Be Excellent To Each Other

Hollywood film studios won a landmark UK high court ruling on Thursday forcing BT to block access to an illegal file-sharing website accused of operating "on a grand scale".

The Motion Picture Association, the trade body whose members include Warner Bros, Fox, Disney and Paramount Pictures, has been granted an order requiring BT — the UK's biggest internet service provider — to block its customers' access to the website Newzbin2.

Thursday's verdict will be viewed by the creative industries as a landmark that could set a precedent for the widespread blocking of illegal filesharing websites by ISPs, helping to stem the flow of digital piracy in the UK.

"In my judgment it follows that BT has actual knowledge of other persons using its service to infringe copyright: it knows that the users and operators of Newzbin2 infringe copyright on a large scale, and in particular infringe the copyrights of the studios in large numbers of their films and television programmes," said Justice Arnold in his ruling at the high court in London.

"[BT] knows that the users of Newzbin2 include BT subscribers, and it knows those users use its service to receive infringing copies of copyright works made available to them by Newzbin2," Arnold added.

BT had argued that forcing it to ban its 6 million UK customers from accessing a website would usher in a new wave of online censorship.

However, the creative industries claim website blocking could save them hundreds of millions of pounds in illegal downloads.

The MPA said that Newzbin2 makes unlawful copies of television programmes and films, and receives in excess of £1m a year from its 700,000 users.

"This ruling from Justice Arnold is a victory for millions of people working in the UK creative industries and demonstrates that the law of the land must apply online," said Chris Marcich, MPA managing director for Europe, the Middle East and Africa. "This court action was never an attack on ISPs, but we do need their cooperation to deal with the Newzbin site, which continually tries to evade the law and judicial sanction."

Chris Elsworth, the main operator of Newzbin, had said repeatedly at trial that he had no knowledge of infringement occurring on the service, and that Newzbin's categories for "CAM," "screener," "telesync," "DVD,"R5 retail","Blu-ray," and "HD DVD" didn't suggest any evidence of infringement.

Newzbin, of course, don't host any illegal content at all. NZB files are like .torrent files for Usenet -- pointers to content, not the content itself.

The MPA said that Newzbin2 makes unlawful copies of television programmes and films, and receives in excess of £1m a year from its 700,000 users.

the creative industries claim website blocking could save them hundreds of millions of pounds in illegal downloads.

Also, just think how many hundreds of millions the industry would "save" if people didn't literally steal from the MPAA by gifting/selling their cast-offs. And if the shops didn't literally steal from the MPAA by selling at below-SRP.

It's the language, inferences and implications - "if people couldn't pirate well then obviously they'd go to the shop."

Pirates aren't abusing legal systems the world over, though.

But it's equally fallacious to claim that 1000 illegal downloads equals zero lost sales as it is to claim it's 1000 lost sales.

So... I think we can agree that newzbin is, blatantly, violating the law and enabling piracy on a significant scale. What do you think copyright holders should do about it?

So... I think we can agree that newzbin is, blatantly, violating the law and enabling piracy on a significant scale. What do you think copyright holders should do about it?

take them to court and sue them for such offences.

In which jurisdiction?

The application is a sequel to a successful claim for copyright infringement brought by the Studios against Newzbin Ltd, which formerly operated an almost identical website located at the same uniform resource locator or URL ("the Newzbin1 website" or just "Newzbin1"). As explained in more detail below, Newzbin Ltd was found by Kitchin J to have infringed the Studios' copyrights on a large scale: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWHC 608 (Ch), [2010] FSR 21 ("20C Fox v Newzbin"). He granted an injunction against Newzbin Ltd to restrain further infringements of the Studios' copyrights. Subsequently the Newzbin1 website ceased operation. Shortly afterwards, however, the Newzbin2 website commenced operation at the same location. It operates in essentially the same manner as the previous website, and thus provides the means for continued large-scale infringement of the Studios' copyrights. As described in more detail below, the operators of the Newzbin2 website are unknown, but the operation appears to have moved offshore. It is thus effectively beyond the reach of this court.

In these circumstances, the Studios contend that the only way in which they can obtain effective relief to prevent, or at least reduce the scale of, these infringements of their copyrights is by means of an order against BT (and thereafter the other ISPs) of the kind now sought.

In which jurisdiction?

Stop with the ridiculous, fictional claims is all I want. This slope looks mighty slippery, though.

But that was my point. I'm not sure what you were disagreeing with me about.

Mali - that's 'internet location' rather than physical, surely? I very much doubt Newsbin2's hosting is UK-based.

I think that fictional, ridiculous claims are often trotted out on both sides of the argument, in all honesty.

I'm taking bets on whe NewzBin3 will open.

The problem with DVDs at the moment, is you only have to buy one and be forced to sit through that anti-piracy bit at the start telling you how naughty you would be if you'd hypothetically downloaded that film instead of buying it, to ensure that you don't buy another DVD for a very long time.

The Blu-rays I've bought recently have all had a big 'THANK YOU FOR BUYING THIS' at the beginning, which is an improvement.

Mali - that's 'internet location' rather than physical, surely? I very much doubt Newsbin2's hosting is UK-based.

In fact, from that quote "The operation appears to have moved offshore".

97A- Injunctions against service providersE+W+S+N.I..

(1)The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright..
(2)In determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge for the purpose of this section, a court shall take into account all matters which appear to it in the particular circumstances to be relevant and, amongst other things, shall have regard to—.
(a)whether a service provider has received a notice through a means of contact made available in accordance with regulation 6(1)(c) of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2013); and.
(b)the extent to which any notice includes—.
(i)the full name and address of the sender of the notice;.
(ii)details of the infringement in question..
(3)In this section “service provider” has the meaning given to it by regulation 2 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002.].

Kitchin J also held that Newzbin Ltd had infringed the Studios' copyrights in three different ways:

i) It had authorised its premium members to make infringing copies of the Studios' films because a reasonable member would deduce from its activities that it purported to possess the authority to grant any required permission to copy any film that a member may choose from the Movies category on Newzbin1, and it had sanctioned, approved and countenanced the copying of the Studios' films, including each of the films specifically relied on (see [85]-[102]);

ii) For similar reasons, it had procured the premium members to infringe, had participated in a common design with the premium members to infringe, the Studios' copyrights. It was immaterial that the Studios were not able to point to specific acts of infringement by particular infringers which Newzbin Ltd might be said to have procured (see [103]- [112]);

iii) Newzbin Ltd had itself infringed the Studios' copyrights by communicating the copyright works to the public, specifically by making each work available to the public by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time chosen by them within section 20(2)(b) CDPA 1988 which implements Article 3(2) of the Information Society Directive (see [113]- [125]).

In general, I am satisfied that the order sought by the Studios is a proportionate one. It is necessary and appropriate to protect the Article 1 First Protocol rights of the Studios and other copyright owners. Those interests clearly outweigh the Article 10 rights of the users of Newzbin2, and even more clearly outweigh the Article 10 rights of the operators of Newzbin2. They also outweigh BT's own Article 10 rights to the extent that they are engaged. The order is a narrow and targeted one, and it contains safeguards in the event of any change of circumstances. The cost of implementation to BT would be modest and proportionate.

A specific issue which arose in this connection is that counsel for BT submitted that, if the court was minded to grant an order, the order should require the Studios to identify individual URLs corresponding to the individual NZBs files indexed by Newzbin2 which relate to infringing copies of individual copyright works. Notwithstanding the reference in the Studios' draft order to "and its domains and sub domains", counsel for the Studios opposed this. In my judgment such a requirement would not be proportionate or practicable since it would require the Studios to expend considerable effort and cost in notifying long lists of URLs to BT on a daily basis. The position might be different if Newzbin2 had a substantial proportion of non-infringing content, but that is not the case.

Price more affordably?

Put out better stuff?

If they put out epic stuff at 1p per download, and made it just as easy for me to get stuff from the Internets to my TV as it is now, I still wouldn't pay them the 1p. And I suspect lots of people are the same.

So I doubt that would help much.

Hell, some people here even pay a monthly fee to steal the things!

OK - but what's the ongoing process? Who vets the requests from the MPAA or other bodies to ensure that they all refer to copyright infringing internet locations? Will a lawsuit be required in every case, or the equivalent of a takedown notice? More importantly, what about the NZBs for non copyright infringing items that Newzbin2 and others may host? OK, it's minimal in this case, but in future cases? By blocking the domain, you're blocking the legitimate traffic as well.

Goodness, I would. If I could get the TV and films I want, when I want them, and have them delivered to me in a convenient, rapid way, I'd go legit in a shot, subject to a reasonable pricepoint. I'd pay £1/episode for TV, for example, which is equivalent to DVD sales pricing.

I think the issue of proportionality is adequately described above, weighing the Art 1 rights of copyright holders against the Art 10 rights of others. I think it's very well worded.

I would assume that when put on notice, the ISP will block traffic rather than face proceedings, in the name of expediency.

So let's assume that they charged you £1 a go, and made a service exactly the same as the one you use now, which is free (I know, but bear with). You'd pay for the equivalent identical service?