Newzbin, on it goes but time running out for the defendants

Pretty sure that proceedings will one day be made in to a Hollywood film! They’ve dragged on….as the present proceedings follow two earlier. The first was a copyright infringement claim brought against Newzbin. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and others v Newzbin Limited [2010] EWHC 608 (Ch). The second action sought was for a blocking injunction pursuant to section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v BT [2011] R.P.C. 28. Finally a third hearing at Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v BT [2011] EWHC 2714 (Ch)). The Fourth hearing is this hearing.

At the heart of the case this week were the arguments that about “mid-December 2009 until about the end of November 2012 Mr Harris has been the driving force behind mass deliberate infringements of the Claimants’ copyrights that all the other defendants are his corporate creatures, owned and/or controlled by him and that he has used them for the purposes of inter alia channelling to himself or for his benefit the revenues earned from those infringing activities, as well as for syphoning off funds from Newzbin Limited (“N”), another company owned by him, and thwarting the Claimants’ ability to recover costs and compensation for the infringement by N of their copyright, established in earlier proceedings”.

To support the claim the Claimants’ provided the court with various chat Logs which explain how these individuals sought to create the conspiracy. Criminals be warned be careful who you speak to on various chat rooms!

Looks like the good times have come to an end for the defendants

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and others v David Harris and others [2014] EWHC 1568 (Ch), 16 May 2014.

share this Article

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

Recent Articles

Nike v StockX, NFTs and Counterfeit products

American footwear and apparel company Nike has launched trademark infringement actions against the Detroit-based trainers and streetwear resale platform StockX, after allegedly using Nike’s Intellectual