The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Million pound Usenet indexer found guilty

  • alert
  • print

Judge not impressed with 'we're only a search engine' claim

Watch Now : Virtual Machine Movement with Hyper-V

Newzbin, a website which indexed Usenet files, but did not host them, has been found liable for copyright infringement by the High Court of Justice in London .

Newzbin was a members-only website and had turnover of more than £1m in 2009. It provided members with a search engine for Usenet groups. Precise terms of the judgement are still to be decided, but the site is unlikely to continue in its current form.

The Motion Picture Association, which brought the case, welcomed the verdict and said it helped clarify European law on "internet intermediaries".

Newzbin was less impressed but glad the MPA did not win the full injunction it was seeking.

Newzbin said:

We are very disappointed with the judgment. Regrettably the court has accepted the distorted and flawed evidence that Hollywood presented. Contrary to the finding of the court our site has not deliberately sought to index infringing material, nor to assist those of our users who use it for that purpose. The site provides a generalised search facility for binary content found on Usenet and not just infringing material. Any of the material we index can be found on any one of thousands of sites on the Internet so pursuit of us is a futile waste of everyones time and money."

Newzbin called on the MPA to address its broken business model instead of lobbying for restrictive laws like the Digital Enterprise Bill.

A spokeswoman for the MPA said it was not about to go to war with search engines like Google. She said: "It has taken eight months to get this to court. It was about how the search results were presented. The next step is not decided yet."

She said: "This verdict confirms that such websites have a duty of care to prevent the availability of illegal content on their websites."

The Federation Against Copyright Theft is taking action against streaming site Surf the Channel later in the year.

The judge, Mr Justice Kitchin, rejected the defendant's claims that the site was mainly used to search for Usenet discussions rather than binary content.

The full judgement is available here. ®

Watch Now : Virtual Machine Movement with Hyper-V

Hah

>>A spokeswoman for the MPA said it was not about to go to war with search engines like Google<<

Yes, because they'd spank you and send you crying home to mommy. No, you don't want to go to war with Google.

>>She said: "This verdict confirms that such websites have a duty of care to prevent the availability of illegal content on their websites."<<

No. It proves what any other lawsuit proves. You have more money and can bamboozle judges better than than your victims can show the truth.

The truth doesn't help in a case like this where a judge probably doesn't even know what a search index is, how to understand electronic process, let alone how to judge a case based on one.

17
1

The War on Search Engines

The RIAA rep crows that they're not currently targeting Google but..... "websites have a duty of care to prevent the availability of illegal content on their websites".

So let's look forward to a China-friendly world where all net searches are automatically filtered to remove anything illegal, offensive or transgressive (by the standards of any individual, corporation or nation with the power to sue). Their version of Web2.0 will look like AOL circa 1993 - just links to nice, safe shopping & hobby sites.

I'm not a total fan of pirates, hackers, spammers etc, but if I have to take a side I'll stand with them against the smothering embrace of the RIAA pigopoly.

14
3

"This verdict confirms that..."

"... such websites have a duty of care to prevent the availability of illegal content on their websites."

Like if you put "<text> torrent" the search box in Google?

9
0

MPAA..

Like trying to stop sand falling through your fingers, why dont they just create their own movie download service instead of wasting time with this crap?

7
1
Anonymous Coward

Because apparently they are ...

a bit thick...

5
0