Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc v British Phonographic Industry Limited: ChD 17 Jun 1985

BPI as representative of copyright holders sought damages from the applicant saying that their two-deck cassette tape recording machines were tools for copyright infringement by deing designed to allow copying. The defendants now sought a declaration that the machines were lawful.
Held: The declaration was refused. Amstrad were authorising infringement, were joint tortfeasors, and might be guilty of negligence and of inciting, procuring, aiding or abetting infringement contrary to law or equity.


Whitford J


[1986] FSR 159


Copyright Act 1956


England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromAmstrad Consumer Electronics Plc v British Phonographic Industry Limited CA 29-Oct-1985
Amstrad sought a declaration that their retailing of equipment with two cassette decks was not unlawful. A declaration was not granted because Amstrad might be guilty of a criminal offence. However in the absence of any evidence that Amstrad was . .
At First InstanceCBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc HL 12-May-1988
The plaintiffs as representatives sought to restrain Amstrad selling equipment with two cassette decks without taking precautions which would reasonably ensure that their copyrights would not be infringed by its users.
Held: Amstrad could only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.267923