how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
| reply to resa1983
Re: Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs Another quote from Knopf backing up some earlier claims I made that often courts do not look at the request unless opposed:
Flash forward from 2005 to 2011 when Voltage Pictures sought disclosure of customers’ private information from certain Quebec-based ISPS, one of which, Vidéotron, was actively on side with BMG in 2004. In any event, the ISPs simply took no position and did not oppose the order or even appear at the hearing of the motion. The Federal Court was apparently satisfied with the paper work that was presented and left unchallenged. The proper parties had been served. Understandably, the court granted the order. It is not the court’s role nor is the court equipped to conduct its own investigation, which might even require cross-examination, into the adequacy of such material. | | |
|
| said by jkoblovsky:Another quote from Knopf backing up some earlier claims I made that often courts do not look at the request unless opposed:
Flash forward from 2005 to 2011 when Voltage Pictures sought disclosure of customers’ private information from certain Quebec-based ISPS, one of which, Vidéotron, was actively on side with BMG in 2004. In any event, the ISPs simply took no position and did not oppose the order or even appear at the hearing of the motion. The Federal Court was apparently satisfied with the paper work that was presented and left unchallenged. The proper parties had been served. Understandably, the court granted the order. It is not the court’s role nor is the court equipped to conduct its own investigation, which might even require cross-examination, into the adequacy of such material. The implication is that the court must allow at least one party to participate for the purpose of cross-examination of the motion, regardless of out-of-court agreements between the parties cited in the motion. Otherwise, we're looking at bad justice since it would imply that the court can ban cross-examination, thereby voiding a fundamental principle of Canadian law. Consequently, if no other party asks to participate, then by default the CIPPIC will be allowed to speak, since it will be the only party available for cross-examination. But let's not rely on that bit of logic.
It would be so much better if a party who is a potential target for the motion directly asks the CIPPIC to participate as counsel and expert witness whathaveyou. This way, the CIPPIC is assured a say on this, and the parties targeted by the motion are given a much better chance at success in opposing the motion.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot. | |
| said by JonyBelGeul:[
It would be so much better if a party who is a potential target for the motion directly asks the CIPPIC to participate as counsel and expert witness whathaveyou. This way, the CIPPIC is assured a say on this, and the parties targeted by the motion are given a much better chance at success in opposing the motion.
^^^^
This
But I'll bet that at least one John Doe will be represented by their own counsel on the 14th. It would be nice if that counsel was Knopf. So somebody would have to pay a lot of money up-front to get Knopf down from Ottawa - retainers, travel time, travel disbursements, court time, hotel, etc....
CIPPIC could still get involved (I think) if they were named by John Doe as co-counsel. IANAL | |
| reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:Another quote from Knopf backing up some earlier claims I made that often courts do not look at the request unless opposed:
Flash forward from 2005 to 2011 when Voltage Pictures sought disclosure of customers’ private information from certain Quebec-based ISPS, one of which, Vidéotron, was actively on side with BMG in 2004. In any event, the ISPs simply took no position and did not oppose the order or even appear at the hearing of the motion. The Federal Court was apparently satisfied with the paper work that was presented and left unchallenged. The proper parties had been served. Understandably, the court granted the order. It is not the court’s role nor is the court equipped to conduct its own investigation, which might even require cross-examination, into the adequacy of such material. ya god forbid they have to actually have some facts and evidence ...who needs that right? | |
|
