|reply to jkoblovsky |
Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.
That was a great find of yours - the excessive copyright blog.
Here's something else I dug out from that very same case from:
"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 184.108.40.206 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 220.127.116.11
thereby exposing that person to litigation."
That is better than a bunch of hopeful references to US case law.
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.
And here's another summary of the same:
|reply to UK_Dave |
Knopf himself is a lawyer, often argues copyright related cases with the supreme court. He's a pretty good consumer advocate around copyright issues. I've been following his blog since 2007 myself. Very good and trusted resource in understanding complex copyright cases. I'm wondering if the CIPPIC is successful tomorrow, whether he will get involved here to help with this.
That's going to be an interesting development if it happens.
Having read through this, along with Supreme Court Transcripts, it seems everything fell flat at disclosure last time. So basically if disclosure gets warranted *this* time, then we've let things creep one step further forward even if no cases are succesful against the individuals.
Who would have thought we'd be cheering for someone to "do a Konrad" on this forum!?