Hi JK.
That was a great find of yours - the excessive copyright blog.
Here's something else I dug out from that very same case from:
»
www.macerajarzyna.com/pa ··· erce.pdf-------------------
"There was no evidence of connection between the
pseudonyms and the IP addresses. Neither the affidavits
nor the cross-examination thereon provided
clear evidence as to how the pseudonyms of the Ka-
ZaA or iMesh users were linked to the IP addresses
identified by MediaSentry. While the affidavit indicated
that the pseudonym (Geekboy@KaZaA) was
identified as the IP address 24.84.179.98 and that,
according to the American Registry for Internet
Numbers public database, that address had been
assigned to Shaw Communications (one of the ISPs
from which disclosure is sought), no evidence explained
how the pseudonym was linked to the IP
address in the first place. Given these circumstances
the court refused to order disclosure of the name of
the account-holder of IP address 24.84.179.98
thereby exposing that person to litigation."
-----------------------
That is better than a bunch of hopeful references to US case law.
It's Canadian.
-------------------------
On March 31, 2004, Justice von Finckenstein of
the Federal Court (the Motions Judge) ruled against
the request by the Canadian Recording Industry
(CRIA) for disclosure of the identities of 29 John
and Jane Does in the Canadian version of the mass
litigation campaign that the Recording Industry Association
of America (RIAA) had already in the
------------------
All of that was © Howard Knopf 2005 too....
The guy knows his onions.