Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
The ruling over copyright infringement has generally been that devices, sites, etc, which have significant non-infringing uses are permissible. Most people, I think, would agree that Google is primarily a non-infringing site, whereas the primary purpose of the site against which this ruling has been made is to give people access to copyright-infringing material.
|
From the judgement:
"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 noninfringing content, but that is not the case."