Craster wrote:
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".
Here's the judgement:
MPAA vs BTI just checked
s97A CPDA 1988 and it says :
Quote:
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.].
The report says that as it is overeas, it's the only real way of garnering relief. but I haven't read too far.
Right, as far as I understand it so far, the prologue was
Quote:
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]).
So, basically, guilty as sin.
Newzbin then liquidated, leaving costs and damages unpaid. It then reappeared, exactly the same, overseas, so the MPAA have sought to other means to stop it by 97A'ing BT, and probably others in future.
I've got no real problems with this course of action. If you can afford £650 for a computer, you can probably afford £3 for a DVD
Quote:
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.
Article 1 is right to property, and article 10 is freedom of expression. I think that's fair enough, given teh law as it stands, and the last sentence is rather telling.
_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.