Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
Which UK law have they thumbed their nose at? The internet says they all acted on American DMCA notices, even though as you say they have no need to, so I can't really see why they would ignore any comparable UK requirements.
http://torrentfreak.com/top-torrent-...google-120604/ |
'The Internet says' isn't a great argument.
TPB ignored all URL removal requests in any form, as your own link says.
H33T requires the complainer to pay $50 per URL removed.
Quote:
65. Steps to prevent infringement. Each of the Websites purports to maintain a content removal policy which claims to provide for the removal of copyrighted content from the website upon receipt of a relevant notification. The reality appears to be that these policies are mere window-dressing, and that the operators of the Websites do not take any meaningful steps to prevent the widespread infringements of copyright which take place.
66. This is demonstrated by BPI's attempts to invoke these policies. As Mr Hodge explains, BPI tested the policies by sending URL notifications to each of the Websites in respect of a number of recordings. The results showed that the policies were not properly implemented and were in practice ineffective. Thus:
i) In respect of KAT, 76% of the notified URLs remained accessible via the website some six months after the notifications were given.
ii) In respect of H33T , 83% remained accessible as at the same date. It is a striking feature of the H33T policy that it requires a fee of $50 per URL. Unsurprisingly, BPI did not offer to pay this. That is perhaps why the operators responded to the notifications by saying that they did not comply with the policy. It is inconceivable that the operators could have any serious expectation that such a fee would be paid. It serves to emphasise the cosmetic nature of the "policy".
iii) In respect of Fenopy, 25% remained accessible as at the same date.
67. The extent to which the removal of URLs which did occur was a response to the notifications or was coincidental is unknown. As described below, further attempts to secure the co-operation of the operators of the Websites in the removal of infringing content have proved futile.
|