ISP British Telecom to pay costs for blocking website Newzbin2

As mentioned before on FutureofCopyright.com, the London High Court of Justice ruled blocking the Usenet index site Newzbin2 by the ISP British Telecom (BT) was proportionate and necessary to protect intellectual property rights of the film studios (the applicants).

After the verdict, the film studios and British Telecom posed questions about the responsibility for the costs of implementing the order and the costs of the necessary application. Due to the (second) court ruling of 26 October of the British High Court we now know the outcome.

The most interesting recitals in this ruling regard the costs of implementing the order and the cost of application of the order (especially in recital 32 and 53).

The judge ruled the costs should be borne by BT with respect to the implementation of the order because, in short:
- BT is a commercial enterprise, which makes a profit from the illegal services of Newzbin2 where copyrights are infringed
- the European directive 2001/31/EC of 22 May 2001 (Copyright Directive) implicitly states intermediaries are chosen to end infringing activities and to bear the costs thereof
- the costs of implementing the order are not disproportionate, and the injunction has been assessed on proportionality in the previous main judgment.

Subsequently, questions arose with respect to the costs of the blocking software application, as both sides contended the other should pay the costs thereof. The application consists of a kind of filter/software named 'Cleanfeed'. This filter can block or re-route URL and IP addresses that lead to the site Newzbin2. The judge decided to divide these costs. The costs of the application from 17 December 2010 to 28 July 2011 should be borne by BT and the costs of the application down to 16 December 2010 should be borne by the studios. Each party shall bear its own costs since July 28, 2011, the date of the previous ruling.

You can read the ruling here.