In reply to a post by AEP:

What has charging got to do with it though? Surely a wrong is a wrong whether its Google or Newzbin?

I can see that you are unfamiliar with copyright law. The difference that charging makes is that it changes a civil offence into a criminal offence.

Thank you (seriously) because I didn't know that

But is it a criminal conspiracy to index someone else's server? I'd say its not.

What can one say? The courts seem to disagree with you. They, not you or I, determine how the law is applied.

In reply to a post by AEP:

But is it a criminal conspiracy to index someone else's server? I'd say its not.

What can one say? The courts seem to disagree with you. They, not you or I, determine how the law is applied.

Judges seem to have a hard enough time getting the right rulings on things they are supposed to understand, never mind the Internet

I would guess that a judge in the High Court probably has a better understanding of Coyright Law, and access to better advice on the subject, than the average man in the street.

You'd be amazed how many people don't even realize that Copyright breach is sometimes a civil offence and sometimes a criminal one (most people seem to think that it is either just a civil offence or that it is always a criminal offence - both these are incorrect).

In reply to a post by AEP:

I would guess that a judge in the High Court probably has a better understanding of Coyright Law, and access to better advice on the subject, than the average man in the street.

You'd be amazed how many people don't even realize that Copyright breach is sometimes a civil offence and sometimes a criminal one (most people seem to think that it is either just a civil offence or that it is always a criminal offence - both these are incorrect).

Appreciate that but again we are drifting here, Newzbin aren't providing the copy written content, so whilst I'd agree this argument stands up for the people that host these files Usenet, I'm not sure it applies to a search engine ?

The judge decided that NewzBin and BT were both complicit in knowingly abetting the offence. Hence the ruling. Makes sense to me.

To use another, imperfect, analogy; motorists are often convicted for flashing their headlights to warn speeding motorists about a speed trap. Although not speeding themselves they are held to be complicit in abetting the offender to evade the law.

Fair enough, not sure about BT being complicit though.... its not their role to look at what people are doing just to provide them the ability to do so, they are just a transit network.

If someone wants to ask them to block something and they have to, fair enough but I'm not sure that BT is at fault in this, nor any other ISP , ISP's aren't gatekeepers

Again, the judge decided that ISPs do have a responsibility in this respect. Judge Arnold ruled that:

BT has actual knowledge of other persons using its service to infringe copyright: it knows that the users and operators of Newzbin2 infringe copyright on a large scale, and in particular infringe the copyrights of the Studios in large numbers of their films and television programmes; it knows that the users of Newzbin2 include BT subscribers; and it knows those users use its service to receive infringing copies of copyright works made available to them by Newzbin2.

The driver of the getaway car in the case of a bank robbery cannot claim that he is just a transport mechanism and has no responsibility for what the people that he transports do. It's well established in English law that to knowingly aid criminal offences is an offence in its own right. Once BT are made aware that they are complicit in the comission of an offence it is incumbent on them to prevent such an offence being comitted, as well as they can. This is all that the ruling means.

Once again, this is not a matter of censorship, it is a question of preventing offences from being comitted. BT tried to argue the Human Rights Act, Article 10 of which provides for freedom of expression. Unfortunately, they overlooked Article 1, taking precedence over 10, which protects the rights of creators.

I'm not interested in analogies on this one. A getaway driver is "in on it". BT and any other ISP's are not. A better analogy would be to say the highways agency was complicit as their roads were used on the getaway route.

Which as you can see is just ridiculous. Have ISP's ever been told it is their remit to police the activities of its users and that they track and flag any suspicious/illegal activity with regards to copyright material?

If they have (they haven't) then they are complicit. If they haven't (they haven't ) saying they are complicit is wrong

A getaway driver is "in on it". BT and any other ISP's are not.

Well, the judge decided differently. He decided that once BT had been informed of the abuse then they are indeed "in on it". You may not like that, but that's the law.

Have ISP's ever been told it is their remit to police the activities of its users and that they track and flag any suspicious/illegal activity with regards to copyright material?

I don't think so. But now they have been told that once such activity is brought to their attention they cannot just ignore it. This is very different from tracking illegal activity in the first place; once they know about it they can't just turn a blind eye.

I suspect that if, as a more direct analogy, it was brought to the attention of a carrier that the packages they were transporting for a particular company contained Cocaine then that carrier would have to take action to stop carrying such packages in future. Do you really suppose that they could continue to deliver such packages, knowing what was in them, with impunity?