New Delhi: In a copyright plea, the Delhi high court has restrained 83 websites from playing and downloading songs of over 280 movies, including the upcoming Aamir Khan-starrer Dangal, following a plea by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd which has its copyright.
Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw in an interim order directed Internet service providers like Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, Bharti Airtel Ltd, Reliance Communications Infrast-ructure Ltd and Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd to block access to these websites immediately.
It issued notice to the department of telecommunications and asked it to ensure compliance of its direction before the next date of hearing on January 4.
Besides the Centre, court notices were also issued to 16 internet service providers, 83 websites and five other sites which provided domain masking services.
The Delhi high court said the compliance of the order and notices shall be served to the defendants on their respective email addresses.
It said that a prima facie case is made out in favour of Zee and irreparable loss will be suffered by it if an ad-interim ex-parte injunction is not granted.
“Accordingly, till next date of hearing, defendants, their partners, proprietors, directors, agents and other known and unknown parties, are restrained from hosting, streaming, making available for viewing, downloading, providing access to... Or sharing without authorisation on their website in any manner,” the court said.
The interim order came on the plea by Zee, represented by senior advocate Pratibha M Singh, alleging that these 83 websites were commercially exploiting its “copyrighted works” by making it available to third parties for use and download from their sites.
The entertainment company in its suit, filed through advocate Sudeep Chatterjee, has sought damages of Rs one crore from the 83 websites.
It has also sought that they be restrained from infringing its copyright in the sound recordings incorporated in various films including audio visuals of such songs, saying it would amount to “unfair competition and commercial misappropriation” of its rights.
