Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
The site blocking part of the Digital Economy Act doesn't make any distinction based on how much infringing material is made available and any other legitimate uses for that site. So unless the infringing books were moved to a completely different site, it would be all or nothing.
|
That is not the law that the content owners sued under.
Quote:
|
By this application the Studios seek an injunction against BT pursuant to section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“CDPA 1988”)
|
From the ruling:
Quote:
201. 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 20C Fox v BT 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.
|
And earlier:
Quote:
|
55. It appears to be quite hard to find any content on Newzbin2 that is not protected by copyright. BT’s best shot was to point to a reference to the 1891 Lancashire census, but the Studios’ evidence strongly suggests that, although the underlying information is in the public domain, the item in question is likely to be protected by copyright and/or database right.
|
Quote:
|
186. Finally, I recognise that the order would potentially prevent BT subscribers from making use of Newzbin2 for non-infringing uses. On the evidence, however, the incidence of such uses is de minimis
|