GGF Ruling In English

There were two rulings by the Dutch court yesterday: one against The Pirate Bay, ordering it to block traffic from the Netherlands, and one against Global Gaming Factory.

The GGF ruling says that GGF must also carry out the traffic ban, if it does buy the Pirate Bay.

As a public service, I've translated both rulings into English.

Apologies for the mistakes, all corrections welcome.

Full text of The Pirate Bay Ruling is here.

Full text of the GGF ruling in English is after the "MORE."


[stamp:] IN THE NAME OF THE QUEEN!

Ruling

Amsterdam District Court

Civil Law Sector, Judge for Summary Judments

Case number / Roll number 432071 / KG ZA 09-1411 WT/RV

Ruling in summary judgment of 30 July 2009

In the case of

The foundation
STICHTING BESCHERMING RECHTEN ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIE NEDERLAND, BREIN
Based in Amsterdam,
Plaintiff in summons of 6 July 2009
Lawyers Mr. D. F. Groenevelt and Mr. J.C.H. Van Manen of Amsterdam

against

the company according to foreign law
GLOBAL GAMING FACTORY X AB,
having offices in Stockholm, Sweden,
summoned,
lawyers Mr. R. Dijkstra and Mr. P.A. van den Brink of Amsterdam

Parties will be named Stichting Brein and GGF hereafter.

1. The Proceedings

At a hearing of 21 July 2009 this case was handled at the same time as the case of Stichting Brein against Neij, Kolmisoppi and Warg (case and roll number 428212/KG ZA 09-1092. Stichting Brein has proposed and sent the summons attached to this ruling in a photocopy. GGF has defended itself with the conclusion of rejecting the measures asked. Both parties brought documents and plea briefs in the case. After further debate, the parties asked for judgment.
At the hearing were present on behalf of Stichting Brein: K.H.J. Habraken, corporate lawyer, J.J. W. Van Vooren, head of enforcement, P.A. Haringsma, corporate lawyer, with Mr. Groenevelt and Van Manen.

On behalf of GGF Mr. Dijkstra and Mr. Van den Brink were present.

2. The Facts

2.1 Stichting Brein has its its statuatory goal the legal enforcement of the intellectual property rights of parties attached to it.

2.2 Stichting Brein represents the large majority of the Dutch copyright holders in the area of music, film and computer games.

2.3 GGF is a company occupied with internet ads and software development, specially targeting applications in internet cafes and gaming centers. GGF is listed on the Swedish stock exchange Aktietorget. On Tuesday 30 June 2009 GGF announced that it would take over the whole business of The Pirate Bay, including all the websites allied to it.

2.4 The Pirate Bay was launched in 2004 as web site thepiratebay.org on which so called BitTorrents are offered. With BitTorrents the exchange of files between computers on the internet is possible, by which computers of internet users are in direct contact with each other for exchanging files ( the peer-to-peer protocol).

2.5 The Pirate Bay makes use of websites reachable by the following domain names:thepiratebay.org, piratebay.org, piratebay.net, piratebay.se, thepiratebay.com, thepiratebay.net, thepiratebay.nu and thepiratebay.se.

2.6 On 5 May 2009 Stichting Brein summoned the original founders of the Pirate Bay, who are still seen as owners and managers, to immediately end activities focused on the Dutch market. In the ruling of 30 July 2009 of the summary judge of this court, the owners/managers of The Pirate Bay were ordered to make the website inaccessible for Internet users in the Netherlands.

2.7 On 30 June 2009, GGF published a press release in which it announced the takeover of The Pirate Bay. In the press release was, for so much is of interest, stated:

The responsibility for, and operation of the site will be taken over by GGF in connection with closing of the transaction, which is scheduled for August 2009.
"We would like to introduce models which entail that content providers and copyright owners get paid for content that is downloaded via the site" said Hans Pandeya, CEO GGF.

stated: 3. The Dispute

3.1 Stichting Brein asks _ summarized _ to have GGF ordered to, at pain of a fine, stop and keep stopped the (imminent) infringements of the copyright and neighboring rights of those attached to Stichting Brein, and to do this by making the website thepiratebay.org, and the related (tracker)servers and databases, including also the (tracker)servers that are accessible via other websites (see 2.8) or other variations thereof, inaccessible for internet users in the Netherlands. Further Stichting Brein asks to have the term as intended in article 1019i in the Lawbook of Civil Law Orders (Rv) set at two months, and to rule GGF to pay the full costs of the proceeding as intended in article 1019h Rv.

3.2 Stichting Brein sets _ in very short summary _ the following at the basis of its demands. On the websites of The Pirate Bay (see 2.8) are lists of copyright protected works such as music, film and computer games, and also other software. The Pirate Bay, by means of the torrent technology, makes it possible for internet users to download copyright protected works from the computers of others. This is a publication in the sense of Article 1, subparagraph 12 of the Copyright Law (Aw) and making available in the sense of Articles 2 paragraph 1 subparagraph d, 6 para 1 sub c and 7a para 1 sub c of the Neighboring Rights Laws (Wnr).
The copyright holders who are attached to Stichting Brein, and whose interests it defends, have not granted permission for this publication and making available. Nor are they immunized for these (illegal) acts. The damage suffered speaks for itself, every free downloaded work won't be sold via the official channels. With that, the urgent interest of Stichting Brein in its demands is made clear. GGF has announced at the end of June 2009 that it will take The Pirate Bay over from the original founders (who are summoned in the other case handled at the same time as this one). Thus they may continue the infringements committed against copyrights.

3.3 GGF argues _ shortly stated _ that the takeover of The Pirate bay is not yet completed. Thus GGF is improperly pulled into this case because they are not making the claimed infringements on the copyrights of those attached to Stichting Brein possible. GGF does not yet have management of the websites that belong to The Pirate Bay, so that it cannot do what is asked. Thus Stichting Brein has no interest at stake in her demands against GGF. Furthermore, the agreement to take The Pirate Bay over contains conditions, among which is the condition that the websites must be completely legal. GGF wants to achieve this in any case by making users pay for downloading games, films and music and by submission ["afdracht"] of copyright royalties to rights holders or their representatives. Only if it is certain that GGF can make use of The Pirate Bay in a legal manner will the takeover be completed.

4. The Judgment

4.1 The infringements claimed by Stichting Brein upon copyright and neighboring rights take place, insofar as of interest in this ruling, in the Netherlands, so that this court, and with it the summary rulings judge, have jurisdiction to oversee the dispute, insofar only as it relates to the Netherlands.

4.2 GGF has argued that Stichting Brein has no interest at stake in its demands against GGF, given that it is not yet the owner of the website The Pirate Bay, and after the takeover of it, it wants to use the website in a legal manner. The takeover of The Pirate Bay was agreed on the basis of that condition that states as much, according to GGF. The position of Stichting Brein, by contrast, is that the chance exists that the infringements on copyright of the rights holders attached to it will be continued by GGF. Stichting Brein has, without objection, added that GGF until the present has not entered discussions with it about the steps necessary to legalize The Pirate Bay in the short term. The takeover by GGF of The Pirate Bay is planned for August 2009. If that takeover occurs without futher changes ("voorzieningen") in the way The Pirate Bay operates, GGF threatens to infringe copyrights of the organizations attached to Stichting Brein. Because of this imminent infringement, Stichting Brein does have an interest at stake in its demands with respect to GGF. In a (claimed) infringement on a copyright, the necessary urgency of the measures requested is demonstrated in the sense that every day the infringement continues, it can lead to (more) damage to the rights holders.

4.3 GGF did not dispute that The Pirate Bay continues to infringe copyrights of the organizations attached to Stichting Brein, therefore they are assumed.

4.4 The other claims of Stichting Brein against GGF that were not objected to are therefore be granted in summary judgment. GGF has still stated that they don't have The Pirate Bay in possession, so that they cannot satisfy that which is demanded. This objection does not lead to a rejection of what is demanded, but will be honored in the sense that the demands against GGF will be granted from the moment that it has taken over The Pirate Bay.

4.5 Now that the claim against GGF is granted from a point in time that is uncertain, the parties are both partially ruled against. Therefore, the costs of the proceedings will be compensated in the manner related hereafter.

5. The Decision.

The summary judgments judge

5.1 Orders GGF from the moment that it has taken over The Pirate Bay to stop and keep stopped within 10 days the infringements in the Netherlands of the copyright and related rights of those attached to Stichting Brein, undertstanding that to include offering their services as middlemen as intended in Article 26d of the Copyright Law (Auteurswet) and Article 15e in the Law of related rights, at risk of a penalty of EUR30,000 for each day that they act contrary to this, to a maximum of EUR3,000,000.00.

5.2 Orders GGF from the moment it has taken over The Pirate Bay to to carry out the order under 5.1 by making the websites thepiratebay.org, piratebay.org, piratebay.net, piratebay.se, thepiratebay.com, thepiratebay.net, thepiratebay.nu and thepiratebay.se, or other variations thereof, inaccessible for internet users in the Netherlands, at risk of a fine of EUR30,000 for each day that they act contrary to this, to a maximum of EUR3,000,000.00.

5.3 Sets the term as intended in Article 1019i of the Lawbook of Civil Law at two months from the date of this ruling.

5.4 Compensates the costs of the proceeding such that each side bears its own costs.

5.5. Pronounces this ruling must be preliminarily enforced whether it is appealed or not.

5.6. Rejects anything else or more sought by plaintiff.

This judgment was made by Ms. W. Tonkens-Gerkema, summary judgments judge, assisted by Ms. R. Verloo, griffier, and delivered in public July 30, 2009.

*END*

If anybody needs the Dutch text, lemme know. It's a PDF file.