Scarlet was told by a Belgian court last year that it must
filter out copyright-infringing activity carried out by users of
its network. It was ordered to pay a €2,500 fine for every day that
it did not comply with the order.
That fine has now reached €750,000 but a Brussels court has said
that it deserved more time to implement the filtering technology
than the six months it had been given.
The court case was originally brought by Belgian authors' rights
group SABAM, which claimed that the ISP bore some responsibility
for the unlawful sharing of material over peer to peer (P2P)
networks on the internet.
It won a ruling from the court that Scarlet did bear some
responsibility, and that it should use technical filters to weed
out infringing traffic on penalty of a daily fine.
Scarlet had tried to prove that the filtering of traffic was
technically impossible but the court did not accept that argument.
It said that the company should not be released entirely from the
filtering obligation.
It did say, though, that the six months it had been given to
install the technology was too short, and that therefore the fines
that have built up to date should not apply. The fines should run
from 1 November, it said.
In its decision last year, the court had specified a technology
for the company to use, a filtering product called Audible Magic
which had been recommended by SABAM.
Scarlet is pursuing a full appeal against the verdict. When
launching the appeal its managing director Gert Post said that it
would be illegal to comply with the verdict.
"This measure is nothing else than playing Big Brother on the
Internet,'' said Post at the time. "If we don't challenge it today,
we leave the door open to permanent, and invisible and illegal,
checks of personal data."
The company said that Belgian phone tap laws prohibited it from
following the court's orders.
The appeal is expected to be heard in Brussels this time next
year.
"Scarlet may have won some extra time, but the Sword of Damocles
is still hanging over its head," said SABAM in a statement. "If
Scarlet fails to comply with the court order to prevent P2P
infringements by its users in the lead up to the appeal hearing in
October 2009, it could still have to pay penalties amounting to
some one million euro."
Editor's Note, 03/11/2008: This story has been
updated since it first appeared. A reader pointed out errors in the
information we reported and sourced to a translation of a story
from a Belgian news outlet. SABAM subsequently released a statement
on the issue, which we had previously asked for. We had also asked
Scarlet for confirmation of the facts of the case but have received
no response. We apologise for any inaccuracies in the original
report.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
