Before the release of version 2.0, Madras HC orders blocking of 12,000 hacking sites

In front of Rajinikanth-starrer & # 39;
The Madras High Court announced Thursday to 2.0 Internet Service Providers (ISPs) blocking more than 12,000 websites featuring pirated versions of Tamil films. The list includes more than 2,000 websites run by "TamilRockers".

See also: 2.0 Movie Review


Judge Sundar ordered Wednesday by suggesting that the film 's producer, Lyca Productions Private Limited, had pleaded for him. When the plea was raised, Lyca's board, Vijayan Subramanian, drew up a long list of 12,564 illegal websites.

The board argued that when
The TamilRockers website is blocked. It immediately creates mirror websites by modifying a nonsignificant part of the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or any other extension. It is therefore able to restore the broken content with a minimum of effort.

Subramanian has produced a probable list of extensions of "TamilRockers" & # 39; and asked for an injunction against all these sites.

According to Lyca, his latest venture is "2.0", with Rajinikanth, Akshay Kumar, Amy Jackson and others. The film was directed by S Shankar.

The producer has invested significant amounts of money in the production of the film, which is expected to be released on more than 7,000 screens in India and around the world. including Chennai, November 29.

The film is released in more than five languages, including Mandarin in China.

The trailer for the promotion of the film has been published. The official trailer, posted on "YouTube," has already garnered 13,089,498 views, the lawyer said.

Although the company acquired all exploitation and distribution rights, including theatrical and musical rights, in addition to copyright law, including television, the Internet, digital video and home video, it feared that these illegal websites present pirated versions of the movie its output.

According to the lawyer, the web pages and websites that provide such links are multiple and are used around the world.

The company argued that these websites are allowed to be viewed in India through various Internet service providers, such as the 37 mentioned in the plea.