The judgment establishes the need for dynamic injunctions to protect copyrighted works, including future works, and emphasizes the role of ISPs and government authorities in combating internet piracy.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

I.A. 14122/2023 (u/S 80 CPC)

2. This is an application filed by the Plaintiffs, seeking exemption from serving notice to Defendant No. 26-Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Defendant No. 27-Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) under Section 80 of the CPC.

3. Exemption is allowed. However, Mr. Harish V. Shankar, ld. CGSC has been requested to accept notice.

4. Accordingly, application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) 514/2023 & I.A. 14120/2023(u/O XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC)

5. The Plaintiffs before this Court are well-established Hollywood Studios which are engaged in the production, distribution of a large volume of original creative content including cinematograph films, TV series, motion pictures, etc. (hereinafter `content'). The list of Plaintiffs in the present petition is set out in the following table:

6. The Plaintiffs claim that the content created, produced and distributed by, or on behalf of the Plaintiffs' studios, can be accessed and viewed on a variety of devices including Televisions, Personal Computers, laptops, Tablets, Mobile Phones, etc. The said gadgets also permit authorised streaming and downloading of this content. The Plaintiffs' studios own Copyright in the entire content which is protectable as cinematograph films and also own rights in various underlying works - which are recognised under the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter, `the Act'). The Plaintiffs also claim to have devoted enormous resources in the creation, production and distribution of the content, as also communication of the content so developed to the public. It is also stated that considerable effort and resources are used for even marketing and advertising of the content developed by the Plaintiffs.

7. Technology has posed a major challenge for entities like the Plaintiffs as there is a proliferation of a large number of platforms including websites from where unauthorised, unlicensed and pirated content of the Plaintiffs can be downloaded, accessed and viewed by customers and viewers. The process of production of copyrighted content is a continuous one and almost on a daily basis new content is being added into the bouquet of content of the Plaintiffs. Thus, the content consisting of films, TV series, shows, etc. is itself dynamic in nature and the reproduction, hosting, uploading, streaming, downloading, broadcasting, telecasting or making available of this content in an unauthorized manner is, apart from constituting infringement of Copyright also resulting in enormous monetary loss to the Plaintiffs.

8. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs against various websites which are permitting the viewing, streaming, accessing and downloading of such content without any license or authorisation from the Plaintiffs. The various websites which are impleaded as Defendant Nos. 1 to 16 have different avatars but continue to make available the unauthorised content of the Plaintiffs and also other copyright holders. Such websites primarily contain content which is being taken in an unauthorised manner, from various platforms including that of the Plaintiffs. Some of the websites are newer versions of rogue websites which have been injuncted in other litigation. Some of the glaring features of these rogue websites are as follows:

i) No details are available as to the persons or entities who have registered the domain names and the websites have subscribed to features like privacy protect, to hide/mask their identity;

ii) There is no clarity from a perusal of the websites as to who is the person or entity who is making available the content, which is being hosted, streamed or viewed on these websites;

iii) There are no contact