"BT argued that when its subscribers access Newzbin2, BT is acting as a mere conduit for their network activity. Therefore, BT said, these users were not "using

"BT argued that when its subscribers access Newzbin2, BT is acting as a mere conduit for their network activity. Therefore, BT said, these users were not "using [BT's] service to infringe copyright." But the judge rejected this interpretation, holding that "users are using BT’s service to infringe copyright," and that he therefore has the authority to grant the injunction." Isn't that like getting an injunction for Youtube because users are using it to view infringing videos? Where does it stop? UK judges don't seem very experienced with copyright cases. It seems they have a pretty simplistic view of things. If "it looks bad" then it must be bad, so they rule against it.