UK High Court Orders Block On Popcorn Time

An anonymous reader writes: Five ISPs have been given orders by the UK High Court to restrict access to sites offering downloads of popular movie streaming service Popcorn Time – a move which follows complaints from the Motion Picture Association referring to the software's use as a platform for viewing pirated content. According to the new regulation, Virgin, BT, Sky, EE and TalkTalk are now required to block access to popcorntime.io, flixtor.me, popcorntime.se and isoplex.isohunt.to – all sites which link to Popcorn Time downloads. In the High Court order, Justice Birss cites under Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, that the 'Popcorn Time application is used in order to watch pirated content on the internet.' Popcorn Time operates as a BitTorrent client, despite its slick user interface, and is used mainly for illegal content – although, as its supporters argue, it is also a handy tool for streaming public domain films. It is unclear how successful the ban will be – the blocked sites are not the only places to find Popcorn Time online. Additionally, at ISP level, it will be challenging to monitor as there is not a single version or developer to seek out, with the code available as open source.

Comments

I hadn't heard of PopcornTime until now...

[rHBa]

...I think I'll fire up the SOCKS tunnel and check it out.

Re:I hadn't heard of PopcornTime until now...

[pslytely psycho]

It's reputation is Netflix for pirates.
It's great, slick, intuitive interface, great selection of mostly good quality torrents.

It is so slick I would wager a lot of users have no idea it is basically a bitorrent client that downloads a copy of the movie to your HDD and shares it. It looks very professional. It looks like a Netflix variation, much like my smart TVs and Bluray players all have a different Netflix interface. It has a logo that looks polished and very commercial. Their forums are a disaster for trying to find information when something doesn't work right. Earlier in the year they changed cover providers and the temporary bugfix was posted in a comment (not stickied or prominent in any way) and was a bitch to find as it wasn't repeated in any other thread on the topic.

It looks legitimate enough that at least two people I know were astounded when they found out they were 'gasp!' pirating movies 'gasp!' I work on most of my friends computers although I don't work in the industry.

I occasionally find a specific file that just won't work properly or dies in the middle, but it mostly just works.
Series updates can be spotty, Some shows can be weeks behind but others seem to update within hours of broadcast.

A quick mention when you open it that it may not comply with laws in your region that nobody seems to notice. It's great for stuff that isn't on Netflix.

Re:I hadn't heard of PopcornTime until now...

[rHBa]

I used to live in France so I used an ssh tunnel through my UK web hosting to get iPlayer. Now I'm back home I'm using the same tunnel for torrent sites, streaming sites and now popcorntime it seems...

While we're on the topic... Grooveshark

[QuasiSteve]

http://gizmodo.com/after-nearl...
http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/...
http://www.theverge.com/2015/4...

When are these idiots going to learn?

[popo]

The Internet is a big place. Restricting access to a few sites is effectively useless.

Re:When are these idiots going to learn?

[kesuki]

There is already a P2P network with encrypted access, reputation based access to files, and so called anti-bot measures. DC++
also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_file_sharing_software there are way more than just 'popcorn time'

remember there is no difference to which side of the law you are on, because the illegal side will still cause overheat failures from too high utilization(1) for the design capacity of the network. and the legal side has no qualms about lying about the numbers and make up unlimited resources(2) to use to force their programs on the networks in broadcast mode, which also fries beacons.

1. but only because the swarm has all defined themselves as real-time priority when in fact none of them deserves real-time priority
2. see capitalism.

Re:When are these idiots going to learn?

[pslytely psycho]

"the space between the ears of media executives, their lawyers, and the judges and lawmakers in their pockets is bigger.. even more vast than the empiness of space itself."

So their heads are like the Tardis....this explains a lot. Too bad it wasn't filled with intelligence instead of being a vast desert.

Re:When are these idiots going to learn?

[Jason Levine]

The best hope that the media companies have for squashing piracy is not the legal route. Yes, by suing some people or having governments ban some tools, they'll move one step forward. Unfortunately, for them, those who write the programs used for piracy will move five steps forward during this time. Instead, their best hope are services like Netflix. Imagine if the media companies got over their fear of putting stuff online and opened the doors to everything being on Netflix (and a few competing services just to keep one from being too powerful). Even if Netflix had to raise their prices, it would be worth it. Add in the fact that this would be legal (no worrying if you'll get a "we're suing you for piracy" letter) and safe (no worrying if that rip actually contains a virus) and demand for piracy would drop.

Yes, there will always be piracy. Media companies could release DRM-free copies of their movies for a dime each and some pirates would say they'll only buy them if they cost a nickle. Some people rationalize their piracy and will never stop no matter what alternatives are presented to them. Still, those people aren't really potential customers and can be ignored.

Of course, the "Everything On Netflix" scenario isn't likely to happen. Instead, the media companies will double-down on their fear of the Internet, demand massive DRM before even their oldest titles can touch the online world, price their online offerings high to drive people to DVD/Blu-Ray, restrict access based on when the discs are released/where you live, and generally shoot themselves in the foot by driving people to piracy.

Re:When are these idiots going to learn?

[Applehu Akbar]

Feel free. Popcorn Time isn't in the US either.

Re:When are these idiots going to learn?

[ckatko]

Useless to us techies, but not for the general public. When they lose popular websites--or Google stops showing them--it really does slow them down. They don't understand how to search for similar content, or the pirating websites replicating for survival.

And honestly, the relevant governments (or at least the FBI/CIA/etc organizations they consult) know that you don't need to stop all the techies, just the general populace. Making something one or two steps difficult is enough to dissuade large swathes of people. Think of the amount of legal products you've left for marginally easier-to-use legal products.

This is a far cry from--and much more reasonable attack than--using knee-jerk shotgun lawsuits suing grandmas and children into oblivion.

Someone going to link one here?

[Chrisq]

According to the new regulation, Virgin, BT, Sky, EE and TalkTalk are now required to block access to popcorntime.io, flixtor.me, popcorntime.se and isoplex.isohunt.to – all sites which link to Popcorn Time downloads

Link here. Better still link - Facebook - Twitter - Tumblr... and see if the ISPs dare to block these

Re:Someone going to link one here?

[Neil_Brown]

Facebook - Twitter - Tumblr... and see if the ISPs dare to block these

It would be interesting to see what would happen. Injunctions under s97A can be imposed on "service providers", which is defined very broadly, as " any person providing an information society service", so not just telcos.

My feeling is that the copyright industry would attempt to secure injunctions against Facebook, Twitter and so on, if they had entities in the jurisdiction. Both Twitter and Facebook do, as both have offices in London. However, they are not the entities providing the services, so it would be interesting to see how a court might rule — if the European Court's approach of Google Spain was followed, their proximity to the service provision might be sufficient to bring them within scope...

Re:Someone going to link one here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, Popcorn Time is even available via the Arch Linux User Repository. What are they going to do? Block the AUR?

Re:Someone going to link one here?

[AmiMoJo]

I use a VPN for all internet access now, to block Virgin Media's blocks and their spying. The VPN provider is based in another European country, so presumably this legislation would be unable to force them to block any sites. Their local laws don't allow VPN providers to be forced to do blocking, although ISPs in that country are currently under legal assault by the copyright industry.

Re:Someone going to link one here?

[Neil_Brown]

The VPN provider is based in another European country, so presumably this legislation would be unable to force them to block any sites.

This can perhaps be unpacked a little:

• Does the UK legislation permit a court to injunct a VPN provider?
• If so, could an injunction be obtained in the UK against a provider based overseas?
• Does the UK legislation permit a court to injuct a UK-based ISP (Virgin Media) to block access to a VPN endpoint?

My gut feeling would be that, yes, a VPN provider would probably be a "service provider" for the purposes of s97A. Could an injunction be obtained in the UK against a provider overseas? Not my area of expertise, but I suspect that the copyright industry would attempt to claim that the infringement takes place in the UK, and you connect to the VPN from the UK, so the UK does have jurisdiction. I don't know whether that would succeed and, even an injunction were granted, whether it would be easy to actually enforce it before the courts of whatever country from which your VPN service is provided — although, noting that it's "another European country", that would probably be easier than if it were somewhere remote.

Could VM be ordered to block access to a particular VPN service? In principle, yes, as the use of a VPN or not would seem to be irrelevant to the test:

The High Court ... shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright.

If the "actual knowledge" requirement can be made out in respect of one connection, routing the same data via a different path once it exits the ISP's service would not seem to make a difference. However, an injunction against a VPN provider where there is clear non-infringing use would seem disproportionate — which probably means that a mainstream VPN service, used by corporates, is more likely to survive than a service named "usethisvpntoinfringecopyright" or the like.

But I could be wrong, of course.

Re:Someone going to link one here?

[AmiMoJo]

However, an injunction against a VPN provider where there is clear non-infringing use would seem disproportionate â" which probably means that a mainstream VPN service, used by corporates, is more likely to survive than a service named "usethisvpntoinfringecopyright" or the like.

This is the part I'm most interested in. I use this service mostly to protect my privacy from ISP/GCHQ spying, and to ensure I have a clean, unfettered internet connection. That's the primary purpose of this service, since it doesn't give me access to any private networks or anything like that.

So, the question becomes, does a service that is used to enhance privacy and block spying have enough non-copyright-infringing uses to make a block disproportionate.

Re:Someone going to link one here?

[Neil_Brown]

does a service that is used to enhance privacy and block spying have enough non-copyright-infringing uses to make a block disproportionate.

Until such a case goes to court, it's anyone's guess, really. Where the service encourages infringement, or "authorises" it, I suspect that it would be easier to make a case for blocking than if it were entirely neutral, even if it was used for entirely lawful activities too.

Re:Someone going to link one here?

[SuricouRaven]

A little more work and we might not even need the torrent sites. Magnet links can be copied and pasted with ease, including into facebook posts.

Finally an honest assessment in the /. description

[NaCh0]

A public domain movie can be watched technically but how many public domain movies are in the top 100 most watched list?

Free software is awesome. Too bad the same can't be said for free music/movies.

Anybody remember?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when the IWF came around, "this is the only thing we'll ever block, honest". Then it was porn in general, for everybody. Then it was torrent sites. Oh, and the anarchist's handbook got targeted too. Now this. What's next?

The UK is building their own digital Hadrian's wall at the behest of several special interest groups. How long before the "pro-EU" lobby becomes a big enough interest group to suppress "eurosceptic" views? Signs are, closer than you think.

Re:Anybody remember?

[Anonymous Coward]

Euroskeptic views SHOULD be suppressed. Anyone opposed to the EU should be arrested and silenced. People don't know how good they have it. I'd take prosperity and safety over "freedom" anytime. And so should you. If you're not smart enough to know what's good for you, let better people decide it and shut up.

Re:Anybody remember?

[nukenerd]

No, I think he's being funny. Mod GP funny, someone, please.

Re:Anybody remember?

[wabrandsma]

I'd take prosperity and safety over "freedom" anytime.

Ronald Reagan: we believe that freedom and security go together.
Or to paraphrase him:

We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the United Kingdom can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. Prime Minster Cameron, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the United Kingdom and Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this portal. Mr. Cameron, open this portal. Mr. Cameron, tear down this firewall of censorship!

Re:Anybody remember?

[jez9999]

Nah, they shouldn't be suppressed. They should just be reflexively demonized in the media and by the mainstream political class as racist, bigoted, xenophobic, and not worthy of consideration beyond summary dismissal.

Re:Anybody remember?

[Spidyr2k]

I'd take prosperity and safety over "freedom" anytime.

Ronald Reagan: we believe that freedom and security go together. Or to paraphrase him:

We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the United Kingdom can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. Prime Minster Cameron, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the United Kingdom and Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this portal. Mr. Cameron, open this portal. Mr. Cameron, tear down this firewall of censorship!

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

Judgment and legislation

[Neil_Brown]

The judgment is Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation & Ors v Sky UK Ltd & Ors [2015] EWHC 1082 (Ch)

The legislation is here

Pretty slick application

[Anonymous Coward]

I hadn't heard of Popcorn Time until very recently, although I'm living in Thailand and my standard means of obtaining digital media of any sort is piracy.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to use uTorrent or Deluge plus eztv.ch, yts.to, kickass.to, and/or the Pirate Bay to get just about anything that I want. From very old TV series to brand new movies (sometime BEFORE theatrical release) to PC games to eBooks, I almost never get a desire to search for something and then fail to find it.

BUT, Popcorn Time puts that (at least the TV and movies aspects) into an interface that my mother or grandmother could easily use. I would recommend it to my family and/or remote desktop install it for them, but they live in the US so threatening letters from ISPs (and worse) seem like more of a risk than they are here in piracy hotspot SE Asia. A VPN or other solution might take care of those concerns, but on the other hand it would also detract from the ease of use, which is the main attraction of Popcorn Time.

If you're savvy enough to know and manage those risks (or if you live in a place where they aren't a concern), Popcorn Time is well worth checking out. Just a couple caveats:
* Go for popcorntime.io, not the other fork (popcorn-time.se or "Time4Popcorn"). The .io one is 100% clean in my experience, but I hear the others have adware/malware.
* Biggest downside of Popcorn Time in my opinion is that it has no option to seed beyond the duration of the time that you are streaming/watching the videos. I'd happily designate a 1-2TB drive or partition to Popcorn Time / torrent cache and allow PT to seed up to a target ratio or beyond if I'm a critical seeder of the file. I set up PT to keep its cache persistent so I can let uTorrent manage the seeding, but it is a by-hand multi step process to import PT stuff into uTorrent because PT puts everything into subfolders created with the filename of the torrents it downloads (which are a long hash of alphanumeric characters). If PT streamlines that process or just implements better seeding, I'll switch to it as my primary means of video torrenting.

Re:Pretty slick application

[pslytely psycho]

It's pretty popular in the U.S. too, and while not without risk, that risk is pretty close to zero.

It has a VPN button on it, so if you have a VPN client it can tap right in. But it is no less safe than Bittorrent. And that is very popular here as well. We are not quite the police state yet, regardless of what you may of heard.

Re:Pretty slick application

[Opportunist]

In other words, your government is busy protecting the interests of your own country and considers the concerns that only benefit a foreign nation secondary?

Any chance that we could borrow them for a while? I wonder what it's like to have a government like that.

Re:Pretty slick application

[thegarbz]

A VPN or other solution might take care of those concerns, but on the other hand it would also detract from the ease of use, which is the main attraction of Popcorn Time.

You mean like clicking the little red lock on the top of the popcorn time window and that's it?

Even with the VPN side of things they have you covered. Popcorn time includes a VPN service which you can access natively from the client. I'm not sure about the quality of the service itself but for ease of use it looks like it can't be beat.

Where's the source code?

[TheManInTheMoon]

I, like many others, had not heard of Popcorn Time before it was so successfully advertised by the British Legal system. I now wonder where the source code is hosted, and under which open source licence.

Re:Where's the source code?

[Dr_Barnowl]

Source code is here

License is GPL3 or later.

Re:Never heard of this... downloading

[infolation]

I would really like to be in court to hear a Judge with a posh educated English accent say the words:

"Popcorn Time"

Easily circumvented

[mrbester]

Change DNS to OpenDNS, avoiding resolution by ISP.

And YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube is a platform for viewing pirated content. Hell, YouTube proactively offers and even recommends pirated content to the user. When will YouTube be banned?

Re:And YouTube?

[Opportunist]

Banning YouTube might not be easy. Normal people are using it.

Re:And YouTube?

[Opportunist]

So if you want to protect something from your government, get your coworkers, your neighbors, your parents and every other "normal" person you might know to use it heavily.

Re:And YouTube?

[SuricouRaven]

If youtube were launched a few years later, it would likely have been forced to shut down by the cost of legal action.

Why are they trying to get sites blocked?

[jonwil]

Wouldn't it make more sense to send take-down notices (or if necessary, file lawsuits) against the owners or hosting providers of the sites directly?

Same with any pirate site or other illegal content they want to block, its better to go after the child porn sites directly than to try and block them at the ISP level...

Re:Why are they trying to get sites blocked?

[thegarbz]

Illegal in what country?

Childporn is a bit different due to it being almost universally illegal and Interpol are happy to organise global raids on providers. But Popcorn Time? It's nothing more than a bittorrent client + IMDB client bolted together with a built in media player. It's open source and no more or less legal than utorrent or any other bittorrent client. My guess is if they get sent a take down notice they'll send back a photo of their extended middle finger.

Re:Why are they trying to get sites blocked?

[Neil_Brown]

Popcorn Time ... no more or less legal than utorrent or any other bittorrent client

The court here came up with a slightly different perspective:

• - even though the claimants did not argue this, the court commented that the developers of Popcorn Time probably authorise copyright infringement (Paragraph 48)

• The Popcorn Time application is a means necessarily used for users to infringe the copyright in many senses. It is the means by which they find what content they want, it is the means by which they access and collect the pieces of the content files using the BitTorrent protocol and it is the media player on which the user actually watches the protected work. Infringement of copyright is inevitable when Popcorn Time is used. That is what it is for. Moreover it is not a tool like a twin tape recorder which could in principle be used by a user for any work (infringing or not). The Popcorn Time application accesses content using its index and that index is controlled by the suppliers. Each Popcorn Time application connects to SUI websites for updates of various sorts and by that means the suppliers of the Popcorn Time application retain control over its use. Whether the suppliers could turn off a user's Popcorn Time application is not clear but in any event they determine what appears in the index.

• - the suppliers of Popcorn Time (as opposed to the code itself, since code can't (yet) commit copyright infringement) had a "common design" with the operators of the websites in question, thereby infringing copyright (Paragraph 55)

• The issue I have to decide is whether the suppliers of the Popcorn Time applications are jointly liable with the operators of the host websites. In my judgment they are. The Popcorn Time application is the key means which procures and induces the user to access the host website and therefore causes the infringing communications to occur. The suppliers of Popcorn Time plainly know and intend that to be the case. They provide the software and provide the information to keep the indexes up to date. I find that the suppliers of Popcorn Time have a common design with the operators of the host websites to secure the communication to the public of the claimants' protected works, thereby infringing copyright.

Re:Why are they trying to get sites blocked?

[thegarbz]

They provide the software and provide the information to keep the indexes up to date.

I'm not sure that's how it works. From what I've gathered Popcorn time strung together different and openly available sources of data using APIs those sources provided.

But my point stands which was one of jurisdiction. Childporn is pretty much universally illegal in most of the western world. This software by comparison has been (dubiously IMO) ruled illegal by one court in one jurisdiction, and even then it is unlikely that the jurisdiction covers the location of the servers etc.

A sad day for British Arch Linux users.

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like Popcorn Time is available in the Arch User Repository: "https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/popcorntime/".
Time to block aur.archlinux.org in the UK?

Too late

[nospam007]

http://popcorntime.se/ is dead already.

Re:Too late

[Zedrick]

The summary is wrong, popcorntime has never used popcorntime.se (and I really doubt a site like that could by hosted with binero, which is a typical webhotel - they don't even offer VPS-accounts).

Stupid

[g0bshiTe]

This is getting stupid beyond belief. If we are blocking things like this why not strike at the heart of the problem and block home computers or operating systems, or the internet altogether.

Without an operating system people can't infringe music, movies or software. Same without a computer. While we're at it why not just kill all humans and then we'll be able to 100% eliminate piracy in all forms at the same time we'd solve our economic and social problems as well as protect humans from disease and end world hunger.

Piracy is similar to the US gun issue. Rather than address what the issue really is, they peck at it. In the case of piracy there will always be people who will not pay for the content. You could swing more to purchase if you rethought your business model. I don't see a reason why a movie ticket costs nearly $20 per person,or why a cd is $15, or a dvd is $15.

Perhaps if those dipshits in Hollywood didn't need to make millions per person involved in the making of a film there wouldn't be much piracy at all.

Be interesting to see a studio release a movie with a billing model similar to some recording artists where they asked for a donation of what you wanted to pay for your ticket.

Ban Wikipedia?

[leetcat]

They had better ban Wikipedia as they have a like to where popcorn time is downloaded. They have links all over to popcorn time downloads. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...

Re:There's even an ebuild for gentoo too!

[Chrisq]

Heck, Popcorn Time is even available via the Arch Linux User Repository. What are they going to do? Block the AUR?

Heh heh. There's even a gentoo overlay with an ebuild too. Why doesn't the UK just cut all their international data cables and be done with it? Otherwise the scary software is bound to seep through, oh no!

If UKIP get in power they probably will. And close the airports and ferries. He takes England, England as an instruction manual.

Reputation based access to files

[tepples]

I'm interested in how this plays out "reputation based access to files" plays out in practice. How does a new user gain enough reputation to begin to participate?

Re:Reputation based access to files

[SuricouRaven]

Usually by bringing in some files obtained elsewhere.

Re:Reputation based access to files

[tepples]

If "elsewhere" also requires reputation, how does a user brand new to file sharing in general obtain his first such files? To compete with the ease of use of Popcorn Time, there has to be a way to bootstrap a new user.

Re:Reputation based access to files

[kesuki]

easy, ripping tools are easy to find, and usb optical drives exist, making from store bought is too easy if you Google it. and as the law is currently ripped committing a crime to catch a criminal is illegal so reputation based access is basically modern prohibition the crooks always ahead of the enforcers of the laws.

Re:Reputation based access to files

[kesuki]

/s/ripped/written
waiting to correct my post Slashdot your secretary is slow... ;)

Re:Reputation based access to files

[tepples]

But won't the store-bought stuff already be on the network, uploaded by someone who got to the store faster than you?

Not impressed.

[karlandtanya]

thetvdb.com, themoviedb.com, kat.ph, and eztv.ch pretty much got you covered.

Parliament is in Session!

[ChoosyBeggar]

All in favor of increasing funding to Project Whack-A-Mole? AYE!!! Measure approved.

Re:Ban Wikipedia?

[sound vision]

I believe specific Wikipedia pages actually have been banned in the UK. That album cover with the naked chick.

Shooting the messenger

[MoarSauce123]

Postal services are also capable of delivering pirated content...so when are all those shut down?

Berne Convention

[tepples]

Illegal in what country?

I'm guessing copyright infringement is illegal in Berne Convention signatories, which means every country in the WTO.

Re:Berne Convention

[thegarbz]

You'd be right except you're not infringing copyright by running Popcorn Time, and you're not infringing copyright by creating Popcorn Time.

You're only infringing once you USE it, unless a court deems otherwise, and so far only one court in one jurisdiction has.

Contributory infringement

[tepples]

you're not infringing copyright by creating Popcorn Time.

You're only infringing once you USE it, unless a court deems otherwise, and so far only one court in one jurisdiction has.

I'd be interested to see where you get the idea that "one court in one jurisdiction" recognizes the legal theory of contributory infringement. Napster, Aimster, Grokster...

Re:Contributory infringement

[thegarbz]

No the idea is that one courts decision only applies in that jurisdiction. Napster was shutdown by a court in the country in which it operated. If the Supreme court of the Cayman Islands ruled that it was an illegal operation, no one would give a shit.

Likewise just because one judge in the UK made one decision doesn't make the software illegal in any other parts of the world.

Re:Contributory infringement

[tepples]

Napster was shutdown by a court in the country in which it operated.

Which also happens to be the country in which Slashdot operates.

Likewise just because one judge in the UK made one decision doesn't make the software illegal in any other parts of the world.

Yet.

Both the USA and Great Britain agree about the illegality of a copying service with no substantial non-infringing use. What makes you think courts in other countries that have signed the same copyright treaty won't reach the same conclusion when the MPA (the MPAA's foreign division) goes into those countries?

Re:Contributory infringement

[thegarbz]

Which also happens to be the country in which Slashdot operates.

What has that got to do with the price of eggs in China?
(A quote from a person in a country that is not where Slashdot operates, about a subject as equally relevant to the location of Slashdot as a court decision about an unrelated service).

Likewise just because one judge in the UK made one decision doesn't make the software illegal in any other parts of the world.

Yet.

Both the USA and Great Britain agree about the illegality of a copying service with no substantial non-infringing use. What makes you think courts in other countries that have signed the same copyright treaty won't reach the same conclusion when the MPA (the MPAA's foreign division) goes into those countries?

Absolutely nothing. I'm sure it would be considered illegal once it is tested in the jurisdiction covered by the court. In the mean time the decision in the UK has about as much affect on me and the software I use, where I live, outside of their jurisdiction as the above mentioned price of eggs in China.

Actually that's not true, my country exports to China so the price of eggs in China are actually more relevant to me than the court decision.