BT has been forced to block web users in the UK from accessing an illegal download site following legal action by the Motion Picture Association (MPA).
The MPA started legal action against the ISP last month in a bid to ensure BT did not allow web users to access Newzbin 2, a members-only site that offers links to other locations on the web where music, movies and other content can be illegally downloaded.
"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, who was preceding over the case.
"It 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."
Justice Arnold also ruled that BT must use its own Cleanfeed technology, which is already used to block access to websites containing child sex abuse images, to prevent access to Newzbin2.
The MPA initially started legal action against the original Newzbin in 2010, which resulted in the site being ordered to remove any material that infringed copyrights. However, Newzbin went into administration and was subsequently sold to new owners and launched again as Newzbin 2 from the Seychelles.
The ruling marks the first time an ISP has been ordered to block access to a website relating to illegal downloads.
"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, President and Managing Director (EMEA) of the MPA
"This court action was never an attack on ISPs but we do need their co-operation to deal with the Newzbin site which continually tries to evade the law and judicial sanction. Newzbin is a notorious pirate website which makes hundreds of thousands of copyrighted products available without permission and with no regard for the law."
The MPA also said it is likely it will now request other ISPs to block the site.
A BT spokesman said the judgement was "helpful" and "provides clarity on this complex issue".
"It clearly shows that rights holders need to prove their claims and convince a judge to make a court order. BT has consistently said that rights holders need to take this route. We will return to court after the summer to explain what kind of order we believe is appropriate."
Nicholas Lansman, Secretary General of the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) said blocking websites featuring illegal content is "an issue that rights holders should seek to address in court, rather than through voluntary means".
"Today's ruling should go some way to offering clarity on what is a complex area. However, concerns about over-blocking, ease of circumvention and increased encryption are widely-recognised which means that blocking is not a silver bullet to stop online copyright infringement," he said.
"Rather, as the government-commissioned Hargreaves Review recently found, there should be more focus on offering innovative, fully-licensed content services to give consumers what they are clearly demanding."
Comments
sirjohng said: If you go to a shop you pay for the goods or you steal them, same thing here which I should have thought was obvious. Still right and wrong whichever way you try to look at it.
sirjohng said: I agree Jay, exactly what I said.
Jay said: SirJohnG, it is not about "bleating" but rather determining what role should the Courts have in a modern democratic society. As you rightly say "...the Courts are there to uphold the law..." and I assume most right-minded persons would agree with that. But..... as an example....If a burglar entered my home, made off with my goodies and was caught I would expect the Courts to deal with that person in terms of the Law. What I do NOT expect is for the Courts to legislate that the builder of my home must install "building technology" to prevent burglaries (doors, windows, locks, alarms, burglar bars...etc) That is not the role of the Courts. It is up to my builder and myself to use the available "building technology" to deter burglars. In the same way it is not up to the Courts to legislate with respect to "information technology". Yes, if someone is caught stealing Copyright material then they should be pursued to the full extent of the Law by the Courts. But it is up to us within the industry to implement "information technology" in such a way that it deters the theft of Copyright material.
sirjohng said: Breach of copyright is just that. If you have spent many hours or days or years to produce something that is copyright, why should any leaches feed off of it without you getting a penny back for your effort. The courts are there to uphold this law just as any other so I cannot see what the bleating is about. If you don't like the law then get Parliament to change it. If no one got paid for what they produced there would be nothing to entertain or enlighten us.
Matt Egan said: I think we completely agree Jay. As I say, I am in no way in favour of the courts blocking websites. The only party happy with that verdict was BT, because it can now block a data hog without fear of legal action. I just struggle with people trying to defend the site concerned.
Jay said: Matt, I think that we are largely in agreement on the criminality aspects of this issue. Where we perhaps disagree is in how the problem should be resolved. I am stongly opposed to using the Courts as the means of a solution. I believe that we have the expertise and mental capability to use technology to find a solution. Using the Courts is in my view a cop-out and could be counter-productive because it removes the incentive to find a technical answer.
Matt Egan said: For the record I agree. I don’t like the principal of blocking websites at all, and this is the thin edge of a very large wedge. But that doesn’t change the fact that piracy is theft, and its deeply enervating to have to listen to people who habitually consume pirated media bleat on about the freedom of the web. The good stuff on the internet can stay free only as long as people respect the rights of the people who produce it. Your use of ‘child abuse’ as an example is apposite, because it’s the thing all pub moralists fall back on: ‘well, I might beat my wife and rip off the taxman, but I’d never abuse a child. That’s wrong’.
Jay said: But the principle is more complex than that. To use your phrase ".. take it to the nth degree .." and who know what sites will be "banned" next. Blocking sites like those with child abuse is something all right-minded people will agree with.... but we have to be very careful when it comes to blocking sites for commercial, political, social or similar reasons. This is a lot more complex than it "..costs us money.."
Matt Egan said: Costs us money. Digital issues of all IDG magazines including PCA are on there. Take it to its nth degree and we have to charge for the site.
Bc1965 said: It's ten years since I went to a cinema,I couldn't give a toss for the childish rubbish they churn out these days.
Joe Wilson said: I don't see what it hurts to download, I wouldn't go see their movies anyway!
Brasbasahmail-shop said: Who on earth is "Justice Arnold"? I was always under the impression The members of our Judiciary who presided over cases, wer called Judge X or Recorder Y or some such UK title. I fail to understand who or where Justice Arnold has jurisdiction/