Multichoice wins bid to block piracy sites
Pay TV firm Multichoice has won a petition against internet providers Safaricom and Jamii Telkom.
The High Court has ordered two internet service providers to pull down and disable 141 websites that have been pirating and re-broadcasting content owned by pay television service provider Multichoice.
Justice Winfrida Okwany directed Safaricom and Jamii Telkom to take down the sites following an application filed by Multichoice claiming that the websites were infringing on its copyright.
Multichoice based its application on provisions of section 35B of the Copyright Act, which enables an aggrieved person to approach court and seek for an injunction against a person facilitating the infringement of copyright.
The said section says that “A person whose rights have been infringed by content to which access is being offered by an Internet Service Provider (ISP) may request by way of a takedown notice that the ISP removes the infringing content.”
The temporary order requires the two internet providers to block access to websites streaming sports matches pirated from its SuperSport channels.
The order comes when SuperSport announced showcasing of all 1,140 matches of the new football season by broadcasting all the 380 Premier League matches
The court heard that Multichoice had issued the internet providers with a notice dated October 29, 2019 to take down the websites but they had delayed to do so.
Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) and Communications Authority (CA) are listed as interested parties in the case.
In its court papers, Mutichoice indicated that the rebroadcasting, re-transmitting or replicating its exclusive content without its authorisation is a breach of copyright rules.
The firm argued that should the practice continue, it stood to suffer irreparable economic loss not to mention other losses and evils that piracy perpetrates.
However, Safaricom and Jamii Telecom denied infringing copyright rights of Multichoice arguing that their role is to just provide internet to their clients.
The two firms argued that they do not have control on what their clients do with the internet.
They told court that it is work of the Communication Authority of Kenya (CA) to block any website or pull down any content that is infringing the rights of Multichoice.
Justice Okwany heard that the 141 websites do not belong to the internet service providers.
They insisted that the dispute can only be determined if the case is heard in full. The temporary order will remain in force hearing and determination of the case slated for March 3, 2021.
