regeneration. An assessment of sampled non-adult content revealed that 37% belonged to the plaintiffs, with the rest also appearing prima facie infringing.

Plaintiffs' counsel argued for applying parameters established by the Court in UTV Software Communication Ltd. & Ors. v. 1337x.to and Ors. (2019:DHC:2047) for identifying and dealing with 'Flagrantly Infringing Online Locations' (FIOLs), seeking complete blocking or administration takeover.

Appearing on advance notice for the defendant websites and operators, Mr. K. S. Elangovan , Mr. Venkatesh Mohanraj , and Mr. Sameer Aslam offered a significant undertaking. They stated their readiness to comply with a complete takedown of all plaintiffs' infringed material. Crucially, they further undertook to disable features allowing link regeneration and re-uploading, specifically mentioning the removal of "generate link" and "disable download link (protected option)" tabs. They also assured they would modify their architecture to prevent such circumvention post-takedown and would not permit infringing content of any sort.

Taking the defendants' undertaking into consideration, the Court issued the following interim directions under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

1. Defendants must take down all listings of plaintiffs’ infringing content within 24 hours of receiving written/email communication from plaintiffs’ counsel.
2. Defendants must disable all features facilitating link regeneration and re-uploading post-takedown, specifically removing the "generate link" and "disable download link (protected option)" tabs.
3. Defendants must file an affidavit, certified by a Chartered Accountant, disclosing their total generated revenues since the launch of the websites.
4. Defendants must file an affidavit detailing all de-listing requests received from any entity, and whether the requested content was subsequently available on their platforms.
5. Plaintiffs' investigator account (Username: skullshot123, Email: skullshot13@gmail.com) shall remain active on defendants' platforms to monitor compliance, including access to the global search feature.

The Court clarified that if any violation or non-compliance is found, the plaintiffs are at liberty to approach the Court. The defendants were granted time to file a reply affidavit.

The case is listed for further hearing before the Joint Registrar on May 22, 2024, for marking of exhibits and before the Court on April 8, 2024. The order marks a crucial step in holding platforms accountable not just for hosting infringing content but also for features designed to frustrate enforcement efforts.