Cyberlaw experts believe the accused were not trespassing when they blocked the site. Technically speaking, when a hosting service provider withdraws his service, he is not in any way damaging the content of the site. He is de-linking the existing default page of the relevant directory to the DNS and linking a new page. This de-linking and linking is a normal network administrator's function. The case racked up a controversy in the Web hosting industry.
Many Web sites reside on rented servers owned by the service providers.
These service providers, in turn, take a large space on rent in US and lease it out to their retail customers in India, which basically boils down to space re-selling. So, if dues are not paid or if there is any dispute over payment the service providers block access to the sites hosted on their servers. But under the interpretation taken in this case, if a service provider blocks a Web site as its owner has not paid the rent for the server it uses, it would fulfill the criteria phrased in the Act as 'diminishes its value or utility'. This can result in a situation where a Web site owner would refuse to pay up and the service provider would not be able to take action. Clearly this is an issue which hardly comes within the accepted norms and mischief of hacking.