Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Limited

Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 744 is a Federal Court site-blocking decision under s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The applicants, including Roadshow and Disney-related rights holders, asked the court to require Australian carriage service providers to disable access to a list of overseas streaming sites said to infringe, or facilitate infringement of, copyright in films for which the applicants held Australian rights.

The court granted the application and made detailed operational orders. Those orders required the respondents to take reasonable steps within 15 business days to disable access to the target online locations, allowed several technical blocking methods, required reasonable efforts to redirect users to an explanatory webpage, created a process for dealing with changed domains and other new access points, and set the orders to operate for 3 years. The court also ordered the applicants to pay compliance costs at $50 per domain name for DNS blocking, and made no order as to costs generally.

The commercial story is familiar in online copyright enforcement. The applicants were film and entertainment businesses involved in creating, distributing, licensing and marketing films and related content. They said a group of websites outside Australia were offering free streaming of films in which the applicants owned, or exclusively licensed, copyright in Australia.

Rather than trying to pursue the operators of those sites directly in a fully contested proceeding, the applicants used the statutory site-blocking mechanism. That mechanism allows the court, in the right circumstances, to order carriage service providers to disable access to online locations outside Australia. The respondents were major Australian telecommunications and internet service provider groups, including Telstra, Optus, TPG, Vodafone, Vocus and Aussie Broadband.

The target online locations were all described as streaming locations. Schedule A to the orders listed 35 of them, together with the relevant domain names, URLs and IP addresses. The list included sites such as Hianime, HydraHD, Soaper, Nyafilmer, Voiranime, Vidplay, 1flix, Soap2day, Watchseries, Losmovies, Miruro and Aniwave. The orders were therefore aimed at a broad set of identified access points, not just one website name.

Procedurally, the matter was largely unopposed. Most respondents filed submitting notices and did not contest the application at the hearing. The Vocus respondents did not appear despite an earlier order requiring them to file the necessary material. The owners or operators of the target online locations also did not appear. The applicants had tried to notify them by using contact details they could identify, including postal addresses, email addresses and online forms where available, but most responses were absent, automated or not substantive.

The applicants relied on three affidavits. Two were from Andrew Gavin Stewart, the partner in charge of the matter at Baker McKenzie, and one was from Jackson Ion Moir, a paralegal working under his supervision. The judgment records that Mr Stewart had experience in 17 previous applications brought under s 115A.

The applicants also tendered a USB portable hard drive containing two recordings said to show Mr Moir's screen as he accessed examples of the cinematograph films on certain target online locations and target domain names. In addition, the applicants handed up an aide memoire in supplementary submissions, containing a table of screenshots selected from the videos together with descriptions of the screenshots and the relevant webpage functionality by timestamp.

On copyright ownership and subsistence, the applicants relied on statutory presumptions and on evidence including copyright notices displayed on DVD sleeves, copyright notices displayed on the Netflix website during the closing credits of several films, and US copyright certificates for a number of the films. They also relied on hearsay evidence from Mr Stewart that the applicants were the owners, or in the case of the first applicant the exclusive licensee, of copyright in Australia in the films, and that neither the applicants nor their licensees had authorised the owners, operators or users of the target online locations to copy or communicate the films to the public.

The court noted that this ownership and licensing evidence included hearsay. Because the application was uncontested and the issue was said not to be genuinely in dispute, the applicants asked the court to dispense with s 59 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) under s 190. The court accepted that course and admitted the evidence on that basis.

The legal question was whether the requirements for orders under s 115A of the Copyright Act were met. From the available reasons, that required the court to consider at least the following matters: whether the respondents were carriage service providers, whether the target online locations were outside Australia, whether reasonable efforts had been made to notify the owners or operators of those locations, whether copyright subsisted in the relevant films and was owned or exclusively licensed by the applicants in Australia, and whether the target online locations infringed, or facilitated infringement of, that copyright.

Because the matter was largely unopposed, the court also had to deal with procedural and evidentiary issues. These included whether the applicants could rely on deemed admissions arising from the respondents' failure to contest pleaded facts, and whether hearsay evidence about ownership and licensing could be admitted by dispensing with the hearsay rule under s 190 of the Evidence Act.

The judgment expressly says that the court adopted the legislative summary and legal principles set out in earlier Roadshow site-blocking proceedings, including the original 2016 Roadshow decision and a 2023 extension decision. That is important context because this case sits within an established line of Federal Court site-blocking matters rather than breaking entirely new ground.

Justice Younan granted the application. On the issues clearly visible in the available reasons, the court was satisfied that the respondents were carriage service providers for the purposes of s 115A. The court accepted that the respondents' failure to dispute that status, together with the filing of submitting notices by most respondents and the lack of any contrary response to correspondence about whether they still provided carriage services, supported that conclusion. The court referred to authority on deemed admissions where a party fails to meet a claim or join issue.

The court was also satisfied that the target online locations were outside Australia. The applicants relied on the presumption in s 115A(5A) and on evidence that each target IP address was registered or created overseas and each target domain name was registered overseas. The court accepted that evidence.

On notice, the court found that reasonable efforts had been made to notify the owners or operators of the target online locations. The applicants had used available postal addresses, email addresses and online forms. Because those efforts largely did not produce substantive responses, and no owner or operator appeared, the court dispensed with any need for further notice steps to satisfy s 115A(4)(b).

On copyright subsistence and ownership or exclusive licensing, the court relied on statutory presumptions, deemed admissions and the evidence described above. It also dispensed with the hearsay rule for the relevant evidence under s 190 of the Evidence Act on the basis that the matter was not genuinely in dispute. The court then stated that it was satisfied the applicants were the owners or exclusive licensees of the copyright in the cinematograph films in Australia.

The available reasons then move into the question whether the target online locations infringed, or facilitated infringement of, the applicants' copyright. The text available for this page stops part-way through that discussion. Even so, the final orders and catchwords make clear that the application was granted and that the court was satisfied to make the site-blocking and ancillary orders sought.

The orders are detailed and operational. Each respondent had to take reasonable steps within 15 business days of service of the orders to disable access to the target online locations. If a later obligation arose under the update mechanism in Order 12, the same 15-business-day period applied.

The court said a respondent would be taken to have complied if it implemented one or more of the specified technical methods: DNS blocking for target domain names, IP address blocking or re-routing for target IP addresses, URL blocking for target URLs and target domain names, or another technical means agreed in writing between the applicants and the respondent. If a respondent used some other method without relying on one of the listed methods, it had to notify the applicants within 15 business days of the steps it had implemented.

The orders also dealt with user communications. Each respondent had to use reasonable efforts to redirect users seeking access to blocked target online locations to a webpage hosted either by the applicants or by the respondent. That webpage had to inform users that access had been disabled because the court had determined that the website infringes or facilitates the infringement of copyright. If the applicants' webpage was used, the applicants had to notify each respondent of the URL within 5 business days and provide a replacement URL if the page later ceased to operate.

There were practical protections for respondents too. A respondent would not be in breach if it temporarily declined or ceased to take the blocking steps on reasonable grounds where suspension was necessary to maintain network integrity, upgrade or troubleshoot the blocking system, respond to an imminent security threat, or preserve its ability to block criminal content or comply with statutory obligations including under s 313(3) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth). But that suspension had to be notified promptly unless precluded by law, and it had to last no longer than reasonably necessary and in any event no longer than 3 business days unless the applicants agreed or the court allowed otherwise.

A central commercial issue in site-blocking cases is that operators of streaming sites often move to new domains, URLs or IP addresses after an order is made. The court's orders directly addressed that problem. If the applicants and their solicitor formed a good faith belief that a website already covered by the orders was being provided from a different domain name, IP address or URL outside Australia, the applicants could file and serve a notice identifying the new access point and certifying the basis for that belief.

The respondents then had 7 business days to object. If a respondent objected, or if the court considered it appropriate, the matter would be relisted. If no respondent objected and the court did not require relisting, the respondents had to take the required blocking steps once notified that relisting was not required.

The orders went further than simple migration. The applicants were also given leave to file an amended originating application seeking further orders in respect of additional target online locations that appeared to their solicitors to be associated with the original target online locations, based on name, branding or operator identity, and that were making available online or facilitating access to the same or substantially the same content. Subject to further order, that leave continued for the duration of the orders.

The orders also included an extension mechanism. If the applicants wanted the orders extended beyond the initial 3-year period, they had to apply at least 28 days before expiry and provide a solicitor's certification that recent access attempts had been made and that the relevant locations had not permanently ceased the infringing or facilitating purpose or effect. Respondents could object within 7 days. If no respondent objected, the court could extend the orders without a further hearing.

For businesses, this part of the case is important because it shows that site-blocking orders are designed to deal with the practical reality of domain hopping and mirror sites. Changing the address of a site does not necessarily end the effect of the order.

The orders were made on 9 July 2025 and were to operate for 3 years from that date. That means the initial period runs to 9 July 2028 unless the orders are varied, discharged or extended.

The court made a specific compliance cost order. The applicants were required to pay Telstra's, Optus', Vocus', TPG's, Vodafone's and Aussie Broadband's compliance costs calculated at the rate of $50 per domain name that was the subject of DNS blocking undertaken for the purpose of complying with the blocking order. The court also ordered that there be no order as to costs generally.

The orders preserved rights to apply. The owner or operator of any target online location, and the owner or operator of any website claiming to be affected by the orders, could apply on 3 days' written notice to vary or discharge the orders, supported by evidence about status and the basis for the relief sought. The parties also had liberty to apply for further orders to give effect to the orders, address material changes of circumstances, deal with other means of access, or seek an extension.

This procedural structure matters because it shows the court balancing enforcement with a mechanism for later challenge or adjustment. The orders are strong, but they are not entirely closed off from review if circumstances change or an affected operator comes forward.

Most businesses will never be named as a respondent in a Federal Court site-blocking case. But the decision still gives a clear picture of how Australian copyright enforcement works online. If your business publishes, hosts, embeds, curates, indexes or monetises entertainment content, you should not assume that being one step removed from the original upload keeps you safe. The statutory language used in the case includes online locations that infringe or facilitate infringement, which can capture conduct broader than direct uploading.

If you run a content platform, app, directory, affiliate site or embedded player service, review where your content comes from and whether it is authorised for Australia. If your team uses third-party plugins, feeds or offshore sources, check the licence chain and the terms of use. If you receive complaints from rights holders, have a process for investigating quickly and preserving records of what was supplied, by whom and under what licence.

If you are a carriage service provider or another business that may be asked to implement technical restrictions, this case is a practical reminder that compliance is not just legal theory. Orders can specify deadlines, acceptable technical methods, redirection obligations, objection windows, temporary suspension rules and cost arrangements. Internal technical and legal teams should understand who handles each step and how notices are escalated.

For rights holders, the case confirms that the Federal Court continues to use s 115A as a practical enforcement tool where offshore streaming sites are involved and direct participation by site operators is absent. For everyone else in the digital content chain, the safer approach is to treat copyright compliance as an operational issue from the start, not as something to fix only after a complaint arrives.

This page is based on the Federal Court judgment in Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 744, dated 9 July 2025. The available text clearly records the parties, hearing date, catchwords, orders, target online locations and substantial parts of the reasons.

The available reasons stop part-way through the court's discussion of whether the target online locations infringed, or facilitated infringement of, the applicants' copyright. Because of that limitation, this page does not try to reconstruct reasoning that is not visible. It instead explains the parts of the judgment that are clearly available and flags where further nuance may exist in the full reasons.