The Delhi High Court in India has approved a new type of pirate site-blocking order, requested by Netflix, Disney, Warner Bros, and other Hollywood studios.

The novel ‘Dynamic+ injunction’ requires Internet providers to block access to 'hydra-headed' pirate sites, and covers copyrighted content that doesn't yet exist.

Justice Pratibha M Singh of the Delhi High Court, adds yet another novel element to the mix.

The case at hand was filed by Warner Bros, Columbia Pictures, Netflix Studios, Paramount Pictures, and Disney.

The entertainment companies request ISPs and domain registrars to block or ban sixteen pirate sites, including DotMovies, Tamilvip, KissAsian, PopMovies and 9xFlix.

The Delhi High Court granted this request, which is nothing out of the ordinary. However, it also adds a new element. In addition to applying to current movies and series, it also covers content that doesn’t exist yet.

“To keep pace with the dynamic nature of the infringement that is undertaken by hydra-headed websites, this Court has deemed it appropriate to issue this ‘Dynamic+ injunction’ to protect copyrighted works as soon as they are created,” the order reads.

The Court notes that this will help to prevent irreparable losses “as there is an imminent possibility of works being uploaded on rogue websites or their newer versions” as soon as new films and series are created.

“Copyright in future works comes into existence immediately upon the work being created, and Plaintiffs may not be able to approach the Court for each and every film or series that is produced in the future, to secure an injunction against piracy,” the order adds.

Questions and Concerns

Dynamic injunctions were initially issued as an exception, but some legal scholars wonder whether these are slowly become the new normal. The Indian law blog SpicyIP has several articles on the subject and also discusses this latest order.
According to law student Reva Satish Makhija, one of the concerns is that ownership of new content is automatically assumed. This means that a resource is blocked before the counterparty can dispute the claim.

“The Delhi High Court’s attempt at securing the plaintiff’s rights from the possible, anticipated infringement at the hands of the defendant is well-meaning but requires more deliberation in the context of its efficacy in balancing party interests,” Makhija writes.

It’s not immediately clear whether this new expansion will have a broad impact right away. While it may be useful to block new sites that only offer fresh content, the current injunctions already appear to be quite effective.

Perhaps the Delhi High Court is trying to create its own hydra-headed injunction scheme? If one order isn’t effective, it can simply issue new ones to ensure that pirate sites are dealt with appropriately.

Considering what we do, it is interesting that I think specifically including future rights is legally and morally supportable.

ALL laws cover future acts, don't they? They actually are specifically excluding things that happened before. You cannot punish people for what they did BEFORE it was illegal, right?

Injunctions and court orders address things not specifically included in the original laws. They also create precedents that give direction, to the lawmakers, for future law.

This is one of the first steps in reducing piracy!

But is it really possible to reduce piracy or totally stop it?