![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Through an example of a study utilizing the case-law research method, this paper critically assesses whether taking into account both the findings of Mr La Rue (the United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights) as well as some Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) case-law, website blocking could be implemented in a way which is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular, with Article 10. Drawing upon, inter alia, Ofcom site blocking review, sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA), section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), and some independent expert evidence, this paper's major argument is that in view of the CJEU SABAM v Scarlet and SABAM v Netlog, the UK government's decision to repeal the website blocking provisions of the DEA appears appropriate. The paper examines the findings of Fox v BT. It contrasts such findings with the CJEU's case-law and in light of the incompatibility of any website blocking measure with the cumulative three-part test set out in the United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights discusses a number of implications. It concludes that given that the implementation of content blocking systems, such as Cleanfeed is likely to result in general monitoring being carried out; the UK government could possibly be in breach of EU law, namely, Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31.
Notes
UNHRC, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue’ (16 May 2011) Session 7th UN Doc A/HRC/17/27.
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act' http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf, p. 3 (accessed 2 February, 2012).
Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos 1 and 2) v the United Kingdom (App nos 3002/03 and 23676/03) (2009) ECHR 451 [27].
UNHRC, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue’ (16 May 2011) Session 7th UN Doc A/HRC/17/27 at p. 8.
Department for Culture, Media and Sports, ‘Ofcom to review aspects of Digital Economy Act’ News Release (1 February 2011) http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/7756.aspx (accessed 4 February, 2012).
Ibid.
‘… we find that sections 17 and 18 are unlikely to be able to provide for a framework for site blocking which would be effective. We do not believe that it is possible to deliver a framework under the DEA which simultaneously meets the requirements of the copyright owners for a timely implementation of blocks and a flexible approach from service providers to tackling circumvention, with the need to respect the legitimate interests of site operators, service providers and end users’ see Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and18 of the Digital Economy Act' http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf, at p. 50 (accessed 4 February, 2012).
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4.
Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch).
UNHRC, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue’ (16 May 2011) Session 7th UN Doc A/HRC/17/27 at p. 8.
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 3 (accessed 7 February, 2012).
Advocate General's Opinion in Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4.
Case 324/09 L'Oréal and Others [2011] ECR I-0000 [127], [132].
Ibid., [135].
Ibid., [143].
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 46 (accessed 7 February, 2012).
Ibid.
Digital Economy Act 2010 section 17.
See for example IFPI Danmark v Tele 2 A/S (Copenhagen City Court, 25 October 2006); SABAM v Tiscali SA (Brussels Court of First Instance, 29 June 2007); IFPI Danmark v DMT2 A/S (Frederiskberg Court, 29 October 2008); Bergamo Public Prosecutor's Officer v Kolmisappi (Italian Supreme Court of Cessation, 29 Sept 2009); Columbia Pictures Industries Inc v Portlane AB (Swedish Court of Appeal, 4 May 2010); Nordic Records Norway AS v Telenor ASA (Borgarting Court of Appeal, 9 February 2010); Stichting Bescherming Rechten Entertainment Industrie Nederland (BREIN) v Ziggo BV (District Court of the Hague, 19 July 2010); EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd v UPC Communications Ireland Ltd [2010] IEHC 377; Constantin Film v UPC (Commercial Court of Austria, 13 May 2011); Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWCH 608 (Ch); Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch); Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 2714 (Ch); Dramatico Entertainment Limited and Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Limited and Ors [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch); Dramatico Entertainment Limited and Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Limited and Ors [2012] EWHC 1152 (Ch).
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4.
Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch).
Ibid., [102].
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 9 (accessed 20 February, 2012).
Explanatory notes to the Digital Economy Act 2010 [80].
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 47 (accessed 2 February, 2012).
Ibid.
Ibid., at p. 48.
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4.
Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000.
Advocate General's Opinion in Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [96].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWCH 608 (Ch).
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act' http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 47 (accessed 1 March, 2012).
UNHRC, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue’ (16 May 2011) Session 7th UN Doc A/HRC/17/27 at p. 8.
Advocate General's Opinion in Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4.
UNHRC, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue’ (16 May 2011) Session 7th UN Doc A/HRC/17/27 at p. 8.
Advocate General's Opinion in Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [94].
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act' http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 47 (accessed 1 March, 2012).
Digital Economy Act 2010 section 17(2).
Explanatory notes to the Digital Economy Act 2010 [80].
BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin) [51].
Advocate General's Opinion in Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [67], [94], [95].
UNHRC, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue’ (16 May 2011) Session 7th UN Doc A/HRC/17/27 at p. 8.
Advocate General's Opinion in Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [94].
Kruslin v France (App no 11801/85) (1990) 12 EHRR 547 [30]; see also the Sunday Times v the United Kingdom (Series A no 30) (1979) 2 EHHR 245 [49]; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v the United Kingdom (App no 18139/91) (1995) 20 EHRR 442 [37]; Rotaru v Romania (App no 28341/95) (2000) ECHR 2000-V [52]; Hasan and Chaush v Bulgaria (App no 30985/96) (2000) ECHR 2000-XI [84]; Maestri v Italy (App no 39748/98) (2004) ECHR 2004-I [30]; Sanoma Uitgevers BV v The Netherlands (App no 38224/03) (2010) ECHR 1284 [82].
BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin) [230].
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act' http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 13 (accessed 5 March, 2012).
BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin) [251].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWCH 608 (Ch).
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 47 (accessed 5 March, 2012).
See for example Kopp v Switzerland (app no 23224/94) (1999) 27 EHRR 91 [64], [72].
Advocate General's Opinion in Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [94].
Leander v Sweden (App no 9248/81) (1987) 9 EHRR 433 [50]; see also Malone v United Kingdom (App no 8691/79) (1984) 7 EHRR 14 [66].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWCH 608 (Ch).
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [51].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [52]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [50].
Digital Economy Act 2010 section 17(1).
Advocate General's Opinion in Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4.
UNHRC, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue’ (16 May 2011) Session 7th UN Doc A/HRC/17/27 at p. 8.
Ibid.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [164].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWCH 608 (Ch).
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [183].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [45]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [43].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [179].
Ibid.
Ibid.
Columbia Pictures Industries Inc v Robinson [1986] 3 All ER 338.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWCH 608 (Ch).
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [180].
Columbia Pictures Industries Inc v Robinson [1986] 3 All ER 338 [364], [365].
Digital Economy Act 2010 section17(5)(b).
Ibid., section 17(12).
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [181].
Columbia Pictures Industries Inc v Robinson [1986] 3 All ER 338.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [181].
Ibid.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWCH 608 (Ch).
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [181].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWCH 608 (Ch).
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [182].
Ibid., [183].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWCH 608 (Ch).
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [183].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [43]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [41].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [185].
Ibid.
Ibid., [186].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [52]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [50].
UNHRC, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue’ (16 May 2011) Session 7th UN Doc A/HRC/17/27 at p. 8.
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4.
Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [181].
Khurshid Mustafa and Tarzibachi v Sweden (App no 23883/06) (2008) ECHR 1710 [44].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWCH 608 (Ch).
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [182].
Ibid., [183].
Ibid.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWCH 608 (Ch) [135].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [47], [49]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [45], [47].
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 47 (accessed 17 March, 2012).
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWCH 608 (Ch).
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [181].
KU v Finland (App no 2878/02) (2009) 48 EHRR 52 [49].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [47]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [45].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [49]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [47].
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 49 (accessed 17 March, 2012).
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch)[185].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [43]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [41].
Ibid.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [185].
Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v France (App no 21279/02, 36448/02) (2008) 46 EHRR 35 [55].
Media CAT Ltd v Adams [2011] EWPCC 006 [79].
Ibid.
Protocol No 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No 11 article 4 – Right not to be tried or punished twice: (1) No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State; (2) The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case; (3) No derogation from this Article shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [164].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [52]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [50].
UNHRC, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue’ (16 May 2011) Session 7th UN Doc A/HRC/17/27 at page 8.
Ibid.
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 47 (accessed 22 March, 2012).
Ibid.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [200].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4.
Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [164].
Ibid.
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [51]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [49].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [164].
In re S (FC) (a child) (Appellant) [2004] UKHL 47.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [164].
Ibid.
Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2002] Ch 149.
Case 275/06 Productores de Musica de Espana (Promusicae) v Telefonica de Espana SAU [2008] ECR I-271.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [164].
Ibid., [192].
Ibid.
Ibid., [194].
Ibid., [195].
BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin).
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [197].
Ibid., [198].
Case 324/09 L'Oréal and Others [2011] ECR I-0000 [136].
Ibid.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [200].
Ibid.
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 48 (accessed 24 March, 2012).
Case 275/06 Productores de Musica de Espana (Promusicae) v Telefonica de Espana SAU [2008] ECR I-271 [62-68].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [45]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [43].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [201].
Ibid.
UNHRC, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue’ (16 May 2011) Session 7th UN Doc A/HRC/17/27 at p. 8.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [192].
Ibid.
See for example Airey v Ireland (App no 6289/73) (1979) 2 EHRR 305 [24]; Belgian Linguistic Case (App no 1474/62, App no 1677/62, App no 1691/62, App no 1769/63, App no 1994/63, App no 2126/64) (1968) 1EHRR 252 [3-4]; Golder v UK (App no 4451/70) (1975) 1 EHRR 524 [35]; Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v Federal Republic of Germany (App no 6210/73, App no 6877/75, App no 7132/75) (1978) 2 EHRR 149 [42]; Marckx v Belgium (App no 6833/74) (1979) 2 EHRR 330 [31].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [194].
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 51 (accessed 1 May, 2012).
Case 324/09 L'Oréal and Others [2011] ECR I-0000 [136].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [200].
Guerra and Others v Italy (App no 14967/89) (1998) 26 EHRR 357 [53].
EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd v UPC Communications Ireland Ltd [2010] IEHC 377.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [19].
EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd v UPC Communications Ireland Ltd [2010] IEHC 377 [29].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [52]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [50].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [201].
Ibid.
See for example Marcello Viola v Italy (App no 45106/04) (2006) ECHR 2006-XI [62].
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 49 (accessed 2 May, 2012).
Advocate General's Opinion in Case 324/09 L'Oréal and Others [2011] ECR I-0000 [159].
Informationsverein Lentia and others v Austria (App no 13914/88, App no15041/89, App no 15717/89, App no 15779/89, App no 17207/90) (1993) 17 EHRR 93[39].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [200].
Case 324/09 L'Oréal and Others [2011] ECR I-0000 [144].
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 50 (accessed 4 May, 2012).
Case 324/09 L'Oréal and Others [2011] ECR I-0000.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [162].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4.
Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000.
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 49 (accessed 6 May, 2012).
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [161].
Ibid., [162].
Case 324/09 L'Oréal and Others [2011] ECR I-0000 [127], [132].
Case 324/09 L'Oréal and Others [2011] ECR I-0000.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [162].
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid., [73].
Ibid., [72].
Ibid., [73].
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 39 (accessed 15 October, 2012).
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch).
Clayton, R. 2005. Anonymity and traceability in cyberspace (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge) 117.
Ibid., 120–121.
According to Arnold J in Golden Eye (International) Limited and others v Telefonica UK Limited [2012] EWHC 723 (Ch) [101], ‘Consumer Focus served an expert report from Dr Richard Clayton. Dr Clayton is a Senior Research Assistant in the Computer Laboratory of the University of Cambridge. He worked for Demon Internet, then the largest UK ISP, from 1995 to 2000. In 2006 he was awarded a PhD for his thesis “Anonymity and traceability in cyberspace”. He has written or co-written some 40 peer-reviewed publications. He has advised Parliamentary Select Committees, and has acted as an expert witness in several criminal and civil cases’.
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 39 (accessed 15 October, 2012).
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4.
EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd v UPC Communications Ireland Ltd [2010] IEHC 377.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [167].
EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd v UPC Communications Ireland Ltd [2010] IEHC 377 [44].
Ofcom, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 39 (accessed 15 October, 2012).
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4.
Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000.
Case 324/09 L'Oréal and Others [2011] ECR I-0000.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [162].
Case 324/09 L'Oréal and Others [2011] ECR I-0000 [127], [132].
Clayton, R. 2005. Anonymity and traceability in cyberspace (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge) 120.
Ibid., 117.
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [47]; see also Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [45].
Case 275/06 Productores de Musica de Espana (Promusicae) v Telefonica de Espana SAU [2008] ECR I-271 [62-68].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [45]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [43].
Case 324/09 L'Oréal and Others [2011] ECR I-0000.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [162].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4.
Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000.
Clayton, R. 2005. Anonymity and traceability in cyberspace (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge) 121.
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [50]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [48].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [50], [51]; see also Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [49], [50].
Case 324/09 L'Oréal and Others [2011] ECR I-0000 [140].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [162].
Case 324/09 L'Oréal and Others [2011] ECR I-0000 [127], [144].
Ibid., [138].
Clayton, R. 2005. Anonymity and traceability in cyberspace (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge) 120–121.
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [38]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [36].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [39]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [37].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [40]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [38].
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) [162].
Case 70-10 Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2012] ECDR 4 [52]; Case 360-10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV [2012] ECR I-0000 [50].
Ofcom, “Site Blocking” to reduce online copyright infringement – A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act' http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at p. 50 (accessed 4 February 2012).
Rightsholder Group, ‘The potential for a voluntary code’ (June 2011) http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/w/index.php?title=Voluntary_Website_Blocking_Proposal&action=edit (accessed 1 June 2012).
Rowlands, M. 2011. UK: Internet censorship looms as government finds alternatives to flawed Digital Economy Act. Statewatch (7 September 2011) http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-147-internet-censorship.pdf at p. 6 (accessed 1 June 2012).
Ibid., at p. 8.
Rightsholder Group, ‘The potential for a voluntary code’ (June 2011) http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/w/index.php?title=Voluntary_Website_Blocking_Proposal&action=edit (accessed 1 June 2012).
Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 2011. Next steps for implementation of the Digital Economy Act. (August 2011) http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Next-steps-for-implementation-of-the-Digital-Economy-Act.pdf (accessed 1 June 2012).
Rightsholder Group, ‘Responsible practices for search engines in reducing online infringement proposal for a code of practice’ (January 2012) http://www.openrightsgroup.org/assets/files/pdfs/proposals%20to%20search%20engines.pdf (accessed 1 June 2012).
Ibid.
Rightsholder Group, ‘The potential for a voluntary code’ (June 2011) http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/w/index.php?title=Voluntary_Website_Blocking_Proposal&action=edit (accessed 1 June 2012).
Rightsholder Group, ‘Responsible practices for search engines in reducing online infringement proposal for a code of practice’ (January 2012) http://www.openrightsgroup.org/assets/files/pdfs/proposals%20to%20search%20engines.pdf (accessed 1 June 2012).