dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11
share rss forum feed

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to peterboro

Re: New Canadian Bittorrent lawsuit: Who shared "Recoil&quo

said by peterboro:

That only forms the contractual relationship between you and your ISP via their TOS (contract) as they mandated them to their consumers.

The TOS are really just a "wish list" by the ISP on how they believe the world should work and contract is open to interpretation by the courts.

It does not form the basis for any responsibility in a copyright infringement case other than identifying who registered and pays for an account with an ISP that assigned a particular IP at a particular moment in time material to the claim for damages.

Until we get some more case law under our belts the whole concept of responsibility for an IP is fluid currently.

You are correct but relevant, related Canadian cases regarding red light cameras proves that an arms-length relationship is enough for Canadian courts to assess the balance of responsibility against the defendant.

If proof of ownership of the car is enough to issue a ticket to it's owner because he's responsible for that car, with no evidence of the owner having committed the offense, proof of ownership of an ISP's service would be enough to prove responsibility for acts committed using that account.

I'm quite certain that a car's owner would still get the ticket if he decided to leave his car unlocked, keys in the ignition, for anybody to use and one of those users ran a red light using the car (as the unsecure router argument goes).

BTW it's much easier to spoof a license plate than it is to spoof a routable IP, yet it's still perfectly acceptable to Canadian courts.

This won't be settled for sure until an actual judgement in a piracy case comes down in Canada but there is no relevant evidence to the contrary.


well hm

@videotron.ca
Didn't Pierre Poutine prove an IP is not a person?

Perfect example to bring to court with you.


random

@teksavvy.com
>Didn't Pierre Poutine prove an IP is not a person?

Pierre Poutine has not been caught, so there has not been a trial to set the precedent.


well hm

@videotron.ca
said by random :

>Didn't Pierre Poutine prove an IP is not a person?

Pierre Poutine has not been caught, so there has not been a trial to set the precedent.

Well he has (or he says hasn't). He plead not guilty and it's already going through court.

Elections Canada and all their super-IT specialists, which one would assume are top notch and the best there is, couldn't prove it was him. It's all based on circumstantial evidence (ie. this guy is in court because he used the name Pierre Poutine on a name tag once and they have a picture of it). Not an IP. Not an IP at all. Far from it.

Pierre poutine did indeed prove that.

If the government of Canada and their top notch specialists can't prove it, how is this mickey mouse extortion company going to?

booj

join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

You are correct but relevant, related Canadian cases regarding red light cameras proves that an arms-length relationship is enough for Canadian courts to assess the balance of responsibility against the defendant.

You wouldn't download a car would you?

Nuts to red-light camera case law. It's not very analogous to copyright infringement over the internet.

AsherN
Premium
join:2010-08-23
Thornhill, ON
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

You are correct but relevant, related Canadian cases regarding red light cameras proves that an arms-length relationship is enough for Canadian courts to assess the balance of responsibility against the defendant.

If proof of ownership of the car is enough to issue a ticket to it's owner because he's responsible for that car, with no evidence of the owner having committed the offense, proof of ownership of an ISP's service would be enough to prove responsibility for acts committed using that account.

Not all that different from the ISP/copyright scenario. A ticket is issued to the owner of the car, but that owner's driving record is unaffected because it can't be proven that he was in control of the vehicle. Similarely, an ISP can hold you, the account holder, responsible for nadwidth usage, but can't prove who actually used the bandwidth.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
said by AsherN:

said by IamGimli:

You are correct but relevant, related Canadian cases regarding red light cameras proves that an arms-length relationship is enough for Canadian courts to assess the balance of responsibility against the defendant.

If proof of ownership of the car is enough to issue a ticket to it's owner because he's responsible for that car, with no evidence of the owner having committed the offense, proof of ownership of an ISP's service would be enough to prove responsibility for acts committed using that account.

Not all that different from the ISP/copyright scenario. A ticket is issued to the owner of the car, but that owner's driving record is unaffected because it can't be proven that he was in control of the vehicle. Similarely, an ISP can hold you, the account holder, responsible for nadwidth usage, but can't prove who actually used the bandwidth.

At this point and time it's highly questionable if they can even prove that they have the correct account holder to match the IP, let alone diving into further detail. AND before they can even get to that point, they have to prove a whole bunch of different things just to be able to sue (which is also a requirement, intent to sue).

Also, that is traffic court, not a civil case. Much, much different in the way things are handled.....