dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to Rastan

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by Rastan:

If Bell, Rogers & Shaw can stand up for their customers then so can Teksavvy.

Well I'd certainly like to see the last case where Bell and Rogers represented their customers.

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada

It happened in 2005 and they haven't tried to target their customers ever since.


The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

said by Rastan:

It happened in 2005 and they haven't tried to target their customers ever since.

The laws just changed. This is a test case by the trolls. Rogers and Bell are the big fish...they'll get hit, and hit hard, in 2013 if this shakedown pays off.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to Rastan

said by Rastan:

It happened in 2005 and they haven't tried to target their customers ever since.

Technically they did with the Hurt Locker case last year with Bell being the ISP but then they dropped it.

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
reply to The Mongoose

In terms of ISP's opposing these types of requests, the law hasn't changed. I'm not so sure they'll go after the big ISP's unless they are sure they won't encounter opposition.

If Voltage pulls the same stunt against Rogers and Bell customers and they meet opposition, they will incur significant legal fees if they are tied up in court for an extended period of time. These are copyright trolls we are talking about. Linking a name to an IP so that they can extort money is their business model.

They won't be able to maximize their profits if ISP's do not give them a clear path.


Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
reply to mlerner

You're right - »www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/201···024.html

Did the ISP's oppose this?



mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5

said by Rastan:

You're right - »www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/201···024.html

Did the ISP's oppose this?

Just have to read through it - short answer, no. Not sure how the new laws would change this.

Long answer:

Relevant info of disclosure.

Subsection 7(3) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5

[12] Voltage Pictures LLC is asking the internet service providers to disclose the names and addresses of some of their customers who have allegedly infringed its copyright.

[13] Subsection 7(3) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5, allows for the disclosure of personal information on a court order:
7. (3) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is



(c) required to comply with a subpoena or warrant issued or an order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or to comply with rules of court relating to the production of records;

[15] These principles also apply to the case at bar.

Rule 238 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106

[16] To obtain the name and address of a customer of an internet service provider, plaintiffs must prove that they have a bona fide claim against that customer and that they meet the criteria of Rule 238 of the Federal Courts Rules (BMG, above, at paras. 33 and 34).

[17] Voltage Pictures LLC has a bona fide claim against the defendants: it has brought an action against them for having infringed its copyright when they copied and publicly distributed the film Hurt Locker.

And the judgement/conclusion.

IV. Conclusion

[29] The Court grants Voltage Pictures LLC’s motion without costs given that the plaintiff’s motion is not contested by any of the internet service providers.

JUDGMENT
Further to the analysis undertaken, the Court orders that:

Voltage Pictures LLC proceed with a written examination for discovery of Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP in order to obtain the names and addresses related to their customer accounts associated with the IP addresses at the times specified in Annex A attached to the Notice of Motion.

Within two weeks, Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP disclose to Voltage Pictures LLC the names and addresses related to their customer accounts associated with the IP addresses at the times specified in Annex A. This disclosure shall be in Microsoft Excel format, with publishing rights, encrypted on a compact disk or any other electronic medium.

Voltage Pictures LLC reimburse any reasonable expenses incurred by Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP in collecting the personal information identified in paragraph 1 of this order.

Without costs.