said by Curious me :I honestly can't see this happening. For sure it's worth the shot but the owner of this also owned TV stations (KangarooTV, sports only that I think was sold to the NFL, but i'm not 100% sure), music and on and on.
The owner of this IP also filed to support Bell Canada when they purchased CTV and the whole worry of verticle integration came out and exclusive contracts which in turn led to this »CRTC decision on vertical integration 2011-601
This is a good ol boy. I can't see them fighting Bell when they filed in support of Bell.
In my personal belief, this is a setup.
It is suspicious, and I agree that I can't see them fighting Bell on the privacy part of this. On top of the existing conflicting interests, the subscriber information has already been provided (it was given two weeks after the hearing), and much time remaining for any lawyer to appeal on.
That said, while they might not fight Bell, I don't see why they wouldn't fight Voltage. Accepting liability for everything that everyone in your stadium downloads is ludicrous and is not something any large infrastructure owner would accept.
They HAVE to fight it, acknowledging defeat would just open the floodgates to letting anyone with any copyrights to sue you continually.
In fact, I doubt Voltage would even bother attempting to settle once they see who the owner of that IP is.
Despite this specific case never getting to court, it serves as a great example for those that do. If an IP is at-best no better than a street address, how can you sue someone based only on that evidence?