UK/HC11C04518/AMF B1047-008 docs 080N
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
- The Honourable Mr Justice Arnold
- Friday the 27th day of April 2012
- CLAIM NO. HC11C04518
- (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 LIMITED
- (9) 679 RECORDINGS LIMITED
- (suing on their own behalf and in a representative capacity on behalf of the members of BPI (British Record Music Industry) Limited and of Phonographic Performance Limited)
- (1) BRITISH SKY BROADCASTING LIMITED
- (2) BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC
- (3) EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LIMITED
- (4)TALKTALK TELECOM GROUP PLC
- (5) TELEPHÓNICA UK LIMITED
- (6) VIRGIN MEDIA LIMITED
UPON THE APPLICATION of the Claimants/Applicants ("the Applicants") by notice dated 21 December 2011
AND UPON READING Counsel for the Applicants’ skeleton argument
AND UPON it having been declared by Mr Justice Arnold on 20 February 2012 that on the evidence before the Court the operators and users of the Pirate Bay Website as defined below) infringe the copyrights of the Claimants (and those they represent) in the UK
IT IS ORDERED as against the Sixth Defendant/Respondent, Virgin Media Limited (”the Sixth Respondent") as follows:
- 1. The Sixth Respondent shall within 14 days in respect of the technical means described at paragraph (ii) below and 90 days in respect of the technical means described at paragraph (i) below adopt the following technical means, in respect of its fixed line residential and business retail broadband and narrowband customers, to whose internet service the system known as Web Blocker 2 is applied, to block or attempt to block access to the website currently known as The Pirate Bay ("the Pirate Bay Website”) currently accessible at www.thepiratebay.se, its domains and sub-domains and any other iP address or URL whose sole or predominant purpose is to enable or facilitate access to the Pirate Bay Website. The to be adopted is:
- (i) IP address blocking in respect of all IP addresses from which the Pirate Bay Website operates as shall be notified in writing from time to time to the Sixth Respondent by the Applicants' solicitors as agent (hereinafter referred to as "the Agent”) for the Applicants and in respect of which the Agent notifies the Sixth Respondent that the server with the notified IP address does not also host a site that is not part of the Pirate Bay Website, such blocking to be put in place within 5 working days of each such notification; and
- (ii) URL blocking in respect of each and every URL available at the Pirate Bay Website and its domains and sub-domains as shall be notified in writing from time to time to the Sixth Respondent by the Agent, such blocking to be put in place within 5 working days of each such notification.
- 2. For the avoidance of doubt paragraph 1 is complied with if the Sixth Respondent uses its system known as Web Blocker 2 or any subsequent system that has equivalent relevant functionality.
- 3. The Sixth Respondent shall not be in breach of paragraph 1 if it suspends the operation of Web Blocker 2 (or such subsequent system that has equivalent relevant functionality) or the addition of IP addresses or URLS thereto:
- (i) with the consent of the Applicants or the Agent, such consent not be unreasonably withheld or delayed; or
- (ii) with the permission of the Court (following the hearing of any application that is on notice to the Agent); or
- (iii) if it (a) notifies the Applicants of the fact of such suspension and the reasons for it as soon as is reasonably practicable, and (b) takes immediate steps to apply to the Court on notice to the Agent at any time for leave to continue the suspension if the Applicants notify the Sixth Respondent that they object to the continuation of such suspension.
- 4. The parties have permission to apply on notice in the event of any material change of circumstances including, for the avoidance of doubt but without limiting the generality of the foregoing in respect of the costs, consequences for the parties and effectiveness of the aforesaid technical means from time to time.
5. There be no order as to costs of this Application, including the hearing before Henderson J on 20 January 2012 and of the hearing before Arnold J on 20 February 2012.
Forbes Anderson Free 60 Charlotte Street London WIT ZNU
Solicitors for the Applicants