Dramatico Entertainment Ltd and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeTHE HON MR JUSTICE ARNOLD,MR JUSTICE ARNOLD
Judgment Date02 May 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] EWHC 1152 (Ch)
Docket NumberCase No: HC11C04518
CourtChancery Division
Date02 May 2012
Between:
(1) Dramatico Entertainment Limited
(2) Emi Records Limited
(3) Mercury Records Limited
(4) Polydor Limited
(5) Rough Trade Records Limited
(6) Sony Music Entertainment Uk Limited
(7) Virgin Records Limited
(8) Warner Music Uk Limited
(9) 679 Recordings Limited
Claimants
and
(1) British Sky Broadcasting Limited
(2) British Telecommunications Plc
(3) Everything Everywhere Limited
(4) Talktalk Telecom Group Plc
(5) Telefónica Uk Limited
(6) Virgin Media Limited
Defendants

[2012] EWHC 1152 (Ch)

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Arnold

Case No: HC11C04518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Ian Mill QC, Edmund Cullen QC and Tom Richards (instructed by Forbes Anderson Free) made written submissions on behalf of the Claimants

THE HON MR JUSTICE ARNOLD MR JUSTICE ARNOLD

Introduction

1

The Claimants are record companies claiming on their own behalf and in a representative capacity on behalf of the other members of BPI (British Recorded Music Industry) Ltd and Phonographic Performance Ltd. The Defendants are the six main retail internet service providers. Between them they have a fixed line market share of some 94% of UK internet users. By this claim the Claimants seek an injunction against the Defendants pursuant to section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act"), which implements Article 8(3) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society ("the Information Society Directive"), requiring the Defendants to take measures to block or at least impede access by their customers to a peer-to-peer file-sharing website called The Pirate Bay ("TPB"). The claim is supported by PRS for Music, the Motion Picture Association, the Publishers Association, UK Interactive Entertainment and the Producers' Alliance for Cinema and Television.

2

In Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v British Telecommunications plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch), [2011] RPC 28 (" 20C Fox v BT") I held that the Court had jurisdiction, and that it was appropriate to exercise my discretion, to make a blocking order against the Second Defendant (" BT") with respect to a website called Newzbin2. In Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v British Telecommunications plc (No 2) [2011] EWHC 2714 (Ch) (" 20C Fox v BT (No 2)") I determined the terms of that order.

3

In an earlier judgment in these proceedings handed down on 20 February 2012 [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch) ("the First Judgment"), I held that both users and the operators of TPB infringe the copyrights of the Claimants (and those that they represent) in the UK. Since then, the Claimants have agreed the terms of orders under section 97A of the 1988 Act with five of the Defendants. The Third Defendant ("Everything Everywhere") consented to an order in the agreed terms, while the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants ("Sky", "TalkTalk", "O2" and "Virgin") stated that they did not oppose the making of orders in the agreed terms. Having considered the matter on paper, on 27 April 2012 I made orders in the agreed terms. These are my reasons for doing so. References to "the Defendants" below are references to the Defendants other than BT.

Jurisdiction

4

Section 97A of the 1988 Act empowers the High Court "to grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright". I have already held that both users and the operators of TPB infringe copyright. In order for this Court to have jurisdiction to make the orders sought by the Claimants, three further matters must be established. First, that the Defendants are "service providers" within the meaning of section 97A. Secondly, that users and/or the operators of TPB use the Defendants' services to infringe copyright. Thirdly, that the Defendants have actual knowledge of this.

5

So far as the first matter is concerned, I am in no doubt that the Defendants are service providers within the meaning of regulation 2 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2013, and hence within the meaning of section 97A of the 1988 Act. None of the Defendants has suggested otherwise.

6

As to the second matter, I am satisfied that both users and the operators of TPB use the Defendants' services to infringe for similar reasons to those which I gave in 20CFox v BT at [99]-[113]. In this connection, I note that the evidence of Mr Sehested (as to which, see the First Judgment at [41]-[42]) was that, out of 3,299,337 instances where an IP address for a device connected to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Paramount Home Entertainment International Ltd and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 13 November 2013
    ...Ltd [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch), [2012] 3 CMLR 14 (" Dramatico v Sky"); Dramatico Entertainment Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd (No 2) [2012] EWHC 1152 (Ch), [2012] 3 CMLR 15 (" Dramatico v Sky (No 2)"); EMI Records Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch), [2013] ECDR 8 (" ......
  • EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd and Others v Data Protection Commissioner
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 3 July 2013
    ...Davitt v Minister for Justice (Unrep, Barron J, 8/2/1989); Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2001] QB 967; Dramatico v BSkyB [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch), [2012] IP & T 772; Dudgeon v United Kingdom (App No 7525/76) (1981) 4 EHRR 149; Dunne v. Minister for Fisheries [1984] IR 230; Efe v Minister for Justice [......
  • Golden Eye (International) Ltd v Telefónica UK Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 December 2012
    ...is set out in the judgment of Arnold J. in Dramatico Entertainment Limited & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Limited & Ors [2012] EWHC 1152 (Ch) but, for present purposes, the following short description will suffice. The user will download the necessary software on to his computer from the ......
  • Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 17 October 2014
    ...Ltd [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch), [2012] 3 CMLR 14 (" Dramatico v Sky"); Dramatico Entertainment Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd (No 2) [2012] EWHC 1152 (Ch), [2012] 3 CMLR 15 (" Dramatico v Sky (No 2)"); EMI Records Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch), [2013] ECDR 8 (" ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • IP Snapshot May 2012
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 6 June 2012
    ...text of the decision, click here COPYRIGHT Dramatico Entertainment Limited and others v British Sky Broadcasting Limited and others [2012] EWHC 1152 (Ch), 2 May The High Court has granted injunctions under s97A CDPA 1988 against five of the UK's six biggest ISPs to block access to BitTorren......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT