©-LAW

Kat blocking Earlier this week, the High Court of England and Wales issued two website blocking orders, which set new precedent and are the expression of a further development in the rich UK website blocking jurisprudence.  The orders, which were issued by Miles J further to applications made by record labels that are members of  BPI , are the first orders ever granted in the UK to block access to, respectively, a cyberlocker and a number of streamripping sites/app. The decisions are also interesting from a broader, EU perspective, in that the judge considered that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is unlikely to follow the position adopted by Advocate General (AG) Saugmandsgaard Øe in his 2020  Opinion , when it decides  YouTube/Cyando , C-682/18 and C-683/18  [Katpost  here ]. Capitol Records and Others v BT and Others : cyberlocker operators The  first order  was made further to an application by record companies, which are memb...

AG Saugmandsgaard Øe A few days ago, The IPKat  reported  on Advocate General (AG) Saugmandsgaard Øe’s  Opinion  in YouTube  and C-683/18  Cyando . When the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issues its judgment, it will have the opportunity to determine: Joined Cases C-682/18  Whether user-uploaded content (UUC) platforms like YouTube and Uploaded (the latter is a cyberlocker) do perform acts of communication to the public under Article 3(1) of the  InfoSoc Directive   [according to the AG, in principle, they do not] ; Whether the hosting safe harbour in Article 14 of the  E-commerce Directive  is in principle available to these platforms  [according to the AG, it is] ; How to interpret Article 14(1)(a) of the E-commerce Directive and Article 8(3) of the InfoSoc Directive. Possibly (though no questions have been expressly referred on this point), the CJEU will also consider a central aspect of the AG...