The Federal Court has once again demonstrated its willingness to adapt Australian copyright law to the realities of online piracy. In Universal City Studios Productions LLLP v Telstra Limited (No 2) [2026] FCA 983, Justice Burley made orders that do more than simply block access to pirate streaming websites—they significantly strengthen the effectiveness and longevity of Australia’s website blocking regime.
For copyright owners, film studios, broadcasters, software developers and digital content creators, the decision is an important reminder that the Court is prepared to adopt practical measures that recognise the speed and sophistication with which infringing websites operate.
The background
The application was brought by several major international copyright owners, including Universal City Studios, Columbia Pictures Industries and Home Box Office Inc., with Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. later joining the proceedings.
The applicants sought orders under section 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) requiring Australia’s largest internet service providers—including Telstra, Optus, TPG, Vocus, Aussie Broadband and Superloop—to disable access to dozens of overseas websites that were allegedly facilitating widespread copyright infringement.
Many of the identified websites were expected to make available unauthorised copies of major upcoming releases, including:
- The Odyssey
- Spider-Man: Brand New Day
- Lanterns
The urgency of the application arose because Spider-Man: Brand New Day was scheduled for Australian theatrical release on 30 July 2026, creating a narrow window in which pirate websites could undermine legitimate cinema attendance and subsequent streaming revenue.
Australia’s website blocking regime
Section 115A of the Copyright Act allows the Federal Court to require carriage service providers (internet service providers) to take reasonable steps to disable access to online locations outside Australia where those locations:
- infringe copyright; or
- facilitate copyright infringement; and
- have the primary purpose or primary effect of infringing, or facilitating the infringement of, copyright.
Unlike traditional copyright proceedings, these applications are not brought against the anonymous operators of piracy websites. Instead, they are brought against Australian internet service providers, who possess the technical capability to prevent Australian users from accessing those websites.
Justice Burley observed that these proceedings have now become a familiar feature of the Federal Court’s copyright jurisdiction, with a substantial body of authority supporting the making of blocking orders where the statutory criteria are satisfied.
More than another blocking order
Although the Court ordered Australian ISPs to block access to an additional 79 pirate websites, that aspect of the decision is not what makes the case significant.
The real importance lies in three substantial developments.
1. Five-year blocking orders
Historically, website blocking orders have generally operated for three years.
In this case, Justice Burley accepted that there was no principled reason why the duration should remain limited to three years and instead granted orders operating for five years.
The evidence before the Court demonstrated that rights holders regularly incur legal costs of approximately $30,000 each time they seek extensions of existing orders, despite the fact that many pirate websites continue operating long after the original orders expire.
The Court accepted that requiring repeated extension applications imposed an unnecessary burden on copyright owners where the underlying websites continued to facilitate infringement.
By extending the duration to five years, the Court has reduced both the cost and administrative burden associated with maintaining effective blocking orders while continuing to preserve judicial oversight through the ability to vary or discharge the orders if circumstances change.
2. Faster protection for blockbuster releases
Perhaps the most commercially significant aspect of the decision is the introduction of an expedited process during the release window for major new content.
The Court recognised that pirate websites frequently appear or change domain names immediately before or shortly after the release of highly anticipated films or television series.
Traditional court processes can struggle to keep pace with this activity.
Justice Burley therefore approved a mechanism allowing copyright owners to seek urgent additional blocking orders during a defined “New Release Content Window” for identified productions.
Importantly, the expedited procedure enables applications to be determined quickly where no respondent wishes to be heard, ensuring that infringing websites can be blocked while commercial value still exists in the theatrical or streaming release.
3. A more flexible enforcement model
The orders also recognise a practical reality of modern online piracy.
When one domain name is blocked, operators frequently migrate to another domain or IP address within days.
Rather than forcing copyright owners to commence fresh proceedings every time this occurs, the Court approved procedures allowing additional domain names, URLs and IP addresses associated with the same infringing websites to be incorporated into the existing orders.
Similarly, where a website permanently ceases infringing activity, the applicants must notify the ISPs so that blocking measures can be lifted.
The result is a more dynamic system that allows the orders to evolve alongside constantly changing online behaviour while reducing unnecessary litigation.
A practical approach by the Court
One notable feature of these proceedings was the limited involvement of the respondent internet service providers.
The ISPs did not actively contest the application. Most either consented to the proposed orders, indicated they did not wish to be heard or were excused from appearing.
This reflects the now well-established nature of section 115A applications and the collaborative approach that has developed between copyright owners and Australian internet service providers in implementing website blocking orders.
Why this decision matters
Online piracy has evolved dramatically over the past decade.
Today’s infringing websites are sophisticated operations capable of changing domain names, relocating servers and promoting newly released content within hours of its availability.
Traditional litigation against anonymous overseas website operators is often impractical or impossible.
Section 115A was introduced to address this challenge by targeting access rather than the operators themselves.
Justice Burley’s decision demonstrates that the Court is willing to continue refining that regime to ensure it remains effective against increasingly sophisticated methods of copyright infringement.
For copyright owners, the decision offers greater certainty, longer-lasting protection and faster access to remedies when valuable new content is threatened.
What this means for copyright owners
The decision has practical implications for businesses that own valuable intellectual property.
Rights holders should consider:
- reviewing whether their copyright portfolio is suitable for protection under section 115A;
- monitoring piracy activity before significant product, film, software or streaming releases;
- acting quickly where infringing websites emerge immediately prior to launch;
- taking advantage of the Court’s willingness to grant longer-lasting and more flexible blocking orders; and
- incorporating website blocking strategies into broader intellectual property enforcement programs.
Conclusion
Universal City Studios Productions LLLP v Telstra Limited (No 2) illustrates the continuing evolution of Australia’s copyright enforcement framework.
Rather than treating website blocking as a static remedy, the Federal Court has recognised that effective copyright protection requires flexible orders capable of responding to rapidly changing online infringement.
By extending blocking orders to five years, approving expedited procedures for major releases and streamlining the addition of new infringing domains, the Court has reinforced Australia’s commitment to protecting creative works in an increasingly digital marketplace.
For copyright owners, the message is clear: the Federal Court is prepared to use the full scope of section 115A to ensure that Australian copyright law remains an effective tool against modern online piracy.
