• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Assistant Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Projects
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Another win for Hollywood: English High Court rules Newzbin liable for copyright infringement

April 9, 2010 by Nathan Fan (IPilogue Editor)

Nathan Fan is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

In the growing number of legal victories for the MPAA, the English High Court of Justice recently found popular Usenet indexer, Newzbin, liable for the copyright infringement of works owned by the MPAA. The March 29, 2010 decision ruled in favour of the movie studios, holding that Newzbin had actively encouraged and authorized its users to infringe copyrighted movies, and also knowingly made the illegal content available through its indexing.

Newzbin, which claims to be the most comprehensive Usenet search engine on the internet, is a site that compiles and indexes content available on Usenet newsgroups for its users to search through. To do this, Newzbin hired editors to sort through all of the groups on Usenet and compile an index of relevant information of the content available in these groups. Newzbin does not host any of this content, but instead provides the collected and compiled information to the users through NZB files. Each NZB file contains all the information a user requires to download and decode the content stored on the various Usenet servers. As Newzbin only provides the NZB file to its users (akin to BitTorrent files)  and treats all content without prejudice, it claims that the site was a “content agnostic” search engine, akin to Google, and therefore could not be held liable for the copyright infringement of their users. For its services, Newzbin charges its members a fee for premium access to its indexes and has grossed over £1 million in 2009.

Writing for the court, Justice Kitchin held that the system of operation of the editors clearly indicated Newzbin’s knowledge and active involvement in procuring copyrighted works. The 250 editors employed by Newzbin were required to create “reports” of all the titles that were available on their index and subsequently file them under specific headings that, in the opinion of Justice Kitchin, were inherently indicative of pirated content. The reports contained descriptive information regarding the title, overall file size, and details of source, genre and language of the work.

There was also undisputed evidence that the editors were required to visit and compile information from “warez” newsgroups, well-known for their illegitimate and unauthorized content. Kitchin stated that this evidence shows that “Newzbin is designed to and does in fact search newsgroups which contain infringing materials”. Further evidence accepted by the court found that out of a sample of 50,000 reports related to movie files, all but 0.3% were shown to be commercially available copyrighted works.

In response, Newzbin argued that their software only indexed the information on Usenet and that the activity on the site was related mostly to text files found in the Usenet discussion groups. It was further argued that Newzbin took an “agnostic” approach and did not differentiate the content, citing that there was also non-infringing content represented in the index.

Ultimately, Kitchin was not convinced of Newzbin’s “agnostic” defense, holding that Newzbin’s definition of “agnostic” was merely that all content was taken and not that all content was treated in the same way. It was concluded that Newzbin had deliberately provided the access and encouraged its users to infringe copyright. Thus, Kitchin granted an injunction against Newzbin indexing the works of the MPAA members.

Given this ruling, the MPAA and other members of the entertainment industry can now scratch another notch on their post alongside other victories over search sites such as IsoHunt and The Pirate Bay. It seems that the film and music industries are gaining some serious legal headway in strengthening the rights of copyright owners in the internet world. However, enforcement still remains elusive in many countries, such as China, where intellectual property rights are less developed (see IFPI’s recent loss to Chinese search engine Baidu). Given the global nature of the internet, it seems that another day only brings another fight for the MPAA. However, the continued victories for the industry might just illuminate the silver lining for the industry.

Posted in Copyright, IP, Internet

One Response to “Another win for Hollywood: English High Court rules Newzbin liable for copyright infringement”

  1. Anonymous, on April 10, 2010 at 9:26 am Said:

    > Newzbin hired editors…

    Editors are unpaid.

    > As Newzbin only provides the NZB file to its users (akin to BitTorrent files) and treats all content without prejudice, it claims that the site was a “content agnostic” search engine

    Yes, to an extent. Newzbin is (was?) “content agnostic” until a notice of copyright infringement was filed, which they adhered to through their delisting facility. The judge dismissed it as being cumbersome and entirely cosmetic, but all they asked for was the item ID, contact details, and reason for removal.

    Apparently though, you’d need to download a copy in order for them to take the item down, which was overly “cumbersome.”

    How else would you prove it’s copyright infringing except by downloading it yourself? Fake titles on usenet are not rare. I don’t see why such a procedure shouldn’t be cumbersome. If you want your alleged material removed, why shouldn’t you have to prove you own the rights you claim? If the procedures were too streamlined, any Joe the Plumber could make malicious and frivolous complaints, and quickly remove all the content on the site.

    I find Kitchin’s cursory analysis a little unsettling. In the end he basically says a takedown procedure that requires you to download the file is too cumbersome.

    > editors were required to visit and compile information from “warez” newsgroups…Kitchin stated that this evidence shows that “Newzbin is designed to and does in fact search newsgroups which contain infringing materials”

    Wait what? They were not required to do so– the terms & conditions prohibited it. As far as warez newsgroups go, Newzbin was dinged because warez newzgroups were in fact indexed. But does that mean that any usenet host is liable for copyright infringement? How about a web host that hosts a site with a URL containing “warez”? How about google, who indexes sites with “warez” in the URL?

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« ACLU’s successful challenge of genetic patents is promising for cancer treatment, but perturbing for patent lawyers | The Cloud Computing Trend: Increased Threats for Privacy »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Events Calendar
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

 

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • bob on Bill C-32: Copyright and Education in the Digital Age
  • Stuart Freen on Sizing Privacy Harm
  • Steven Bercu on First sale and digital content
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Stuart Freen on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Christian Rock on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Anonymous on Does Fashion Need Copyright Protection?
  • Fly Intheointment on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Bart on Copyright Termination: How Authors can Reclaim their Copyrights
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • CRTC Seizes Internet Regulation Mantle
  • Brand Expectations in the Restroom: 4th Circuit Applies Contributory Trademark Infringement Doctrine to Post-Purchase Confusion Case
  • Yes, Patents Do Have Gender
  • Fashion IP Revisited: The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act
  • RIM’s Battle for Information Privacy, Market Share, and its Reputation
  • Transnational Regulation: Rough Consensus and Running Code
  • IP Osgoode: Call for Editors (2010-2011)
  • Sizing Privacy Harm
  • The Internet Age: The Culprit for a Rise in Plagiarism?
  • USPTO Issues Post-Bilski Guidelines for Patent Examiners
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Commercialization (46)
  • Contracts (36)
  • copyright reform (65)
  • defamation (6)
  • events (36)
  • General (120)
  • Innovation (79)
  • Internet (122)
  • IP (650)
    • Copyright (308)
      • CD Levy (6)
      • Digital Downloads (39)
      • Digital Locks (12)
      • Fair Dealing (25)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Internet Sharing (50)
      • Literary Works (24)
      • Movies (24)
      • Music Industry (42)
      • Originality (17)
      • Ownership (45)
        • Licensees (12)
      • Subsidiary Rights (4)
    • Patents (198)
      • Cross Border Issues (34)
      • Electronic Processes (7)
      • Infringement (37)
      • Patent Trolls (10)
      • Patentability (59)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (46)
    • Trademarks (130)
      • Domain Names (26)
      • Famous Marks (9)
      • Official Marks (8)
      • Parallel Importation (3)
      • Personality Rights (8)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • Links (3)
  • Music Industry (39)
  • Open-Source (14)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (3)
  • Privacy (111)
    • Electronic Databases (23)
    • Human Rights Issues (19)
    • Identity Theft (6)
  • Regulatory Policy (2)
  • Tech Transfer (12)
  • Technology (119)
  • Telecommunications (30)
  • Uncategorized (70)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736