IPMojo

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

by

Site-Blocking at Scale: Roadshow v Telstra 2025 and the Machinery of s 115A

Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 744 marks another brick in the ever-growing wall of Australian site-blocking jurisprudence. The decision adds little doctrinal spice but delivers a strong dose of enforcement pragmatism — and plenty to reflect on.

🎬 The Backstory

In this latest chapter of the Roadshow saga, rights-holders — including Disney, Netflix, Warner Bros., Paramount and others — sought injunctions under s 115A of the Copyright Act to block dozens of offshore streaming sites serving up pirated films to Australian users. The targets included notorious offenders like Hianime, Soap2Day, 123Movies, and HydraHD — many already well known to regular visitors of the Federal Court’s website.

📡 The ISPs: Here We Go Again

The respondents — a who’s who of Australia’s internet service providers (Telstra, Optus, TPG, Vodafone, Vocus, and Aussie Broadband) — all filed submitting appearances. They didn’t contest the application and were ordered to implement DNS, IP, and/or URL blocking within 15 business days of service. Compliance costs were awarded at $50 per domain, continuing the usual practice.

🧾 The Legal Machinery

Justice Younan applied the now-settled framework from the earlier Roadshow decisions. Key points:

  • The Court relied on deemed admissions and hearsay waivers (under s 190 of the Evidence Act) to accept that copyright subsisted, was owned or exclusively licensed to the applicants, and was being infringed.

  • Reasonable efforts had been made to notify the site operators, who unsurprisingly didn’t show.

  • The purpose and effect of the sites was plainly to infringe or facilitate infringement: free access to recent films, indexed and monetised by ads.

📈 Expansion Orders and Continuity Clauses

The orders include mechanisms for:

  • Rolling additions of new domains/IPs via solicitor certificates and no-objection notices;

  • Applications to extend the block after the initial 3-year lifespan expires;

  • Rights of affected site owners to apply to vary or discharge the order.

🧠 So What?

This case adds to a growing body of precedent that renders s 115A injunctions almost administrative when uncontested. The Federal Court has effectively created a template — one that large rights-holders can now run through with minimal friction.

But there are questions here too:

  • Does this model amount to efficient enforcement, or a piecemeal arms race?

  • Should there be more judicial scrutiny — especially where evidence is largely hearsay or paralegal-driven?

  • Is blocking access via ISPs still a meaningful remedy in a world of VPNs and mirror sites?

📌 Either way, the case underscores how s 115A — once a bold legislative experiment — is now part of the copyright enforcement machinery. It may not be glamorous, but it’s getting the job done.