That on its own would make the Newzbin saga noteworthy; but it turns out that there's an extra twist to the story -- involving the lawyer who represented the site:

Mr Harris, an intellectual property lawyer, used an anonymous account to post a series of insulting messages while defending a website which allowed users to download films illegally. It later transpired that Mr Harris, 52, owned the website.

During the trial he bragged online that “whoring and drinking” would begin at the end of the case and described an opposing lawyer as a “p----”.

In the official record of the first trial, we find the following:

Mr Harris, instructed on a direct access basis, originally appeared on behalf of the defendant. On 10 February 2010, after the close of evidence, the defendant sought an adjournment in order to instruct solicitors and new counsel because it had become apparent that Mr Harris had acquired shares in the defendant and because he did not feel able to represent the defendant in the light of the way the case had developed and the evidence which had emerged. For the reasons which I gave in a short judgment on that day, I allowed that application. Kirwans Solicitors and Ms Lambert were instructed shortly thereafter and the trial resumed on 2 March 2010.

As the quotation from the court record above indicates, halfway through the case, Harris stepped down from defending Newzbin, and was replaced by another lawyer at short notice, Ms. Lambert. This meant she had relatively little time to research the case, which probably put her at a disadvantage compared to the opposing lawyer. Had she been working on it from the beginning, perhaps the Newzbin case and UK legal history would both have taken a very different turn.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

That's the case for the attempted blocking of Newzbin2 in the UK. The judge, Justice Arnold, ordered the ISP BT to take a two-stage approach (possible thanks to the pre-existing "Cleanfeed" system it had set up to block child pornography).

If an IP address matches one of those contained in the blocking list, the request to access the site is routed to a proxy server where the exact URL – the specific address including the directory and filename – is examined. If that matches too, access is denied. The judge specified this technique, rather than simply ordering the IP address to be blocked, for an important reason, which he explained in one of his rulings:

the Studios now accept that the order should refer to IP address re-routing and not IP address blocking. It appears that IP address blocking could lead to "overblocking" of sites or pages that ought not to be blocked.

What Firth's analysis shows is how even relatively "sophisticated" censorship systems that aim to minimize damage to other sites can lead to overblocking because not every situation can be foreseen or planned for. Now imagine what SOPA/PIPA will do.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

The first likely step, which could be just days away, will be to ask ISPs to block some of the biggest illegal websites. It is not known yet which sites – and, therefore, which ISPs will be targeted. If ISPs do not block these sites voluntarily, the BPI will ratchet up the pressure and will seek court orders – citing 97A and the MPA case – requiring them to do so.

The reason people will pay for Usenet+Newzbin is that they want to be able to obtain movies in a format that suits them, not a format which suits the provider. They want to be able to download them and watch them whenever they want, not have to be online in order to stream them (assuming, of course, they’ve got enough bandwidth to stream movies anyway). They want a download service that gives them the same ownership and flexibility as buying DVDs. And they want to be able to obtain the movies they want to see without artificial geographic restrictions.

So, apart from the fact that it simply isn’t true that services such as Lovefilm are a suitable solution, it’s pretty clear that there’s a whole untapped market here for legitimate online purchase of movies via download. People are willing to pay, and willing to pay a fair amount -- provided that what they get in return is what they want.

At the moment, the only people making any money out of this market are those involved in infringement. As long as the movie industry maintains its outdated business practices and carries on treating its (potential) customers as the enemy, that’s how it will stay. Blocking Newzbin may result in a short-term drop in the number of people getting movies via Usenet, but it won’t lead to an increase in people getting them via legitimate means until there are suitable alternatives which provide the same level of convenience and functionality.

Contrary to popular belief, most people who “pirate” movies are not doing it for financial reasons. They’re doing it simply because nobody is offering them a product that they want to buy.

"In my judgment it follows that BT has actual knowledge of other persons using its service to infringe copyright: it knows that the users and operators of Newzbin2 infringe copyright on a large scale, and in particular infringe the copyrights of the studios in large numbers of their films and television programmes," said Justice Arnold in his ruling at the high court in London.

"[BT] knows that the users of Newzbin2 include BT subscribers, and it knows those users use its service to receive infringing copies of copyright works made available to them by Newzbin2," Arnold added.