TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Hollywood Won’t Get Piracy Profits From Usenet Site, High Court Rules

A UK High Court ruling has just handed Hollywood a defeat in a battle against a now-defunct file-sharing site. The MPA argued that when Usenet indexing site Newzbin2 generated profits from piracy, that money should be handed over to the studios. The MPA argued that copyright infringement is theft but the Court said it was more like trespass, noting that any award would have a “chilling effect on innovation and creativity.”

newzbinNewzbin was one of the original Usenet indexing sites and the creator of the .NZB file format, the tool that opened up newsgroup downloading to the masses.

Perhaps inevitably, in 2008 the site was eyed by the Motion Picture Association (MPA), the MPAA’s big brother. A threatening letter in 2008 developed into a lawsuit and by February 2010 Newzbin had lost their High Court case after being found liable for copyright infringement.

The site later reincarnated as Newzbin2 but shut down again recently. However, that didn’t deter Hollywood from trying to squeeze money from its ashes and the pockets of its affiliates.

In November 2012 it emerged through information given to TorrentFreak by Newzbin2′s Mr White that the MPA were now suing Newzbin2′s payment processor, a company called Kthxbai Limited. A High Court ruling handed down this week has revealed the extent of that claim.

It transpires that Kthxbai’s sole director is David Harris, a barrister who defended Newzbin in their original trial but stepped down when it was discovered that he was actually the owner of Newzbin. Harris is also named personally in the MPA’s latest claim.

Other defendants were the NZB Foundation, a Panamanian company that apparently owns Harris’ home, and Motors for Movies Limited, a company that owns Harris’ McLaren car. Former Newzbin1 owner Christopher Elsworth was also included.

The studios – Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, Warner, Paramount, Disney and Columbia – obtained freezing injunctions against the defendants in 2012, later seeking proprietary injunctions with the aim of staking claim to revenues generated by Newzbin2 when the site infringed copyright.

Acting for the studios Richard Spearman QC argued that copyright infringement is akin to theft, citing an earlier case where the word “steal” had been used to describe video piracy. Spearman also quoted from another case involving “stolen coins” but Justice Newey found the arguments unconvincing.

“The fruits of an infringement of copyright cannot, as it seems to me, be equated with the stolen coins. While the owner of the coins will have lost title to the coins at law, the copyright owner will have retained title throughout both in equity and at law,” the Judge wrote.

“A copyright infringer is more akin to a trespasser rather than to the thief of the coins. That leads to the next point: that a landowner has no proprietary claim to the fruits of a trespass,” he added.

Justice Newey then put forward a scenario in which a market trader was selling DVDs from a stall (some infringing, others not) on land he was trespassing on.

“The owner of the land could not, as I see it, make any proprietary claim to the proceeds of the trading or even the profit from it. There is no evident reason why the owner of the copyright in the DVDs should be in a better position in this respect,” he wrote.

“On Mr Spearman’s case, a copyright owner’s claim would not even be limited to the infringer’s profits: in principle, the entire proceeds of sale would be held on trust for the copyright owner. That might both be unfair and stultify enterprise,” he explained.

“It might not seem just for even a deliberate wrongdoer to have to pay the copyright owner the amount of his gross receipts, and an infringer need not have known that he was breaching copyright.

“Further, were Mr Spearman’s submissions correct, a person might be deterred from pursuing an activity if he perceived there to be even a small risk that the activity would involve a breach of copyright or other intellectual property rights. As was submitted by Miss Lambert [for the defense], that could have a chilling effect on innovation and creativity.”

Justice Newey concluded by noting Mr Spearman’s “persuasive advocacy” but ultimately ruling that a copyright owner does not have a proprietary claim to the profits generated by piracy.

The MPA is expected to appeal.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • thedude321

    We smashed them. I feel so happy, I could dance. Finally, a judge with common sense.

    • DutchGuest

      And then in the appeal they just make sure the Judge on the case is ‘friendly’ to their ’cause’ and the Judgement gets reversed.
      It’s a nice temporary victory, but i wouldn’t go out and celebrate, because, as they say ‘it ain’t over ’till the fat lady sings’.

  • Antoros

    This is just music to my ears

    • http://twitter.com/x_rus_x Vitaliy Anonymous

      That definitely makes it a hit song.

    • dondilly

      I had to check the date, we still got 8 weeks til April Fools day.

    • http://twitter.com/CrAppl_dot_com St1ve Joebs

      Music to your ears? Expect a cease and desist from the RIAA…

      :D

  • dondilly

    That could be a far reaching ruling. The judge equating piracy/infringement to tresspass and noting the rights holder has no right to the profit of tresspass. In one go, he appears to sink everything from uk copyright trolls and any likelyhood of rightsholders profiting from persecuting filesharers in court.

    In the case of a site, there are potential subscriptions and ad revenue which is what he is refusing the mpa here. In the case of filesharing there is no profit or quantifiable loss as downloads do not equate to lost sales. Be it profits or notional losses,this ruling sinks speculative rights holders chasing unearned revenue streams.

    • bobmail

      It’s also a ruling that is pretty far off the map, and very certainly will be appealed. The judge’s suggesting that while infringement occurred, and income was generated off the infringing content, that somehow the owners of that content have no right to claim back. That just doesn’t stand up to every other judgement, nor to the basics of British Copyright law.

      So it’s far reaching only that the judge is very likely to get slapped down.

      As a side note, I wonder if this justice happens to be friends with the defendant or the lawyer… it seems like a very extreme judgement with absolutely no support in any other case or under the law.

      • fuck off bobmail

        Or could it just be that you are full of shit bobmail?

      • BuddhaFacePalmed

        Oh, so when a judge finally shows common sense, suddenly he is biased and be in collusion with the defendants. When judges are shown to be part of a pro-copyright association and the lead police investigator is working for the MAFIAA, it’s a fair trial.

        Your logic always amazes me, bobmail

        • bobmail

          I am just giving you the same answer that you guys usually come up with when you don’t like a ruling. If it sounds like sour grapes this time, imagine what you guys sound like on almost every other ruling.

        • marxmarv

          If we wanted trolling we’d go to /b/. You would be advised to do the same.

        • Guest

          @bobfail

          lol

          You just realized how ridiculous your accusation was so now you’re all “N..No, I was just giving the same answer you guys do! T-That’s right!!!”

        • bobmail

          Actually, it was my point exactly. Too bad you don’t get it.

          I could have quoted any number of the regular posters here (and even some of the “staff” writers with similar bogus claims. Clearly you don’t have a sense of humor, and don’t understand the point.

          Clearly, you ain’t the sharpest tool in the shed.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          You mean like you when you chapter and verse reversed burden of proof?

          Or was it when you were tacitly implying Google would magically make pirate sites gradually fade?
          I’m still not quite clear on how, perhaps by cursing them?

          Or was it any of the umpteen times when a cocksure and arrogant statement by you has been so insane the only fair response would have been an epic facepalm?

        • Guest

          @bobfail

          When a judge awards damages to the MAFIAA when the MAFIAA has failed to prove that they suffered once cent of damages, it’s not a very big leap of logic to say the judge has been bribed or has some other vested interest.

          When you claim Justice Newey must be bribed or something because he actually followed the law instead of handing a baseless victory to the MPA, that’s an entirely different thing.

          Try again.

        • FearMe

          And you you are the dullest one. Do you thing we believe your fake for hire opinion? You have to do better than that.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “I am just giving you the same answer that you guys usually come up with when you don’t like a ruling…”

          Fair enough. As soon as you can show us the several years long cooperation between the judge and the plaintiff’s lawyer along with a official statement that the lead investigator was employed by the plaintiffs right before the case started.

          Up until that point, however, I think we’ll assume a judge is legitimate. As we “pirates” usually do as default.

          I am not surprised however to see that a different standard applies to a copyright maximalist.
          One who in a previous post decided to back the DMCA up with words to the exact effect that Guilt must be Assumed and innocence proven.

        • bobmail

          You don’t get it, do you? I was just handing you back the usual logic that gets tosses around here every time a pirate is found guilty.

          Feel like shit, don’t it?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “I was just handing you back the usual logic that gets tosses around here every time a pirate is found guilty.”

          You mean aside from the fact there’s obvious evidence of bias before we even start shouting, but when it’s your turn you think an opinion with no background is equally good?

          Bobmail logic: Pirates say gravity will accelerate a dropped rock by 9,82 meters per second squared. Pirates say they have observed this.

          Bobmail conclusion: The pirate claim on how gravity works is valid because they made the statement, observed evidence being irrelevant.

          More bobmail logic: Therefore if I claim the rock will float upwards instead, I’m as right as the pirates.

          Bobmail presentation: “Feel like shit now? I point and laugh!

          Pirates salute bobmail with a collective Picard Facepalm

        • Ardvaark

          Except that there’s this thing called burden of proof.

          If you claim that 1 download = 1 lost sale and hence the facilitator must pay back the amount of lost sales, and proove it then yes, the rulings in favour of the MAFIAA are right.

          Unfortunately, they have failed to prove such a claim. The opposite on the other hand is being supported by research and facts.

          The judge did a good job explaining his point on how stealing and piracy are two different concepts and validated his claims.

          The MAFIAA can’t prove lost revenue, hence they can’t claim the money.

          Furthermore the judge did a good job in pointing out how copyright, applied to the extreme as the MAFIAA wants is nothing but a money-gathering scheme which benefits no one but the fat cats leeching money and depriving society from innovation and improvement.

        • FearMe

          Yes but at least you can not accuse the judge from receiving bribes from the defendant since the defendant has no money. This been said it is very obvious that there is a word wide conspiracy by the entertainment industry that are corrupting courts and governments world wide. I don’t want to frighteen you and your boss but historically this type of conspiracy always end up dreadfully for the conspirators. Remember 1776 and 1789. . .

      • Colin Carr

        “I wonder if this justice happens to be friends with the defendant or the lawyer…”

        Well that would make a change from all the judges who are in the MAFIAA’s pocket.

      • Liam JH

        Why would the judge get slapped down, he made a judgement – exactly what they are paid to do. The point that it goes against what you believe does not deter from the fact.
        As always Fuck off Bob

      • dondilly

        The ruling isnt saying that there wouldnt be a financial penalty. What the ruling is saying is that penalty/assets go to the state, effectively covering state costs.

        In a case involving a p2p site/service or index site with global reach, it would be impossible to apportion those assets as there are not only too many right holders not representsed but also rights owned by different companies in different territories.

        Nor do they have reliable records of what was downloaded the most.

        If there really are losses as claimed by the mpa, they should be grateful the site has been eliminated thus increasing future profit to all concerned.

        As we know the losses are at worst a myth and at best grossly overstated. Such a ruling forces rightsholders to be more selective in their targets.

        • MadAsASnake

          Given that the MPA have given no estimates of losses and the MPA itself has suffered none, it is arrogant in the extreme that the MPA should think it can simply waltz in and fleece someone for everything he has. Why should these organisations get a penny?

      • platyourpus

        Box of tissues on the table Bob,go and wipe those tears away.
        I cant stand the sight of a grown man crying.

        • Bobmule

          Bobmail’s not a grown man. It’s already admitted to being no more than 20-something, which makes it a mere child.

        • bobmail

          more lies. You guys have no limits to your stupidity.

        • Guest

          You have no limits to your stupidity either judging by yet more lies and Bull Crap you come out with.

        • Guest

          Yeah, come on. With his unbelievable cluelessness about the internet and technology in general I think the first impression that many of us had was right.

          The dude’s at least 70.

        • bobmail

          and on you go… no argument, stupidity.

          Back to the shed with you, dull tool.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          No, unfortunately, bobmail may indeed be one of the handicapped little sparkplugs just born burned out.

          At which point of course, all he has left to fight with is invective.

          And some of the worst attempts at backing fascism I’ve ever seen.

          Such as when he made the claim that the DMCA was proper BECAUSE it assumed guilt. Accusation being proof of it.

        • Ardvaark

          I do remember seeing him admitting at some point he was 24′ish but discus’ history lacks a good search feature and it’s too buried to be worth a search.

          Until then we can also assume he’s a stubborn, grumpy old man who isn’t up with the times and got angry with the world because of that.

        • bobmail

          Then you would be assuming wrong, in both cases. Too bad, so sad.

      • Zumzum

        It has full support of the law in Britain, being that copyright is a civil matter not a criminal one. Trespass is covered by civil law, but theft is covered by criminal law, ergo copyright infringement has more resemblance to trespass than it does to theft. Particularly so considering that copyright infringements are identical (when copyrighted content is considered ‘property’) to infringing somebody’s physical property rights by trespassing onto their land – neither denies the owner the rights to use their own property nor profit from the use of it. Stealing on the other hand DOES deny the owner the access to and right to use and profit from their property, thus copyright can never be directly compared to theft. The judge knew this and ruled sensibly to reflect the spirit and letter of the law.

        That the judge also pointed out that a seller of infringing material (copied DVDs) may also be selling legitimate non-infringing products as well, so it would be unfair to award the gross proceeds (including those from legitimate sales) to a complainant unless it could be shown exact percentages of each. In the same way a copyright owner (the MPA in this case) would need to show exactly how much income Newzbin2 generated from copyright infringements (or more pointedly, from infringements of solely the material the MPA claim dominion over) and how much was from legitimate content (or other people’s infringed content).

        • Romet6

          Also, the seller might have had various business expenses, so you can’t count all of the received money as profit.

      • Guest

        “The judge’s suggesting that while infringement occurred, and income was generated off the infringing content, that somehow the owners of that content have no right to claim back.”

        And why should the rightsholders have claim to the income generated off infringing content, bob?

        Justice Newey made his case.

        You haven’t made yours’.

        • bboamil

          So you think that ill gotten gains should be kept? Do you think that this lawyer who appears to have lied to the court about his involvement in the whole thing should get to keep his fancy cars and such all obtained through the criminal enterprise?

          Let me guess: You blame the girl for rape too, right?

        • Guest

          This has nothing to do with rape. You are seriously sick dude to low this article down to such sickness. Can you prove what you say that this lawyer has lied to the court if not then you are full of crap again. Considering that the MPA has never given money to artists that they have won from their cases i doubt that any money given to the MPA would be given to the starving and poor artists that you scream about.

      • Internet_Zen_Master

        You do have a point. The ruling certainly differs from previous judgments in the UK courts.

        However, while the likelihood of it getting struck down on appeal is considerable, this ruling could also be confirmed by a higher court, and signal a change in the way that the justice system views copyright infringement that currently seems to favor the copyright holder 99.97% of the time.

        Although, reviewing Justice Newey’s reasoning, he presents a rather solid justification for his decision.

        It’ll be interesting to see where this case goes.

        As the Zen Master says, “We’ll see.”

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        “As a side note, I wonder if this justice happens to be friends with the defendant or the lawyer… it seems like a very extreme judgement with absolutely no support in any other case or under the law.”

        Would this be another one of those times where you make nonsensical claims on whatever topic you choose to rob of grace by your presence, bobmail?

        Or is it in fact that similar to your reaction on how judge number umpteen rejected the claim on discovery meant for ip-based massmail threat scams and you stated it was a fluke?

        Oh, And may we assume that this time you have actually read up on what “copyright law” means so you won’t again embarrass the pro-copyright crowd by this time not understanding the british version either?

        • Ardvaark

          For someone who claims to be a realist, he seems to have a pretty hard time accepting part of it.

          Especially when it conflicts with his own bubble

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          At this point in time I’m wondering if he doesn’t think the computer allowing him to post here is powered by enslaved gnomes in a treadmill.

          His general views on IT and how it works suggest this.

      • Guest

        They profited from advertising, not from selling copyrighted content. Since the advertising generated indirect profits, its like someone wearing a coca cola sponsored shirt while giving selling DVDs in the example.

        They generated traffic because of piracy and legal content. The revenue wasn’t direct and that is why the MPA was denied revenue in this case.

        Most of the law was written by copyright holders and politicians were bribed (lobbied) to pass those laws.

      • Fear

        “and very certainly will be appealed” You are right. it is not going to be over until all the corporate parasites you are working for are all dead. This day will come.

    • Riff

      But the trespasser still has to give his profits to the state/government instead. So, no cookie here besides using shady methods to move money internationally.

    • Duke

      It’s not that impressive; it pretty much confirms previous law. Copyright infringement is a tort, so the legal solution is all about recovering losses and putting the claimant copyright owner in the position the would have been had the infringement not occurred. It *isn’t* (in English law) about moral rights, or control – this is why the basic remedy is usually a “reasonable licence fee”.

      As for it sinking copyright trolling… not really. They still have everything they already had to go on – the MPAA were trying to create a new remedy on top of the old ones, and failed. Had they done so, that would have been a spectacular win for the copyright trolls and enforcement groups, but fortunately reason prevailed.

  • marxmarv

    “A copyright infringer is more akin to a trespasser rather than to the
    thief of the coins. That leads to the next point: that a landowner has
    no proprietary claim to the fruits of a trespass,”

    If the content cartels want their exclusive rights to act like property rather than like a bargain, at least one Justice is going to call their bluff and make them swallow that pill whole. That’s a fine, irrefutable line of reasoning, and that’s potentially huge. Would that SCOTUS could be lured into concurring with it.

    • blah

      There’s only one flaw with equating it to Trespass in the US, and that is in some areas you’re legally allowed to shoot and kill someone for trespassing. Now, hopefully that part of it wouldn’t be allowed since it’s not a “physical” trespass, but I could see the MPAA and RIAA trying to get people the death penalty or similar if that happens.

      • Colin Carr

        But England is a civilised country where taking the law into your own hands is SEVERELY frowned on, and could put the gunman behind bars for a LOONG time

      • marxmarv

        I couldn’t. How do you get restitution from a corpse? Besides, the optics would be irredeemable. Even heavily authoritarian USians would likely read this as unacceptable overreach once it starts to touch their own.

    • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

      SCOTUS just might!!

      Not as impossible as Copyright Holders would like.

  • Matt

    This is a surprisingly fair ruling. Everyone gets a little and loses a little, and everyone is happy to some extent. Score one for the justice system.

    • dondilly

      It is fair. The ruling does not stop asset seizures if a site or person is acting criminally, for example someone caught duplicating and selling counterfeit DVDs or if their had been a seizure order in the newzbin case. The key point is that the assets go to the state and not to compensate rightsholders.

      As rightsholders know full well, the link between their losses and infringement are tenuous at best so the ruling removes any financial incentive in making malicous complaints. The other point not mentioned in the article is that it is highly presumptuous of the mpa to assume they would be sole benefactor had the ruling gone in favour of rightholders.

      • Riff

        If they find the addresses of shops who bought the counterfeit goods you will be very sure that there will be “concessions” of the monetary kind by every single store.

  • Guest

    I’ll just say it again. When has ANY copyright enforcement initiative EVER resulted in artists getting more money?

    Oh, but wait. bobmail’s already admitted as much – it was NEVER about the artists! He just likes prancing on his moral high horse while showing off Andrew Crossley’s jizz on his face!

    • bobmail

      Hey, idiot, FUCK OFF. I never said anything like that. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.

      Don’t you have to get to school? Or did they expel you for being an idiot?

      • fuck off bobmail

        I’m amazed you can speak so clearly with a big MAFIAA cock in your mouth. Or did the bell sound that meant you had to turn around again?

        • bobmail

          How wonderfully childish. You lose the debate when it’s down to insults and not actually talking facts.

          Oh, and your mom was a lot of fun!

        • Fr3d

          You’ve lost the plot.

        • fuck off bobmail

          No, you’re right. you’ve got me there. obviously putting to one side that your ‘facts’ seem to be pulled out of your butt as and when you need one to back up whatever point it is that you are trying to make sound believable at the time.

          yup, I’m coming round to your way of thinking now – (in the voice of Mr. Mackey from southpark) piracy’s bad, M,Kay.

          yes sir, I’m with you, what we need is more power for the faceless corporations bleeding the freedom from the internet via bought and paid for politicians, holding on to their outdated business models that leech off the artists themselves, refusing to reform and embrace this wonderful new environment we know as the world wide web that has proven itself to offer new ways of earning huge riches for those greedy fucks like fat kim dot com that have the foresight to run with it.

          yep, you told me alright. I’m glad you enjoyed my mum, just one last thing – fuck off bobmail.

        • bobmail

          Oh look, the children got a day off school.

          how nice!

        • guest

          And you seem to be playing traunt from kindergarten on a regular basis to post in here Bobby with your ill gotten nonsense.

        • Ardvaark

          wooow ad Hominem?

          How low can you go…

        • bobmail

          Yeah like “jizz on his face” ain’t an attack.

          Children…. all of them.

        • Anon

          It’s not an attack if it’s accurate, mate.

        • Ardvaark

          At least he made valid point before: You’ve admitted it this doesn’t give the artists a single cent.

      • Guest

        Wow, really?

        “Guest, you are full of shit. I don’t claim anything is specifically, directly to benefit the artist.” This was from the article about New Zealand’s latest attempt at copyright enforcement, which netted a total of $600 in Rihanna’s name.

        The fact remains that your artists will never, ever see a dime from your enforcement attempts while you drain taxpayer money to pay for your task forces. Meanwhile, by not making products available in territories, you then use the lack of sales to justify “omg piracy!” claims, and never make the products available!

        Like I said, bobby – if you’re not already getting paid to be this stupid, you really should give monetising your idiocy a thought! How’s that campaign for Andrew Crossley coming along, by the way – you claimed that he was working within the law! Got a plan for his appeal, or did you jizz all over it first?

        • bobmail

          Wow, you really fail at basic reading.

          “I don’t claim anything is specifically, directly to benefit the artist.”

          Is a long way from “never benefits the artist”.

          I think I understand you better now. You are an idiot who’s making up what other people say because you are too stupid to actually debate them on a level field.

          Enjoy your class. Perhaps you can graduate to high school soon.

        • Guest

          What you fail to realise, bobby, is the full implications of your little admission. By making it clear that it was never about recouping supposed artist “losses”, it means that any time your ilk decides to bring up “stealing”, “theft” or “loss of sales” as an excuse for your behaviour, anyone and everyone can call you out on your bullshit. Because it’s not about making the money back!

          “High school”? That’s rich, coming from a colleague of the poster named Wal-Mart, who believes that Australia is a country in Europe.

          If your strategy to “level the playing field” is inclusive of jokers like Evan Stone and Andrew Crossley (nice dodging the question btw), artists will have you to thank when their reputations tank even further. Are you going to appeal their dismissals, too? Are you going to claim they worked completely within the law? Are you?

        • bobmail

          Umm, I didn’t say “it’s never”.

          Basic fail there dude, you need to learn how to read.

          Now fuck off and get back to your grade school class.

        • Guest

          You should do the same and fuck off too.

        • Ardvaark

          So now instead of actually trying to prove a point and refute an argument, you resort to age insinuations to disprove a fair argument and to give more credibility to your unfounded claims?

          You’ve lost it haven’t you?

          I’ve seen very smart highschool kids and very ignorant old people. But I’ve yet to see someone as ignorant, delusional and with such delusion of grandeur as you.

          Age plays very little importance on intelligence.

        • bobmail

          Nope. Guest posted the quote, and I never said “it’s never about…”, which is what he claims. Clearly he is an idiot and is inventing things that I just didn’t say. He is making Fox News look honest.

          “:Age plays very little importance on intelligence.”

          Age does play an important part in comprehension, however. I have met very intelligent 3 year olds, but don’t ask them to interpret two sides of a complex debate. Guest clearly has a reading problem, because he actually quoted me and then claimed I said something else.

          That sort of thing pretty much lowers the level of discussion here. Idiots like that can fuck right off, they are just wasting everyones time.

        • Guest

          Do people on your side claiming that Australia is in Europe also help to raise the level of discussion, bobby?

          Would you also like to appeal to the judges that disagreed with Andrew Crossley and Evan Stone, or are you too much of a chickenshit jackass with jizz on your face to answer the question? After all, we know that you disagree with any decision that doesn’t agree with the RIAA!

        • bobmail

          I am not responsible for people on “my side” in the same manner that you have no control over anyone who may agree with you.

          Are you that pathetic that it’s all you can come up with?

          Seriously, I don’t quote Budda face palmed and then claim you said it. Can you please try to stick with the program, and not try to blame me for what you think is wrong with the world?bobmail

        • Guest

          Guess what? Tough tits. Anon, that omnipresent poster who gleefully insists that all pirates are going to get spanked because more or less pirates are breaking more or less law over the last five or ten years insists that everyone is going to get it. The industry that you support insists on introducing laws and education campaigns that treat all its consumers as pirates. Oh, and Anon also refers to his side as some ubiquitous “we”. So it’s not just one lunatic; there’s more than one.

          So given that you treat all of us as pirates regardless of our spending habits, it’s only fair that your side is treated in the exact same way.

          You still haven’t answered the question – do you support lawbreakers like Andrew Crossley and Evan Stone, and are you going to appeal to the judges that sanctioned them and claim that they were operating lawfully?

        • Guest

          @bobfail

          Debate? Debate?

          Your glorious “debate” so far consists of nothing but hurling insults and denying what you’ve said.

          You’re debating on the level of a kindergartner.

      • Guest

        The MAFIAA really needs to let bobmail go and replace him with a different paid troll who doesn’t lose his shit and humiliate himself as easily. :(

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Well, you know…budget cuts.

          A real troll, they might actually have to, you know, pay.

          By now I’m almost willing to credit the idea that “bobmail” is a bit like Anon. So enamored with the idea of punishment coming over here and debasing himself on a regular basis has become it’s own reward.

        • spookyserendipity

          You took the words right out of my mouth. I’ve been scanning TF for
          several weeks out of curiosity and while I am amazed at Baghdad Bob’s
          sheer stupidity, I’m even more amazed at his persistent *need* to come
          here and make a fool out of himself. He’s clearly suffering from some
          form of mental disability, but it most
          likely doesn’t manifest itself in the “real world” quite as obviously as
          it does here where he can “let his freak flag fly”, so to speak. Quite
          ironically, the very type of behavior he relishes recommending people
          get punished for in here with regards to so-called copyright trespass is
          similar to his behavior in its lack of concern for social contracts, to
          the extent that he would likely find himself jobless/friendless in the
          “real world” were he to act this way in the light of day.

          While
          it’s very clear he’s none too bright, what’s more interesting (and
          hilarious) from an observer’s standpoint is that he’s a died-in-the-wool
          combo sadomasochist. On the one hand, he definitely enjoys yelling at
          others and calling them names with nary a logical argument or grasp of
          real world skill-sets in just about any discipline to back up any of the
          frustrated hand-wringing he does in here. Yet, on the other hand, he
          seems to enjoy getting intellectually *destroyed* on a daily – nay –
          hourly basis even more.

          He’s really a fascinating character when
          you step back and wonder about what in the world would motivate someone
          to spend this much time pissing into the wind…just so he can feel the
          sprinkles of it blown back into his face.

          In my humble opinion,
          he isn’t employed by the RIAA or MPAA in any paid position. If he were,
          this would be an indication they are scraping the bottom of the barrel
          in their hiring practices. While I suppose it’s not impossible that he
          is the, say, Bob Jones University Law School equivalent of a MAFIAA
          shill, I simply don’t see it. Rather, what I think you’re dealing with
          is someone who is just a little slow, mentally disturbed, perhaps close
          to or already at retirement age, who has a touch of narcissistic
          personality disorder (delusions of grandeur not supported by real world
          facts) along with a need to punish others and himself.

          In the
          very least…he’s certainly fun to observe dancing around like a court
          jester while others poke at him with sharp sticks. I’d feel sorry for
          him if I didn’t know he enjoyed this so much.

        • bobmail

          Their sharp sticks are very, very blunt. They are the unsharp tools from the shed at work. They tried to discuss, but they lost at every turn, now they are just trying to shout me down and make me leave. Pathetic, really.

        • spookyserendipity

          Bob, frankly I’m surprised you’d bother responding to that post. Although my assessment of you may come off as harsh, I do truly find your persistence in these forums to be rather remarkable and nonsensical. If you understand *where exactly* you are posting and to what audience, then surely you can’t believe you are ever in a million years going to convince anyone here of your views, even if I grant for argument’s sake you are perfectly reasoned in your responses. The fact that you come in here and engage in a bunch of F-bomb tirades with various people has me scratching my head in an amused/entertained sort of way. I mean, if you are not connected to the RIAA/MPAA and you are not in any way drawing a paycheck or making a living off of the existing copyright bureaucracy, then what exactly is your point in being here? It seems to me you must really enjoy yelling at others and then having them yell back at you. It’s not exactly a healthy sign.

          In all seriousness, I wouldn’t mind having a serious discussion with someone whom I disagree with on these issues…but it becomes very difficult if we can’t agree on basic facts. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but there is only one set of facts…and you do seem to play fast and loose with those quite often in forming your arguments.

          Anywho, I finally decided to jump into the fray. My assessment is that you must really have something wrong with you to want to be in here taking so much punishment. I don’t know what exactly your reasoning is, but if you don’t have a vested financial interest in the copyright bureaucracy then given your pattern of responses in here mental illness is logically next in line. lol Nothing personal, just an honest observation. I don’t think healthy people tend to hang out with others – online or in “real life” – with whom they engage in constant verbal abuse.

          So, if you’re not pulling a paycheck down from the copyright industry, are you just a sadomasochist? Really lonely? Both? Clearly you have a lot of time on your hands, which is surprising since you claim to be successful in business. Most people I know who are successful, myself included, only have sporadic free time available for online forums such as this. But this is like a 2nd home to you, a home in which you are consistently beaten like a red-headed step-child. That can’t really be “fun”, can it? lol

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          And once again the proof that I did not pass on the moniker of “Baghdad Bob” to you in vain.

          Shall we quote a few dozen of your commentaries where you most flagrantly make an ass out of yourself? I’m guessing it would make rather hilarious reading.

          …actually, checking through my “bobmail” folder cursorily…it is indeed hilarious…

  • Pingback: Hollywood Won’t Get Piracy Profits From Usenet Site, High Court Rules | The Illuminati

  • http://twitter.com/MidoThePirate Ahmed Omar

    That’s what we call it Justice :) … thanks Judge :)

  • anonymous

    considering the disastrous judgements that have come out of UK courts recently concerning file sharing, this is indeed a change for the better. all that needs to happen now is for the UK government to grow a set of balls and tell the entertainment industries, their lackeys and collection agencies to get their acts together and cater for customers wants in the digital age. but now i’ve woken up!!

  • DavidH

    Points to note: this was just an interim hearing on a specific ‘innovative’ legal theory the MPA was trying to get into English law. It related just to so called ‘proprietary injunctions’ (http://nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/twentieth-century-fox-v-harris-very.html) and not to damages for infringement more generally.

    David Harris
    Defendant

    • Sidney Gottlieb
    • MadAsASnake

      Good read. So they are trying to make up laws that don’t exist again.

    • DocGerbil100

      Hello, Mr Harris. :)

      Thanks for replying and clarifying this – being one of the few people on here who actually reads these rulings, I was going to write something similar (if inevitably wordier). You’ve beaten me to it by a good 20 hours. :P

      Reading between the lines, I had the idea that the MPA were trying to produce a mechanism where they could claim unfeasibly-large damages awards, USA-style, without actually having to prove any damages.

      I realise it would be highly unwise for you to comment directly on their motivations (or anything else likely to have a direct bearing or impact on future litigation), but – if you have the time and inclination to read this and reply – I was wondering: speaking from your knowledge of both the law and the business, what kind of damage could that ruling have done if it had gone the other way?

      Did we just dodge one of the nastiest bullets the MPA has ever fired at Britain’s internet? If so, you, your advisors (such as I assume you have) and Ms Lambert all have my sincerest thanks for a job well done.

      In any case, thanks again for your post – it’s always good to be informed. :D

      • DavidH

        If my lawyers OK it I’ll issue a press release to TF & others.

        The MPA wished to appeal, Mr Justice Newey denied them leave to appeal as he thought it lacked any real prospect for success. They are going to apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal & if that is granted this bullet might still kill. That said, the prospects of a successful appeal are thought to be poor by most lawyers. time will tell.

  • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

    This outcome is important for its brave and intelligent examination of subtleties that have not yet been examined or decided with finality by any Appellate Court.

    Copyright Holders have extrapolated by practice vast presumed privileges that have doubtful legal validity, but have not yet risen from the lower Courts.

    Six Strikes is one example. The insistence on equating an IP Address with an Unknown Accused is another; as is the confabulation of Copyright infringement with “theft”.

    Copyright Holders have been able to run amok for as long as their cases have been wilfully stuck in the lower Courts.

    What is WRONG with the foundations of Copyright Law will tend to become all too clear under Appellate examination.

    I have long said that Copyright Holders can not afford to show their arguments in Appellate Terms under existing Constitutional Principles.

    • joexxx

      Six strikes is doesn’t have any doubtful legal validity. It doesn’t have any legal validity beyond being an agreement between private parties.

  • True Pirate

    Other defendants were the NZB Foundation, a Panamanian company that
    apparently owns Harris’ home, and Motors for Movies Limited, a company
    that owns Harris’ McLaren car.

    Lols , that’s why he started newzbin2 > mclaren car.

    So , another battle between cashwhores

    Couldn’t care less about any of them.

    • marxmarv

      Why you should care in two words: binding precedent. It’s not like any of us are likely to have the means to set a better one.

  • Putinho

    Finaly a brain in the end of the tunnel :
    ““The fruits of an infringement of copyright cannot, as it seems to me, be equated with the stolen coins. While the owner of the coins will have lost title to the coins at law, the copyright owner will have retained title throughout both in equity and at law,” the Judge wrote.”

  • Traveller

    Finally good news. Screw you, MAFIAA!

  • tripod

    I forgot that Hollywood even exists. I don’t even pirate western movies anymore.

    I’ve started with the Russian and Eastern Asian industry and been watching movies for a good few months now when i have the time.

    Watches The Mongol yesterday and loved it, Russian WW2 movies, Chinese historical, Japanese historical, martial arts movies, drama.

    Especially the movies without the flying people and such but more down to Earth.
    For the first time in YEARS i feel like my intelligence isn’t insulted.

    All Hollywood ever craps out nowadays is edgy Conspiracy/Agency/FBI/CIA/cheap War bullcrap and insulting comic book adaptions that do more to ruin childhoods than they do to entertain and cheap jumps towards “the current big thing” like Zombie genre (a genre i like so much destroyed by all the crap now). Even the sci-fi genre is now boring (Russian sci-fi however is another story, completely different from the western, books are amazing).

    I feel bored by anything western over repetition,
    and yet when i watch Eastern historical movies no matter the repetance, they never cease to entertain.

    And the worst is that Western history is so full and rich and yet we are making this crap that we are.

    Naval Battles whether real historical or books? NOPE

    Historical wars and battles, like for instance the battle for Vienna that triggered the fall of the Ottoman Empire? NOPE

    All those books we have of all those possible settings? NOPE

    Steampunk? NOPE

    Cyberpunk and i mean from a proper book and none of this “Hollywood trying to be original in this age” crap? NOPE

    • marxmarv

      Funny, isn’t it, how Hollywood has become the government’s propaganda arm, precisely because the government still has a couple of restrictions on what they can directly broadcast domestically. The case for an unsettling public-private law enforcement partnership in the Megaupload case seems to come together now.

    • JordanKratz

      Fuck Hollywood !!!
      I saw how you have been watching Russian WW2 Movies.I own a ton of them which I actually bought over the years from Overseas Sources.Tons of very interesting films to watch.
      You can find this one on TPB, etc and I highly recommend this to you.
      Proverka Na Dorogh ( Check-Up on the Road) is an awesome realistic tale of Partisans in the Wintertime as well as Collaborators.

    • disqusux

      I have the same argument with books, the book scene is drowning in fifty shades of puke: zombie bondage porn, vampire bondage porn, doomsday prepper bondage porn, cowboy bondage porn….. can office clerk bondage porn be far away?

  • dude

    greedy pricks always trying to make a quick buck

  • Romet6

    Well done, Justice Newey! +1

    It seems that there are still a few reasonable judges out there, I wonder what the mafiaa will do to him.

  • Guest

    FUCK YOU MAFIAA

  • Who

    HAHA

  • Fail

    Headlines on this site keep getting worse.

  • lepr

    You may wonder but this is evident:
    De absurditeit van het auteursrecht
    http://www.logosfoundation.org/copyleft/onzin_auteursrecht.html

    De ‘oerversie’ van deze tekst werd door de auteur geschreven in het engels onder de titel ‘The absurdity of Copyright” , Stuttgart 1985, en naderhand gepubliceerd en vertaald in meer dan 28 talen. http://www.logosfoundation.org/copyleft/copyrigh.html

  • Pingback: Britse rechter: auteursrechtschending is anders dan diefstal - Limptinc. Blog Wim van Limpt

  • Pingback: In de marge van het nieuws - deel 6 - Pagina 108

  • Pingback: Hollywood no puede quedarse con dinero generado por un siti... - FayerWayer

  • Pingback: Hollywood no puede quedarse con dinero generado por un sitio pirata, según Corte británica | mundoTEKNO

  • Pingback: Hollywood no puede quedarse con dinero generado por un sitio pirata, según Corte británica

  • NicktoriousBIG

    I’m pretty sure we should all start asking, is piracy healthy for us? …. here are the reasons why i think it is.
    http://www.micemutiny.com

  • joexxx

    If copyright infringement was stealing, the law would specify this. But it doesn’t.

  • Pingback: Hollywood Won’t Get Piracy Profits From Usenet Site, High Court Rules | SafetyFist.com

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.