SupremeCourt

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Blocking order issued against six UK ISP's by England and Wales High Court

Posted on 12:31 PM by Unknown

As reported by Managing Intellectual Property, on 28 February 2013, Justice Arnold of the Chancery Division of the England and Wales High Court decided a copyright case in favour of music companies against six UK internet service providers (ISP's). The record companies claimed that their copyright was being infringed upon by certain websites and asked the Court to issue a blocking order against the ISP’s. 

The applicable legal provision was Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988. Justice Arnold framed four questions which needed to be answered before the Court could establish jurisdiction under Section 97A. First, that the Defendants were service providers, secondly, the users and/or the operators of the Websites infringe the copyright of the Claimants, thirdly, the users and/or the operators of the Websites use the Defendant’s services to infringe the copyright and fourthly, the Defendants had actual knowledge that their services were being used to infringe copyright. Justice Arnold answered all the questions in the affirmative. 


Q1. Are the Defendants service providers? 


Justice Arnold stated that Defendants were service providers within the meaning of the 1988 Act as this question had already been settled in Dramatico v. Sky (No. 2). Moreover, he noted that none of the Defendants had contended that they were not service providers. 


Q2 a. Do the users of the Websites infringe the copyright of the Claimants?


The Claimants contended that the users of the Websites infringed the copyrights in two ways: first, by copying the recordings as within Section 17 of the 1988 Act and secondly, by communicating the sound recordings to the public within section 20 of the 1988 Act. 

It was noted by Justice Arnold that when users of the Websites select a torrent file and then download the associated content files onto his or her computer, they are clearly copying the content in the files. When content files comprising of copyrighted work is copied by a person who does not have a license from the owner of the copyright, it amounts to infringement of the copyright. Since all the Websites are popular torrent websites which have accounts with the Defendants, the UK users of these Websites were held to be infringing the copyright of the Claimants by copying. 

With respect to the issue of communicating the sound recordings to the public,two questions were framed by Justice Arnold. First, whether there was communication of the sound recording via electronic transmission and secondly whether such communication was meant for a new public, which is “a public which was not taken into account by the right holders when authorizing the distribution of the recording” . The recordings could be downloaded by any person at any time or place of his/her choice through the medium of websites. Therefore, there was communication of the sound recordings via electronic transmission. Additionally, these recordings are available to all the users of the Websites, a large indeterminate body of people without them having to obtain the recordings from authorized sources. Thus, the Court held that the communication through the Websites was meant for a new public. 


Q2 b. Do the operators of the websites infringe the copyright of the Claimants? 


Claimant contended that the operators of the websites infringed the copyright of the Claimants in three ways: first, the operators communicated the sound recordings to the public, secondly, the operators committed the tort of authorizing the infringement by the UK users of the websites and thirdly, the operators are liable as accessories for the infringement by UK users. 

The Court held that the operators of websites communicated the sound recordings to the public as they actively intervened in making the copyrighted sound recordings available to the public. The Court also held that the operators of the websites authorized the infringement by the UK users as they do not merely enable or assist the infringement but they sanction and approve the infringement. Moreover, as the business model of the websites was such that the infringement was not merely ancillary to the operations of the website but the objective and intention of its operations itself, the Court held that the operators committed the tort of authorization. Finally, the Court also held the operators jointly liable with the users for the infringement as they induced, incited and persuaded the users to commit the infringement and as they had a common intention with the users of the Websites to commit infringement. Additionally, the operators of the websites were profiting from this infringement. 

Q3. Do the users and/or operators of the Websites use the Defendants’ services to infringe on the Claimants’ copyrights? 

After analyzing the statistical evidence presented about the usage of the Defendants’ services and the recorded infringement (¶ 87 of the order), Justice Arnold held that there was substantial use of the Defendants’ services by the users and the operators to infringe on the Claimants’ copyright. 


Q4. Did the Defendants have actual knowledge that their services were being used to commit infringement? 


Weekly notifications had been sent to the Defendants by MarkMonitor about these infringing activities of the users and the operators of the websites. Moreover, the Claimants had written to each of the Defendants prior to the commencement of court proceedings, drawing to their attention the infringing activities committed by the users and the operators of the websites. Hence, the Court came to the conclusion that the Defendants had actual knowledge that their services were being used to commit infringement. 

Justice Arnold, also relied on case law such as 20C Fox v. BT and Dramatico v. Sky to hold that a blocking order was a proportionate and effective remedy. (¶¶104-106 of the order). Therefore Justice Arnold granted a blocking order in favour of the Claimants.

The relevance of this blocking order granted by the England and Wales High Court in the Indian context can be understood when viewed in conjunction with this 2011 Delhi High Court order of Justice Manmohan Singh and this 2012 Madras High Court order of Justice Chandru. Amlan and Prashant had covered the respective orders here, here and here. These decisions indicate the trend of the Indian High Courts to issue blocking orders to ISP’s against websites in order to prevent copyright infringement. This blocking order issued by the England and Wales High Court indicates a similar trend in the UK as well. Justice Chandru modified his initial order to block only specific links and not entire file sharing websites. Justice Arnold also clarifies that “the orders are narrow and targeted ones" with requisite safeguards. In such an event, this seems like a welcome step towards the protection of the intellectual property rights of record companies whose copyrights are being infringed upon massively through the internet.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in Copyright, Gopika, Intermediaries, internet, Internet Access Providers (IAPs), UK | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • IPAB on Payyannur Ring
    [*S lightly long post] Background: The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“ IPAB ”), in its recent order in SubhashJewellery v. Payyan...
  • Satyajit Ray's sketches and copyright controversies
    A copyright row appears to have started between the Satyajit Ray Society and the Delhi Art Gallery, that is organising a countrywide exhibit...
  • Ghost Post: Samsung v. Apple Presidential Enforcement Veto
    SpicyIP subscribers recently received a short blurb from Shamnad on this FT article regarding the hypocrisy of stamping 'national inter...
  • Dorling Kindersley v. Sanguine Technical Publishers
    A recent Delhi High Court order passed on 21 January, 2013  with respect to copyright licensing has come to our notice. An analysis of the j...
  • SpicyIP Tidbit: ALCS August Distribution
    In the UK, the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society is an organization run and owned by writers that collects money due to its mem...
  • Delhi HC rejects the "Hot News" Doctrine: A Summary
    The applicability of the Hot News doctrine was rejected recently in a landmark ruling delivered by Justice Bhat of the Delhi HC. This post i...
  • IP Research Assistant position at IIT, Madras
    Feroz Ali Khader, MHRD IP Chair at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, is looking for research assistants to work on various is...
  • Thalappakatti biryani trademark row
    The southern district of Dindigal in Tamil Nadu occupies a special place in the hearts of biryani lovers. In the late 1950s, one Nagasamy N...
  • SpicyIP Tidbit: GI for Pedana Kalamkari Art Form
    Image from here Recently, as The Hindu reports , Pedana Kalamkari art form received GI protection. Members of Vegetable Dye Hand Block Kalam...
  • Loss of an IP Leader: RIP Prof Daruwalla
    Most in the Indian IP firmament may have heard of the doleful demise of one of our IP leaders, Mr. Tehemtan Nasserwanji Daruwalla. He was an...

Categories

  • 126 (1)
  • 3(d) (4)
  • 3(f) (1)
  • 3(i) (1)
  • 3(k) (2)
  • Academic Writing (1)
  • access (10)
  • access to food (1)
  • access to health (3)
  • AIA (1)
  • AIDS/HIV (3)
  • Antitrust (2)
  • Bajaj v LML (1)
  • Basmati Row (2)
  • Biological Diversity (5)
  • Biologics (2)
  • biopiracy (4)
  • biotech (7)
  • Bollywood (25)
  • Broadcasters Rights (5)
  • Budget (1)
  • business method patent (2)
  • Call for papers (2)
  • Cipla (2)
  • Comparative Advertising (4)
  • Competition law (8)
  • Compulsory Licensing (27)
  • condonation of delay (1)
  • Conference (4)
  • Constitution (12)
  • Contracts (1)
  • Controller's decisions (8)
  • Copyright (112)
  • Copyright Amendment Bill 2010 (23)
  • copyright board (4)
  • Copyright Exceptions (6)
  • copyright office (1)
  • Copyright Rules (2013) (5)
  • Copyright Societies (9)
  • Counterfeiting (1)
  • creativity (1)
  • Cross Retaliation (1)
  • csir (4)
  • d (1)
  • D.U. Photocopy Case (16)
  • Darjeeling Tea (3)
  • Data Exclusivity (2)
  • Database (1)
  • DCGI (2)
  • decompilation (2)
  • defamation (9)
  • Designs (3)
  • Designs Act (3)
  • Differential Pricing (2)
  • Dilution (1)
  • Disabilities (3)
  • Disability (2)
  • DMCA (2)
  • Doha Declaration (1)
  • Domain Names (2)
  • Draft Policy of the Indian Government (2)
  • DRM (1)
  • Drug Regulation (7)
  • education (12)
  • Enercon (1)
  • Enforcement (1)
  • EU (2)
  • ex parte (2)
  • exhaustion (3)
  • Exhaustion of Rights (2)
  • Fair Dealing (8)
  • Fair Use (11)
  • Federal Circuit (1)
  • Fees (3)
  • FICCI (7)
  • FRAND (2)
  • free trade agreement (3)
  • FTA (3)
  • G.I. Registry (4)
  • gene sequences (3)
  • Generic medicine (4)
  • Geographical Indication (14)
  • Gilead (1)
  • Glenmark (5)
  • Gopika (34)
  • Guest post (11)
  • guidelines (1)
  • GWU-CII (1)
  • Herceptin (1)
  • hot news (3)
  • ICANN (1)
  • incremental innovation (1)
  • independence (1)
  • india (5)
  • Indian Government (1)
  • Indian patent litigation (27)
  • Indian Pharma (35)
  • Injunction (10)
  • Innovation (7)
  • INTA (1)
  • Intermediaries (10)
  • internet (11)
  • Internet Access Providers (IAPs) (5)
  • Internet Censorship (7)
  • IP scholarship (3)
  • IP aware (4)
  • IP Course (3)
  • IP Education (1)
  • IP Policy (11)
  • IP update (4)
  • ip writing competition (1)
  • IPAB (34)
  • ipchair (1)
  • IPO (1)
  • IPRS (5)
  • IT Act (1)
  • Journal (2)
  • judicial independence (3)
  • Jurisdiction (1)
  • Kruttika (4)
  • Legal Education (3)
  • Legal Research Tools (1)
  • Legal Scholarship (2)
  • library (2)
  • Licensing (7)
  • Madhulika (20)
  • mathematical methods (1)
  • Media law (3)
  • medical method (1)
  • Merck (4)
  • mhrd ip chair (1)
  • Microsoft (3)
  • Middle Path (1)
  • Moral Rights (2)
  • Movies (18)
  • musical work (2)
  • nanotechnology (1)
  • Natco (3)
  • natco defamation suit (5)
  • natco vs bayer (4)
  • need for transparency (1)
  • Novartis (8)
  • Novartis patent case in India (11)
  • NPEs (2)
  • nujs (1)
  • NUJS Conference (2)
  • Obituary (1)
  • obviousness (7)
  • Off-Topic (2)
  • online course (4)
  • Open Access (6)
  • Open Source (2)
  • Opposition (3)
  • Parallel Imports (4)
  • Parliament (1)
  • passing off (5)
  • Patent (52)
  • Patent act (10)
  • patent agent (5)
  • patent agent exam (9)
  • patent agent exam qualifications (3)
  • patent infringement (5)
  • Patent Licensing (2)
  • Patent litigation (2)
  • Patent Office (19)
  • patent pool (3)
  • Patent Prosecution (7)
  • Patent rules (2)
  • Patent Strategies (8)
  • Patents (9)
  • pegasus (1)
  • Personality Rights (1)
  • Pfizer (1)
  • Pharma (18)
  • Piracy (5)
  • plagiarism (3)
  • Plant Variety Protection (2)
  • post grant (1)
  • Prashant (2)
  • Preventive Detention (1)
  • Price Control (6)
  • prior publication (1)
  • Privacy (3)
  • Prizes (1)
  • public health (3)
  • Public Interest (4)
  • Publicity Rights (4)
  • Publishing (3)
  • radio (2)
  • Rajiv (18)
  • Rectification Petition (2)
  • Rejection (1)
  • research (3)
  • reverse engineering (2)
  • revocation (4)
  • rip (1)
  • Roche (2)
  • Roche vs Cipla (1)
  • Royalty (2)
  • RTI (2)
  • Scholarship (4)
  • section 16 (1)
  • Section 3(d) (7)
  • section 8 (6)
  • shamnad (11)
  • Shan Kohli (4)
  • Shouvik Kumar Guha (30)
  • Smartphones/Tablets (2)
  • Social Innovation (1)
  • Software (10)
  • software enforcement (3)
  • software patent (3)
  • Special 301 Report (1)
  • Spicy Tidbits (6)
  • spicyip (1)
  • SpicyIP Accolades (1)
  • SpicyIP Announcements (9)
  • SpicyIP Case (1)
  • SpicyIP Cases (3)
  • spicyip commiseration (1)
  • SpicyIP Events (11)
  • SpicyIP Fellowship (5)
  • SpicyIP Guest Series (22)
  • SpicyIP Interview (2)
  • SpicyIP Jobs (4)
  • SpicyIP Jobs/General (2)
  • SpicyIP Review (1)
  • SpicyIP Tidbits (11)
  • SpicyIP Weekly Review (27)
  • Statutory Licensing (1)
  • STI Policy 2013 (4)
  • Sugen (3)
  • Supreme Court of India (5)
  • Swaraj (19)
  • Tarnishment (1)
  • Technology (6)
  • Technology Transfer (5)
  • TKDL (5)
  • TPP (1)
  • trade (4)
  • Trade Secret Protection (1)
  • Trademark (59)
  • Trademark dilution (1)
  • Trademark Registry (9)
  • Traditional Knowledge (7)
  • Transparency (5)
  • treaty (1)
  • trial (1)
  • tribunals (2)
  • TRIPS (11)
  • UK (3)
  • unfair competition (5)
  • UNFCCC (1)
  • Universities Research and Innovation Bill (2)
  • US (1)
  • US Patent Reform (1)
  • US Supreme Court (3)
  • viva (3)
  • WIPO (5)
  • Working a Patent (2)
  • Workshop (4)
  • writ (1)
  • WTO (1)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (364)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ►  August (41)
    • ►  July (36)
    • ►  June (36)
    • ►  May (32)
    • ►  April (51)
    • ▼  March (66)
      • US Department of Justice conducts review of IPXI
      • Public health activists lose challenge against Gil...
      • Bombay HC restrains the release of any trailers/te...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Viacom restrained from using 'Naut...
      • Recent decision on Protection of Plant Varieties A...
      • Ericsson sues Micromax over SEPs in 100-crore Pate...
      • Full Bench Delhi HC (Design Act)- Reckitt Benkise...
      • Guest Post: U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in ...
      • Patent Office publishes final version of Guideline...
      • Joint Committees related to Trademark Matters
      • SpicyIP Weekly Review (March- Week 4)
      • Copyright Constitutionality Challenges
      • Statistics of patent grants in India
      • Breaking News: India's Copyright Amendments Challe...
      • Copyright Rules, 2013 designed to fail the Copyrig...
      • Copy of the Copyright Rules, 2013
      • 'Mad Men' controversy
      • A clarification on the Fox-‘Knockout’ copyright di...
      • The recent AMUL-IMUL trademark controversy
      • India’s patent policy: Big Pharma’s grouse?
      • Pratibha Syntex lawsuit still pending before the D...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: An IP Thriller from an IP lawyer
      • US Supreme Court Supports Parallel Imports: Lesson...
      • IPAB’s first CL decision, resounding emphasis on p...
      • Government notifies Copyright Rules, 2013
      • SpicyIP Weekly Review (March Week 3)
      • Knock(ed) Out!
      • US Patent Reform - 2013: A brief look at the AIA
      • Breaking News: Second Compulsory Licensing Applica...
      • Zanjeer Remake Row before the Bombay HC
      • Guest Post: Kallam Anji Reddy: 1941 - 2013
      • EU Human Rights Court justifies The Pirate Bay con...
      • Breaking Hot News: Madras High Court strikes down ...
      • DU Photocopy Case: Academicians and Authors expres...
      • Bombay HC: Publication of Examination Report on we...
      • Breaking "Hot" News: A "Star" Win for Unfair Compe...
      • The role played by Microsoft in getting California...
      • An outrageous Californian attempt at extra-territo...
      • Standing Committee Report on ‘The Universities Res...
      • Standing Committee Report on ‘The Universities Res...
      • Spicy IP Weekly Review: March 2nd Week
      • Latest update from Campaign for affordable trastuz...
      • A recent study shows that U.S. firms don’t actuall...
      • A Tantalising Copyright Offer: Lessons from Canada...
      • Auditing the worldwide litigation involving ‘Basma...
      • ‘Rethinking the data exclusivity debate in India’ ...
      • UOI v. Malhotra Book Depot- restoration of trademark.
      • Call for Papers: IIT Bombay and MHRD jointly annou...
      • Guest Post: Eye witness account of India's first c...
      • Guest Post: Eye witness account of India's first c...
      • Bombay High Court – Are courts allowed to examine ...
      • Life of P.I. - Keynote address by Justice Prabha S...
      • SpicyIP Event: Announcing Expert Speaker Panel for...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Saregama loses copyright claim for...
      • Guest Post: Book Review - V.J. Taraporevala, Law o...
      • Blocking order issued against six UK ISP's by Engl...
      • Film release strategies and anti-competitive pract...
      • Compulsory Licensing is Not a Bad Word!
      • ‘First set up the labs, then dream the Nobel’
      • Spicy IP Weekly review (March Week 1)
      • December 2012: Controller's decisions at the IPO
      • Patents vs. Patients: Department of Pharmaceutical...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: ViiV Healthcare collaborates with ...
      • Breaking News: Student Association Impleaded in Ac...
      • Kerala State Central Library digitizes Rare Books ...
      • Bombay High Court Decision on Trademark Infringeme...
    • ►  February (40)
    • ►  January (49)
  • ►  2012 (131)
    • ►  December (29)
    • ►  November (42)
    • ►  October (50)
    • ►  September (10)
Powered by Blogger.