ISP ordered to block access to online file sharing site
Entertainment & media
Comment | 16 August 2011
In a decision welcomed by many, at the end of last month BT was ordered to block customer access to file sharing site, Newzbin. This was on the basis that as an Internet Service Provider (ISP), BT has a positive duty to prevent its customers from infringing another party’s copyright. The case represents a landmark decision that could pave the way for far better protection of copyright.
The claim was brought by a host of leading film studios. They sued Newzbin, a website that makes available thousands of different films located elsewhere on the internet at the click of a button. There was no issue that the film studios’ copyright was being infringed. The question was to what extent the court would go to protect rights holders against illegal pirating. The answer was: far.
The courts will now look to an ISP to take positive steps to prevent its subscribers/ customers from infringing the copyright of rights holders.
It is a quite remarkable victory for the film studios and for rights holders generally. The age of the internet has brought a fascinating and challenging new frontier to the problem of protection of rights. Enforcing rights against those responsible can be problematic. A common tactic deployed by a website accused of acting in an unlawful manner, or facilitating unlawful conduct, is to locate itself in an obscure jurisdiction and out of the reach of the courts. Whilst such sites are not impenetrable, tactics like this can cause all sorts of complications.
In successfully targeting an ISP, the film studios have perhaps scored their greatest anti piracy victory to date. ISPs have always maintained that they are not responsible for content that is accessed using their service. To a certain extent that is true. They do not have direct control over that content at source (unless it is held on their servers), nor can they realistically monitor 24/7 everything that is happening online around the globe. That said, it is their service that is being used to access such content, so they can technically do something once they know about it.
ISPs have been quick to voice their concerns over what they see as an obligation to police the internet for content which is outside of their control. They claim it will place a heavy burden upon them and that it will increase their operational costs.
Yet provided rulings such as this are made on a case-specific basis only, “blocking orders” of this type shouldn’t significantly increase the burden on ISPs in the battle against piracy, particularly once systems are put in place. The infringing content will be brought directly to their attention, meaning that there is no obligation to police the internet. In times where $25billion is lost by the global film industry to online pirating, crippling the industry and putting its very existence at risk, surely it is a small price to pay.