tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2276791069863874252..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: A fable for modern times: the Fox and the NewzbinVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29899340325342976732010-03-31T15:28:40.781+01:002010-03-31T15:28:40.781+01:00Re Newzbin and Google
Read the judgement. Of all ...Re Newzbin and Google<br /><br />Read the judgement. Of all the "hallmarks" of authorisation (my wording) which the judge uses to come to a conclusion of authorising infringement, none are used by Google. No "editors", no presentation and identificion of screeners, cams, telesync, no encouragement of editors to link to Amazon or IMDB for movies, no statements by the Google team that they are making it easier to locate and download infringing content.<br /><br />Of course, I still think the case will go to appeal, as authorising infringment still requires "granting or purporting to grant" the right to do an act, and I am certain that, from the point of view of the users, who are supposedly being "authorised" to infringe, they knew full well that Newzbin could not and was not able or offering to grant the right to download or copy the materials in question. They were only offering the means and even suggesting that it might be done, and how, but that does not amount to granting or purporting to grant the right to do an infringing act. I imagine that "incitement to" or "conspiracy to" infringe copyright would be more appropriate, but there is no legislative basis for such charges.<br /><br />I think that this case therefore was distinguished over Amstrad, but that the statutory wording was incorrectly applied, and thus that appeal is both likely and arguably will succeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72882513042406506222010-03-30T14:44:15.075+01:002010-03-30T14:44:15.075+01:00"Newzbin, which ran an internet discussion sy..."Newzbin, which ran an internet discussion system called Usenet"<br /><br />No they didn't. Usenet was established in 1980 and has been around far longer than Newzbin.<br /><br />The judge did not say that Newzbin ran Usenet, it's a statement by this site.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53419362729838652012010-03-30T10:41:29.496+01:002010-03-30T10:41:29.496+01:00can't wait for the fireworks when the film com...can't wait for the fireworks when the film companies go after google - after all, there is no difference between Newzbin and them... you can search for and find copyrighted files on google just as easily as you could on Newzbin!<br /><br />or perhaps the film companies will only go after the small independent websites because they're afraid of a big search engines' lawyers?<br /><br />:D<br /><br />xTxUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17223550012168367032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48841948337456991962010-03-29T20:46:22.270+01:002010-03-29T20:46:22.270+01:00@Jeremy, I think what anonymous was taking issue w...@Jeremy, I think what anonymous was taking issue with was the phrase "which ran an internet discussion system called Usenet" (which is yours not that of Kitchin J). Newzbin didn't run Usenet, really nobody does.<br /><br />@Anonymous - even though you are right that Newzbin didn't itself hold any of the offending files that doesn't stop it from being liable for copyright infringement. For example by authorising the infringement of copyright (which is itself an infringement). <br /><br />The judgment is worth reading in detail to understand the judge's reasoning.Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-66353919156704864592010-03-29T19:01:28.232+01:002010-03-29T19:01:28.232+01:00Paragraphs 63 and 64 make for some interesting rea...Paragraphs 63 and 64 make for some interesting reading:<br /><br />"The defendant was asked to produce the webserver logs to which Mr Elsworth had referred in his witness statement but said this was not possible because they had been deleted. When asked for the management reporting tool, the defendant responded that the software for the site had already been disclosed but declined to assist Mr Clark to identify the relevant code. In the event Mr Clark was unable to find it. As for the management report itself, Mr Elsworth said in cross examination that the management reporting tool was only ever used on this one occasion. Yet the report purports to show data for seven days from 13 to 19 December 2009, not for a period in January as Mr Elsworth said in his statement. Moreover, the data are simply not credible. Mr Elsworth said the system rounded weekly figures to the nearest 1,000 and that he calculated the daily figures. The document records production of 40,000 text digests (5,700/day) comprising 840,000 messages (120,000/day, 21/report); and 9,000 binary reports (1,300/day) comprising 1,225,000 messages (175,000/day, 136/report). It also records 4,900,000 text digest views (700,000/day, 125/report) and 1,400,000 binary report views (200,000/day, 150/report). In my judgment Mr Elsworth had no satisfactory explanation for the remarkable coincidence of these numbers if, as he said, they were generated by the management reporting tool and simply rounded to the nearest 1,000. A cursory examination reveals that many of them must have been rounded in a quite different way.<br />In all these circumstances I conclude that the management report must have been produced in a manner other than that related by Mr Elsworth. Overall, I found the report wholly unconvincing and feel unable to attach any weight to it or to Mr Elsworth's explanation of how it was generated or his evidence as to what it purports to show. Further, I do not accept Mr Elsworth's evidence as to the usage of Newzbin's text content, based as it was upon that management report."<br /><br />Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer would know more about the possible consequences of such things.David Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02336561458060095886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-18410844887177465692010-03-29T18:52:43.716+01:002010-03-29T18:52:43.716+01:00Anonymous: I think your issue is with the judge, n...Anonymous: I think your issue is with the judge, not with me.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32372737857049854852010-03-29T18:51:57.225+01:002010-03-29T18:51:57.225+01:00Newzbin do not own or run Usenet. the do not even ...Newzbin do not own or run Usenet. the do not even provide a Usenet service.<br /><br />This is important because the files were provided via Usenet.<br /><br />People cannot join Newzbin and download films. They can join Newzbin and download a file that tells them where the infringing content is located. They then have to have an account with a Usenet service provider. They download the infringing content from that provider.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com