Tag

High court rules on Newzbin copyright infringement case

The High Court [jointly liable along with Newzbin Limited for the wrongful act] carried out on the file-sharing Newzbin websites and ruled that he is also part of a conspiracy to infringe copyrights and defraud film studios.

Mr Justice Barling said David Harris was jointly responsible along with his Newzbin Limited business for copyright-infringing activities on the Newzbin and Newzbin2 websites over a period that in total covers nearly three years.

The High Court had previously found that [original Newzbin] belonging to rights-holders in the film industry, and then [Newzbin Limited] to block their customers’ access to the Newzbin2 site – which had emerged after the original Newzbin site shut down.

“I am satisfied that Harris is [jointly liable along with Newzbin Limited for the wrongful act] … of the copyright infringing operations via the [original Newzbin] website for the period between 19 December 2009 and 18 May 2010, when the website closed,” Mr Justice Barling said. “Harris masterminded and directed all the actions of [Newzbin Limited] throughout that period, including those actions which were found to constitute infringing conduct. If ever there was a clear case of a company director ‘intending, procuring and sharing a common design’ to commit an infringement with the company, and ‘making it his own’, then this is it.”

The judge added: “I conclude that Harris is similarly liable to [the film studios] for the infringements of their copyrights which arose from his operation of the [Newzbin2] website throughout the period from 28 May 2010 to 28 November 2012. In this regard Harris was either the sole [person responsible for the wrongful act], or, to the extent that his associates were sufficiently involved in the infringing activity, Harris was also [jointly] liable.”

Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Bros and Disney were among six major film studios to have brought the action against Harris on behalf of themselves and other members of the Motion Picture Association (MPA).

The film studios had claimed that Harris was the “driving force behind mass deliberate infringements of [their] copyrights” and that five businesses they were also suing were owned or controlled by Harris. They said Harris used the businesses to channel money generated from the copyright infringing activities to himself and syphon off funds from his Newzbin business to thwart their efforts to recover costs and compensation for the Newzbin copyright infringement.

Harris had rejected the claims. In particular he argued that the original Newzbin site was not set up with the intention of infringing copyright and that he did not believe infringing activity had been taking place on the site until the High Court ruled it had in 2010.

He said all reasonable steps had been taken to adhere to the High Court’s 2010 order and denied having anything to do with setting up or running the Newzbin2 website which emerged after the original Newzbin site was shut down. He further claimed the Newzbin2 website was being operated by a Swedish man who he had leased domain name rights to.

However, the judge rejected Harris’ defence.

“Despite Harris’s denials, the evidence that he was the driving force behind the setting up and operation of the N2 website is overwhelming, and it is clear that the suggestion of theft of [Newzbin Limited’s] software and of Swedish nationals running the [Newzbin2] website is a fairytale,” Mr Justice Barling said.

The [jointly liable along with Newzbin Limited for the wrongful act] had submitted evidence to the court from ‘chat logs’ which they claimed showed Harris was behind the Newzbin sites and knew about the infringing activity conducted on them. Harris refuted the accuracy of the logs but Mr Justice Barling said they were “a true record” of what Harris and his associates had discussed.

“[The chat logs] show beyond doubt that, far from abandoning the infringing activities carried on via the [original Newzbin] website, Harris was carefully laying the ground so that after the [original Newzbin website] action and anticipated winding up of [Newzbin Limited], the infringing activities in question would continue more or less seamlessly well into the future, by means of servers based outside the jurisdiction, and with Harris running the operation,” Mr Justice Barling said.

[the film studios]Copyright © 2014, [Newzbin2]

Out-Law.com is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

[person responsible for the wrongful act]

High court finds Newzbin’s ‘ops’ man liable for copyright infringement – Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/28/man_behind_newzbin_operations_found_liable_for_copyright_infringement_on_the_sites/… Read the rest

Four broadcasters file lawsuit against Aereo over copyright infringement

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) – Aereo, backed by Barry Diller’s IAC/InterActiveCorp charges users a low monthly fee to watch live or recorded broadcast TV channels on computers or mobile devices – and does not pay any of the broadcasters.Aereo has urged the high court to hear the case even though it won in the lower court, as it would like a definitive and final answer in regards to the issue.Help end world hunger by going here.

Justice Samuel Alito will not participate in it, according to The Supreme Court, which generally does not disclose why justices are excused. A ruling is expected by the end of this June.

Aereo subscribers can stream live broadcasts of TV channels on mobile devices using miniature antennas. Launched in March 2012 in the New York area, Aereo has since expanded to about 10 cities and plans to enter several more.

The four broadcasters claim that Aereo violates their copyrights on the television programs. The service, they say, represents a threat to their ability to control subscription fees and generate advertising.

The National Football League, Major League Baseball and various media companies, including Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. have all filed court papers in support of the broadcasters.

Aereo’s business model is “built on stealing the creative content of others,” CBS said in a statement last week.

In its defense, Aereo counters that its service does nothing more than provide users what they could obtain with a personal television antenna. “We believe that consumers have a right to use an antenna to access over-the-air television and to make personal recordings of those broadcasts,” Aereo chief executive officer Chet Kanojia said in a statement.
Persuasive grounds

The lawsuit is being watched closely with the utmost seriousness. Cablevision Systems Corporation says that the legal theory advanced by broadcasters to the high court would spell trouble for cloud-based content services and threaten Cablevision’s ability to offer DVR recording to its customers.

“Cablevision remains confident that while the Aereo service violates copyright, the Supreme Court will find persuasive grounds for invalidating Aereo without relying on the broadcasters’ overreaching – and wrong – copyright arguments that challenge the legal underpinning of all cloud-based services,” the company said in a statement.
2014, Distributed by THE NEWS CONSORTIUM.

Four broadcasters file lawsuit against Aereo over copyright infringement – Catholic Online
copyright infringement news – Google News… Read the rest