Delhi High Court ruling on rogue website blocking for Home Box Office v Streamzy.to

• The Delhi High Court has ruled that internet intermediaries cannot unilaterally decide whether a website is a 'rogue website' liable to be blocked.
• Copyright owners must approach the Court for a determination before requesting a website to be blocked.
• The ruling aims to prevent arbitrary or unjust decisions being made by intermediaries in online piracy cases.

This is, therefore, not a case of incidental infringement, but one where the primary purpose of the websites appears to be to facilitate infringement of the plaintiffs’ copyright

A recent Delhi High Court ruling has clarified the process for determining whether a website is liable to be blocked due to copyright infringement. The case involved Home Box Office Inc (HBO) and others, who filed a suit against 30 groups of websites accused of illegally streaming their movies and television shows. HBO claimed that these websites made movies available immediately after or even before release, and that the operators had concealed their identities through privacy protection services.

The Court found prima facie that the websites bore the hallmarks of flagrantly infringing online locations, with masked registrant details, no traceable contact information, and overwhelmingly unlicensed content. The ruling noted that this was not a case of incidental infringement, but one where the primary purpose of the websites appeared to be facilitating copyright infringement.

The Delhi High Court has clarified that internet intermediaries, including ISPs, cannot unilaterally decide whether a website is a 'rogue website' liable to be blocked. According to the ruling, such decisions must remain with the Court. This means that copyright owners cannot simply approach an intermediary and ask them to block a website without first obtaining a determination from the Court.

The Court's decision was made in response to a suit filed by HBO against 30 groups of websites accused of copyright infringement. The ruling has significant implications for internet intermediaries, who must now follow a more formal process when dealing with requests to block websites.

The Delhi High Court's ruling on rogue website blocking has important implications for lawyers and compliance officers. Internet intermediaries, including ISPs, cannot unilaterally decide whether a website is liable to be blocked, and copyright owners must approach the Court for a determination. This means that companies must now follow a more formal process when dealing with requests to block websites, which could lead to increased costs and complexity.

The ruling also highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in online piracy cases. By requiring the Court to make determinations on whether a website is liable to be blocked, the ruling aims to prevent arbitrary or unjust decisions being made by intermediaries.

Lawyers and compliance officers should note that the Delhi High Court has clarified that internet intermediaries, including ISPs, cannot unilaterally decide whether a website is a 'rogue website' liable to be blocked, and copyright owners must approach the court for a determination.

Source: Original reporting via [Source]