Newzbin2 - the order

The High Court has just handed down its order in "Newzbin2".

For those not following the story so far goes like this: newzbin (whose site I will not link to for obvious reasons) describe themselves as a "Hand edited, searchable archive of Usenet binary content from the creators of the NZB Format." USENET is of course the grandparent of most peer-to-peer file sharing networks. People were sharing copyright material via USENET even when I started using the internet over 20 years ago. Newzbin do not host any of the material (which is available via USENET) but their site undoubtedly makes it much easier to find copyright infringing material to be downloaded. Unsurprisingly, many large copyright owners do not like it.

Last year, a group of Hollywood studios persuaded Mr Justice Kitchen that Newzbin were guilty of copyright infringement in three different ways (1) their actions amounted to "authorisation" of copyright infringement; (2) they were also joint infringers with or procurers of the infringement of their subscribers; (3) even though they did not host any of the movies complained about they "made them available to the public" which is an act protected by copyright. The case Twentieth Century Fox v Newzbin [2010] EWHC 608 (Ch) makes interesting reading as it explores just how far a website may (or in that case may not) go without infringing copyright.

Newzbin's reaction was to be expected: their operation moved outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts. Undeterred (one hopes they were sufficiently web-savvy to have anticipated the move) the studios applied to the High Court for an injunction against BT to force BT to block access to Newzbin to its (ISP) customers. The studios made use a statutory power given to the High Court to make injunctions of this kind under section 97A of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.

At the end of July, Mr Justice Arnold agreed to grant the injunction (Twentieth Century Fox v British Telecommunications [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) ). Lillian Edwards wrote a very neat analysis of the decision on the day it appeared. As she explains, Newzbin was an unusually good case for an injunction, not least because there had already been a decision of the High Court finding that the site was involved in copyright infringement. Other cases may be more difficult for rights holders to argue. It will depend.

Mr Justice Arnold postponed deciding on the exact form of the injunction — that is exactly what BT should be ordered to do — until he had heard further submissions from the parties. His decision on the form of order was what was handed down today.

A huge simplifying factor is that BT are already running a system known as Cleanfeed which is used to filter out material on the Internet Watch Foundation's list of suspect IP addresses and blacklisted URL's. This meant the order could require BT to add IP addresses and URL's supplied by the studios to its Cleanfeed list.

Cleanfeed is not used with all BT ISP products. In particular it is not used for what is effectively wholesale supply of internet connectivity, nor to particular customers in certain cases — one example being the police who, one imagines, absolutely do wish to be able to access illegal material for investigatory purposes. The order applies "In respect of its customers to whose internet service the system known as Cleanfeed is applied whether optionally or otherwise". Read literally that would appear to mean that customers who have Cleanfeed as an option but have opted out would still have to be filtered by BT. It is unclear to me whether that is what the judge intends.

The order makes it clear that BT is not required to carry out deep packet inspection. BT need simply rely on the IP addresses and URL's reported to it by the studios, but this, in my view, leads to the most serious defect in the order: it relies entirely on the good faith and judgment of the studios. There is no sanction for mis-reporting of websites. Since there is no requirement to publish the list of sites supplied to BT or to notify site owners that they have been placed on the list, it may be difficult to ensure that the studios act fairly and properly.

BT did try to obtain what is known as a cross-undertaking or an indemnity from the studios which would have compensated BT for any loss it suffered as a result of any mistakes made by the studios. The judge rejected that request on the basis that, as he decided, BT could not be liable for damages (eg by being sued by its customers) because it was acting under a court order. That will no doubt be a useful decision for ISP's and web service providers in other situations, but it did mean there was no basis for imposing any sanction on the studios for supplying incorrect sites in its list.

There was some argument as to how precisely the list should be described. In order to ensure that it would be difficult to circumvent the order, the judge decided that the order would apply to not only the newzbin website itself but also to "any other IP address or URL whose sole or predominant purpose is to enable or facilitate access to the Newzbin2 website". Here we see one of the weaknesses of section 97A. It gives the High Court the power to grant an injunction but it fails completely to say what kind of an injunction that might be. In particular it does not say that the injunction should be restricted to preventing access to sites where copyright is being infringed (like Newzbin). I am therefore concerned about whether the combination of the wording of the order and lack of sanction on studios may cause problems at a later date.

The other significant issue was costs. While costs (which lawyers get very excited about) may not seem as interesting as arguments about what should be blocked and how, costs are often as expensive to a party as the consequences of losing (or winning) a claim. Costs are a big deal. One positive outcome of the decision is that BT was entitled to be paid its legal costs for the first part of the claim up to 16 December 2010 - in other words the costs that would have to be incurred to obtain a court order. In the future ISP's can be reasonably confident that they can demand a court order before instituting website blocking and not expect to have to pay the costs of that order. The judge found that BT should pay the costs of the contested part of the proceedings, but that each party would bear its own costs for the decision about the final order.

In conclusion, I have two points to make: first, it is now clear that copyright owners are perfectly able to obtain quite favourable court orders to block websites, so that there was really no need for the Digital Economy Act 2010 to introduce more website blocking provisions when the existing ones (in section 97A) had not been properly tried out. Second, other cases may not work out the same way as this one. For example TalkTalk do not run Cleanfeed. One expects that the argument (and subsequent order) in a case against TalkTalk might be a little different for that reason. We will see.

ACS:Law - at last, a hearing

UPDATE: For professional reasons I won't be commenting on this case for the time being. Please feel free to continue to comment on this post, but don't feel insulted if I do not respond.

After my recent post on ACS:Law's failure to obtain default judgments in some of their claims. Another judgment Media C.A.T Limited v Alan Billington [2010] EWPCC 18 of the patents county court has been pointed out to me.

The facts of the particular case are not particularly crucial. The Defendant, an Aaron Billington, complains amongst other things that there is no "Alan Billington" and that he did not receive a "response pack" (which comes with the Claim Form and which includes a form for acknowledging service). Although he does not say so, there also seems to be a complaint that ACS:Law did not follow good pre-action practice.

What is interesting is that the judge reviewed cases pending before the court (27 in all) and has ordered that a hearing for directions be held at 10:30am on 17th January 2011. At the hearing the court can decide how the cases should be dealt with. Clearly if you are (or know someone who is) one of the defendants and there's a reasonable defence to the claim, or the sum claimed is larger than the claimant is entitled to, then it would be a very good idea to attend the hearing and have your (or their) voice heard.

Although courts do have a power to make orders on their own initiative, without being asked to do so by the parties, many courts do not seem to use this power as much as, perhaps, Lord Woolf envisaged when he created the civil procedure rules. The hearing proves to be interesting as it may give a much broader picture of how ACS:Law are progressing their cases and it may also help the court to tidy up what sounds (from the last judgment anyway) like something of a mess even from a purely technical perspective. Mildly good news I think.

ACS:Law come unstuck

Earlier this month ACS:Law suffered a set-back in their campaign against alleged copyright infringement through peer-to-peer file sharing. ACS:Law (or more pedantically, their clients) had tried to obtain judgments in default against 8 defendants, but failed for a variety of reasons in each case. The judge in the Patents County Court criticised the nature of their claim and the way in which the applications were brought — reported as Media C.A.T Limited v A (and others) [2010] EWPCC 17.

Default judgment is a speedy way for claimants to obtain judgment without a trial. In most cases a defendant served with a claim form and particulars of claim is supposed to acknowledge service and then file a defence. If not acknowledgement or defence is forthcoming the claimant can ask the court to give it judgment in default.

This is where ACS:Law start to come unstuck. In 3 of the cases a defence had been filed in court. So default judgment does not apply. In a further 3 of the cases there was no evidence on the court file that the claim form and particulars of claim had been served on the defendant. It is ordinarily the court's job to serve these documents, but there's no presumption that it has. In my practice I have come across situations where some administrative mistake has been made and the court has failed to do so. Whatever the reason, it is bad practice to issue requests for default judgment without checking with the court that no defence has been filed. A slap on the wrist for ACS:Law in my view. As the judge said "The requests for judgment should never have been filed."

There is an easy way and a not so easy way to ask the court for a default judgment. The easy way simply requires the claimant to file a request to the court. The defendant does not have to be informed of the request and will ordinarily know nothing about it. The not so easy way requires a formal application, with evidence, to the court, which must be served on the defendant, who will therefore have an opportunity to defend against it.

The "easy way" is only available where the claim is for one or more of: a specified amount of money, an amount of money to be decided by the court, delivery of goods where the claim form gives the defendant the alternative of paying their value (CPR 12.4). In each case, the claim was not only for damages for copyright infringement (including additional damages for flagrant infringement), interest and costs but also for:

"a permanent injunction pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court; ordering the defendant to take reasonable steps to safeguard their internet connection being used, either through the defendant's personal computer and/or third parties taking advantage of the defendant's unsecured wireless connection to repeat the infringement of the claimants copyright in the Work(s)."

Ooops. That doesn't appear to comply with CRP 12.4. The judge thought not. ACS:Law ought to have made a formal application rather than merely filed a request and that would have alerted the defendants to the possibility of default judgment and given them an opportunity to respond. The judge had serious doubts as to whether, in peer to peer file sharing cases, default judgment ought to be given on request without a formal application. He said:

In all these circumstances, a default judgment arrived at without notice by means of an essentially administrative procedure, even one restricted to a financial claim, seems to me to be capable of working real injustice.

Most interesting for me are the criticism that the judge made of the way in which the case was pleaded (one assumes by ACS:Law, but certainly on their behalf).

• The particulars of claim stated that the claimant "represents" the owner of copyright in the films that were the subject of the claim. Only the owner of the copyright or a licensee (and for a non-exclusive licensee only if certain conditions are met) has a right to sue for copyright infringement. Thus the pleadings were defective.
• The allegations relate to unsecured internet connections. It is unclear whether the owner of (say) an open wifi can be held responsible for copyright infringement effected using that connection.
• The claimant's plea was that the defendant was guilty of "allowing" copyright infringement, which, as the judge put it, "is simply wrong". The term used by the act is "authorising", which is rather different.

and more of the same. In short: even accepting all of ACS:Law's allegations, they do not appear to have a proper case. To succeed they would at least have to amend their claim, assuming they have a case at all.

A health warning: this decision is made by a county court. It is not, strictly speaking, binding on any future court. It does however illustrate the extremely dubious nature of the claims being put before the court by ACS:Law and will, I hope, encourage defendants to be more confident in resisting them. The list of defects in the pleadings might make a useful basis for an application to strike out against the claimant.

Hat tip to Philippe Bradley for pointing this case out to me.