ISPs Are The New Targets In Copyright Infringement Cases - 20th Century Fox Film Corp & Others v British Telecommunications Plc

Summary

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, together with other film makers and distributors (the Studios) sued the major internet service provider (ISP) British Telecommunications Plc (BT) under Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) 1988. The new right against service providers. The Studios won the case against BT; with the Court finding BT had 'actual knowledge' of its customers using its service to infringe copyright. Consequently for the first time in the UK, an ISP has been ordered to prevent its users accessing a site giving links to TV shows and movies without licenses of copyrights. This is also the first occasion on which an effective application for a section 97A order against an ISP has been made. After this victory, claimants will no doubt seek similar orders against other ISPs in UK. Making this case the potential starting point to take the fight against infringement copyright to the infringers.

Background facts

The claimants sought an order against British Telecommunications Plc. (BT) which is an internet service provider (ISP) with the largest number of internet subscribers in UK. This claim was under s97A of the CDPA 1988 giving UK courts the 'power to grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright.' The injunction in this present case requiring BT to block the website 'NewzBin2' supplying infringing film and television programme content.

NewzBin2 is the 'reincarnation' of NewzBin1 using the same code and database as its predecessor and having the same categories of content available. NewzBin1 having been convicted by the English High Court in 2010 for infringement copyright.1 Newzbin located and categorised unlawful copies of films and then (i) displayed the titles of these copies in its indices, (ii) provided a facility for its users to search for particular unlawful copies, (iii) displayed their search results and (iv) provided a simple one-click mechanism for users to acquire the unlawful copies of their choice. As with NewzBin1, the main focus of Newzbin2 is film and television programmes whose the copyright is held by the claimant.

The applicants sought an injunction not against NewzBin2, as they did in NewzBin1, but rather directly against BT as it was highly probable that a substantial number of BT subscribers were members of NewzBin2. Before suing BT, the claimants wrote on...