View Single Post
Old 03-10-2013, 05:35 PM   #517
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,726
Karma: 19728152
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Note 4, Kobo One
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS View Post
Could not have happened because the websites are not under the jurisdiction of the court.
Perhaps you should write to the judge and instruct him in British law.
Quote:
Conclusion
I conclude that the operators of the Websites infringe the Claimants' copyright in each of the three ways alleged.
Being outside the jurisdiction of the court goes to enforcement. The British court has no way of enjoining the operators to stop infringeing, hence the alternative approach of blocking access.

Edit: This came across more snide than intended. It is a fact that a British judge has found these websites to infringe copyright under UK law. You might disagree with that conclusion as a matter of principle, or feel that part of the reasoning was flawed, but as it stands, it has been found that they do infringe.

Last edited by murraypaul; 03-10-2013 at 06:41 PM.
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote