CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘UK’ Category

Film piracy battle heads to court | guardian.co.uk

Motion Picture Association heads to high court seeking to block website that allegedly distributes pirated material

Josh Halliday
guardian.co.uk, Monday 27 June 2011 11.11 BST

Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush in The King’s Speech – there are said to be more than 70 pirate versions available online. Photograph: Weinstein/Everett /Rex Features

Hollywood film studios will take their battle against illicit downloading to the high court in London on Tuesday in an attempt to force Britain’s largest internet service provider, BT, to block access to a website that allegedly distributes pirated material.

Backed by studios including Warner Bros, Fox, Disney and Paramount Pictures, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) – the international arm of the US film trade body, the MPAA – is trying to get BT to cut off access to Newzbin2, a website that allegedly links to hundreds of pirated movies and music.

Tuesday’s high court case will be the first in Britain where an attempt is being made to force internet providers to block sites under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act. If successful, the ruling will pave the way for more music and film companies to go to the courts seeking the controversial blocking orders.

Spyro Markesinis, the vice president of legal affairs for Momentum Pictures, the distributor of The King’s Speech, said there were 75 different versions of the Colin Firth movie on Newzbin2.

‘The survival of our business depends on the revenues we receive for our content,’ he said. ‘Our recent film, The King’s Speech, is available on the Newzbin2 website without our consent. Neither we, nor the filmmakers, receive anything for this.

‘Lost revenues not only threaten our business and our employees’ jobs but also mean we have less money to invest in new films, so the whole industry – and particularly the independent film business – is at risk. That’s why we fully support this action against Newzbin.’

The film industry’s fight against Newzbin stretches back to March last year, when the high court ordered the site to remove all of its pirated material and pay damages to the studios. The firm behind the website, Newzbin Ltd, went into administration shortly after the ruling. However, a clone site soon appeared operated anonymously from Sweden.

Chris Marcich – the MPA president for Europe, the Middle East and Africa – said the group had ‘no option’ but to take its fight against Newzbin to the courts.

‘Newzbin has no regard for UK law and it is unacceptable that it continues to infringe copyright on a massive and commercial scale when it has been ordered to stop by the high court,’ he said.

Separately, the communications minister, Ed Vaizey, is leading a series of discussions with rights holders about setting up a voluntary web blocking body to curb illicit filesharing. Under the plans, ISPs would block access to websites such as The Pirate Bay on a list drawn up by copyright owners.

BT declined to comment.

Film studios want BT to block website offering The King’s Speech | guardian.co.uk

Newzbin2 claimed to be ‘infringing copyright on an enormous scale’

Josh Halliday
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 June 2011 14.16 BST
Article history

The website Newzbin2 is claimed to have 75 illicit versions of The King’s Speech. Photograph: Allstar/Sportsphoto

Colin Firth’s box office hit The King’s Speech is at the heart of a landmark court battle over online piracy between Hollywood film giants and Britain’s largest internet service provider, BT.

Major film studios, including Paramount Pictures and Disney, asked the high court in London on Tuesday to force BT to block access to the website Newzbin2, which they claim is ‘infringing copyright on an enormous scale’ – including 75 illicit versions of The King’s Speech.

The case is the first of its kind in Britain and could pave the way for the biggest clampdown on online piracy yet.

Hollywood studios argued in court that illicit filesharing was a ‘very significant social evil’ and is responsible for ’several hundreds of millions of pounds a year’ in lost revenue. The studios – represented by their international trade body, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) – want BT to cut off access to Newzbin2 for UK internet users in the same way that it blocks child abuse websites on the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) list.

However, BT claims that such a blocking order would be the ‘thin end of the wedge’ and there would be ‘nothing to stop countless other’ rights holders demanding that hundreds of other contentious websites are banned.

In its skeleton argument, BT claimed in the high court that rights groups would like to see about ‘400 sites a year’ blocked by internet providers. ‘Rights holders in the music and movie industries have already identified 100 copyright infringing websites which they would like to see blocked,’ the ISP said. ‘Claimants would seek orders blocking access to websites alleged to contain defamatory allegations or private and confidential information.’

Richard Spearman QC, acting on behalf of the film studios, told the court that if a blocking order is granted, they will demand that other UK ISPs, including TalkTalk and Virgin Media, also blacklist the website or face court action.

He told the court that there was now ‘no other way of impeding the infringement of copyright’ than to obtain a court order. ‘[Newzbin2] allows repeat and mammoth-scale copyright infringement,’ Spearman said. ‘If BT could not see that happening then they have to be the biggest ostrich in history.’

The offshore-based Newzbin2 has about 700,000 members, with annual turnover of more than £1m, according to the rights holders.

According to the rights holders, Newzbin2 currently helps distribute about 115,000 illegal versions of films and 320,000 TV shows.

The film industry’s fight against Newzbin stretches back to March last year, when the high court ordered the offshore-based site to remove all of its pirated material and pay damages to the studios.

However, the company behind the site, Newzbin Ltd, went into administration shortly after the ruling and avoided compensating the studios. Within weeks, clone site Newzbin2 appeared hosting similar material. The rights holders claim Newzbin2 has about 700,000 members, with an annual turnover of more than £1m.

Chris Marcich, the MPAA president for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, said: ‘Newzbin has no regard for UK law and it is unacceptable that it continues to infringe copyright on a massive and commercial scale when it has been ordered to stop by the high court.’

The case continues and the high court is expected to make a ruling this week.

Leaked Document: Copyright Industry Wants a Great Firewall of Britain: “

Website blocking has certainly been discussed in the US with the PROTECT IP act first propsed last month. While the senate has approved the bill, it seems that the US isn’t going to be the only country debating the prospects of filtering the internet.

A document labelled confidential was recently sent to James Firth’s blog and ultimately posted on Open Rights Group detailing a proposal by some industry interests to pressure British ISPs to participate in a ‘voluntary’ site blocking system.The documents describe this system as an ‘approach to inhibiting access to websites that are substantially focused upon infringement of copyright.’There’s plenty of reason to be concerned and one of the main reason to be concerned is that public policy is being decided behind closed doors. This isn’t too dissimilar to when copyright organizations tried pushing for many controversial provisions in the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Everything about it was being planned behind closed doors. The only reason anyone heard about it early on was because Wikileaks blew the lid off of the secrecy surrounding ACTA back in 2008. This led to a major outcry from individuals and human rights groups alike to question the bill.It seems this ‘voluntary’ Great Firewall of Britain won’t be any different. Many of the criticisms directed at ACTA could be directed at this proposal including, ‘Was the proposal so bad that they had to hide it to avoid any kind of scrutiny?’There are other reasons to be concerned besides the questionable action of keeping this secret. Firth provided the following quote and response:

‘Evidence should also be submitted to show the urgency with which the measures are sought to inform any balance that needs to be struck by the expert body and the Court between the need for swift action and the need for sufficient evidence.’

This is very worrying indeed. Whilst the document talks about evidence gathering, ‘prior notification and liberty;’ it also talks about a turn-around time quick enough for ‘live events’ and a balance between swift action and evidence.The language used reads like copyright protection is being sold as more important than due process under law. In any case, I can’t imagine a technical solution that would allow ISPs to implement an effective block within the time scale of a ‘live event’, irrespective of the time it takes a court to act.So it’s not surprising that digital rights champions the Open Rights Group were locked out, despite hearing of the meeting in advance and putting in a request to attend

The Open Rights Group also expressed deep concern for this proposal:

The documents, sent to James Firth’s blog, set out a dangerous voluntary scheme that would involve ‘expedited court procedures’ and a ‘balance’ between evidence and speed of action. Definitions of what content is to be judged blockable is scarce. References to exactly how such blocking would work, and the consequences, are non-existent. The case for blocking is left unmade, with no analysis about the effects of such measures. There is cursory reference to the rule of law and proper oversight. The proposal, if it is the genuine proposal, adds up to a dangerous revocation of the rule of law where lobby groups would decide what you are allowed to see and read.

The Open Rights Group then referenced a recent Rapporteur which sounded an ‘alarm’ over such measures. They also encouraged British citizens to contact their MP to get them to ’sign EDM 1913, which calls for the government to take on board what the UN have said and reconsider the Digital Economy Act and its many proposed website blocking schemes.’The full document is currently being hosted by the Open Rights Group for those interested in reading the proposal.I doubt that an ISP could ever prevent every user from accessing a blocked website. All it really takes it the right proxy to access it.Do you think website blocking will ever be fully possible or is it a bad idea?Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.”

(Via ZeroPaid.com.)

LEAKED: UK copyright lobby holds closed-door meetings with gov’t to discuss national Web-censorship regime – Boing Boing

Cory Doctorow at 2:46 AM Wednesday, Jun 22, 2011

A group of UK copyright lobbyists held confidential, closed-door meetings with Ed Vaizey, Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries to discuss a plan to allow industry groups to censor the Internet in the UK. The proposal has leaked, and it reveals a plan to establish “expert bodies” that would decide which websites British people were allowed to see, to be approved by a judge using a “streamlined” procedure. The procedure will allow for “swift” blocking in order to shut down streaming of live events.

Public interest groups like the Open Rights Group asked to attend the meeting, but were shut out, presaging a regulatory process that’s likely to be a lopsided, industry-centric affair that doesn’t consider the public. The process is characterised as “voluntary,” but the proposal makes reference to the Digital Economy Act, which allows for mandatory web-blocking (thanks to the action of LibDem Lords who submitted a proposal written by a record industry lobbyist as an amendment to the DEA).

The Open Rights Group has a campaign to repeal the DEA that you can sign onto.

We would like confirmation from the government that these are genuine proposals which they are actively considering. We would also like to know what steps they will be taking to consider the views of organisations such as Open Rights Group, and those others who recently wrote to rights holders expressing their concern and requesting such proposals are made public.

So far these discussions have involved only rightsholders and Internet companies, with only in the most recent meeting involving Consumer Focus. (As Jim blogged yesterday, Consumer Focus’ response to the proposals they discussed is here). This is a welcome concession. But it is a concession. Open policy making that takes on board the broadest range of views is not something within the gift of politicians but a responsibility they bear.

Premier League joins group lobbying for web blocking, proposing confused “voluntary” scheme – overseen by the courts (James Firth)

Rights holders’ proposed voluntary website blocking scheme (Open Rights Group)

Response to ‘Addressing websites that are substantially focused on infringement’ working paper (Consumer Focus PDF)

BBC News – Digital Economy Act court challenge fails: “Digital Economy Act court challenge fails

20 April 2011

A legal challenge to the Digital Economy Act has failed get the controversial legislation overturned.

The judicial review, requested by BT and Talk Talk, rejected claims that Parliament had overstepped its powers with anti-piracy measures.

However, Mr Justice Kenneth Parker upheld one of the objections, relating to who pays for the law’s enforcement.

Today’s ruling was welcomed by copyright holders who said that it would help reduce illegal file sharing.

The act, which was rushed through Parliament before the 2010 general election, obliges internet service providers (ISPs) to co-operate with rights holders in identifying computer users who may have downloaded music, software or videos illegally.
European law

BT and Talk Talk mounted a legal challenge in the High Court, claiming the legislation violated several European laws on commerce and privacy.

Justice Parker rejected four of the five points put forward by the ISPs but ruled in their favour regarding a piece of associated legislation that makes service providers liable for 25% of the cost of policing their users.

The government will now be forced to re-examine the draft costs sharing order, however it is unlikely that will significantly delay the implementation of the Digital Economy Act.

In a statement, BT expressed its disappointment with the ruling.

‘Protecting our customers is our number one priority and we will consider our options once we have fully understood the implications for our customers and businesses.

‘This was always about seeking clarity on certain points of law and we have to consider whether this judgment achieves these aims,’ said a BT spokesperson.

The government said that it was ‘pleased’ with the High Court’s decision and that it would set out the next steps for implementing the law shortly.
Severe sanctions

Prior to the Digital Economy Act, content producers, such as record companies and film studios, had argued that the UK needed legislation to help them pursue illegal file sharers.
Continue reading the main story
‘Start Quote

This judgement gives the green light for action to tackle illegal downloading in the UK.’

End Quote Geoff Taylor British Phonographic Institute

What they eventually secured was a law that compels ISPs to write to their customers at the rights holders’ behest, warning them to cease their behaviour.

If the the customer does not comply, their ISP may eventually be asked to limit the user’s internet access or, in extreme cases, make their personal details available so legal action can be taken.

Opponents of the Digital Economy Act claimed that it allowed for severe sanctions against computer users, based on little more than the word of a large corporation.

They pointed out that the act also failed to clearly define a route of appeal for those users targeted.

Rights holders argued that rather than contesting the law, companies like BT and TalkTalk ought to have worked with them to try to iron out these problems.

One such group, the British Phonographic Institute (BPI) which represents record companies, welcomed Wednesday’s ruling.

BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor said: ‘This judgement gives the green light for action to tackle illegal downloading in the UK.

‘It confirms that the DEA is proportionate and consistent with European Law.

‘Shareholders and customers of BT and TalkTalk might ask why so much time and money has been spent challenging an act of Parliament to help reduce the illegal traffic on their networks.’

High Court awards damages to Operation Ore accused | News | PC Pro

By Nicole Kobie
Posted on 4 Apr 2011 at 14:29

The High Court has awarded damages to a man wrongfully caught up in the Operation Ore child porn investigation.

Operation Ore kicked off in 1999 in the US, with a list of suspects accused of paying for access to a ‘child pornography’ site handed to UK police in 2002, leading to more than 1,400 prosecutions.

However, the evidence used to convict the accused paedophiles was flawed. Writing in PC Pro in 2005, computer expert and investigative journalist Duncan Campbell revealed that many of the accused were nothing more than victims of credit-card fraud.

British police were aware the evidence was flawed within months of starting the investigation, according to a new report published today on The Register.

Jeremy Clifford, now 51 from Watford, was one of thousands of people accused during the investigation, after his credit-card details were fraudulently used on the site in question. He was arrested in 2003.

Illicit images were found in the temporary internet files folder on his machine, but a police computer expert said at the time the thumbnail images could have been placed there without Clifford’s knowledge.

Despite the expert finding no evidence that Clifford ever downloaded child pornography, Hertfordshire Police still proceeded with the charges, which were eventually dropped.

The court awarded Clifford £20,000 in damages, while the police force faces up to hundreds of thousands of pounds in costs.

‘In my opinion it is an absolute disgrace that the police have been allowed to spend huge sums of public money recklessly and without apparent check or merit attacking Mr Clifford, in order to deflect from their own shortcomings,’ Andre Clovis of Tuckers Solicitors, told the The Telegraph.

‘This course of conduct caused costs to escalate. There appears to be no control mechanism over police spending in such circumstances, but this does not mean that the Chief Constable and his legal department should not be called to account for their actions.’

A spokesman for Hertfordshire Constabulary said: ‘Legal advice was taken beforehand and it was advised and expected that we had a reasonable chance of winning our case.’

Of the over 7,000 originally accused in the Operation Ore investigation, 3,744 people were arrested, 1,848 were charged, and 1,451 convicted. As many as 39 people committed suicide after being accused.

Operation Ore was based on flawed evidence from the start: “

Cops raised concerns ahead of national meeting in 2003

Exclusive Britain’s biggest ever computer crime investigation, Operation Ore, was flawed by a catalogue of ‘discrepancies, errors and uncertainties’, disclosed reports of two national police conferences seen by The Register reveal.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Judge hits police with massive bill over false Operation Ore charges: “

Cop had ‘no honest belief’ in charges

A man wrongly accused in Britain’s largest ever child pornography investigation has won damages in the High Court after an eight-year legal battle.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Open Rights Group | Minister confirms site blocking discussions

By Peter Bradwell on Mar 30, 2011.

We have received a reply from Ed Vaizey, Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, about new website blocking discussions.

He has confirmed that discussion are ongoing between rights-holders and Internet Service Providers about ’self-regulatory’ site-blocking measures.

We believe website blocking is a bad idea, especially on a self-regulatory basis where vital judicial oversight is bypassed.

The good news is that he has promised to invite civil society groups to participate in future discussions on the matter. In our reply we suggested, alongside Open Rights Group, that he consider Global Partners, Liberty, Article 19, and Consumer Focus.

You can help by writing to your MP explaining why website blocking is a bad idea and why it’s important civil society groups are represented.

24 March 2011
Dear Jim

Thank you for your letter of 28 February about our recent meeting with stakeholders to discuss alternative plans for site-blocking measures in the Digital Economy Act (DEA).

Jeremy and I met with key players from the digital economy on 23 February to discuss developing new ways for people to access content online. Coming out of this meeting was a proposal for a Working Group to be formed to look at industry self-regulatory measures to tackle online copyright infringement through site-blocking.

I recognise that it is very important that consumer interests are considered very carefully, and we will be inviting consumer representative groups to participate in future discussions on the issue.

ED VAIZEY MP Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries

BBC News – Government mulls UK net controls
31 March 2011 Last updated at 11:27 GMT

No entry tape, Getty Voluntary arrangements on site blocking might mean many websites suddenly become unreachable

The government is talking to ISPs about blocking access to websites deemed to help people infringe copyright.

With the help of ISPs and content makers it has set up a working party to see how such a pro-active blocking system would work.

Discussions about the site blocking system emerged in a letter sent to the Open Rights Group (ORG).

The ORG said site blocking was a ‘bad idea’ that could overstep laws set up to police copyright infringement.
Backdoor deal

In the letter published on the ORG website, Ed Vaizey, minister for culture, communications and creative industries, said his department was exploring ‘alternative plans’ for site-blocking measures.

A meeting in late February attended by ISPs and rights holders, he wrote, ended with the creation of the working group that would investigate site-blocking systems.

A spokesman for the DCMS said it was appropriate that only ISPs, rights holders and web intermediaries such as Google and Yahoo were party to the initial discussions.

‘Consumer representative groups will be invited to take part in future discussions on this issue,’ he said. The working party will meet for the first time in the first week of April.

Jim Killock, executive director of the ORG, said that the discussions between the government, ISPs and rights holders had been prompted by delays to the Digital Economy Act.

The DEA is currently under judicial review following a legal challenge from BT and TalkTalk which claim that its provisions on file-sharing harm users’ privacy. The legislation is not expected to be enacted before early 2012.

The DEA lays out measures which will see content providers monitor file-sharing sites for infringements. They can apply to court to get ISPs to surrender the name of the computer that used an infringing net address.

The government-backed discussions were a way to advance similar controls via the backdoor, said Mr Killock.

‘It would not be something that needs judges and acts of parliament to implement,’ he said. ‘It’s a private arrangement.’

Mr Killock said similar systems set up in other countries such as Finland had shown that such arrangements had great potential for abuse and made it very difficult to get anything changed if sites were blocked mistakenly.

Others have pointed out that many national site blocking systems are easy to get around and few have the ability to tackle the peer-to-peer networks that many use to get at music and movies.

Mr Killock also queried whether rights holders needed more powers to block sites given that existing laws give them two separate routes for getting infringing content removed.

He said: ‘The principle at stake is whether you want private voluntary arrangements censoring parts of the internet that rights holders are worried about or do you believe in the rule of law?’