New Big Music defeat in Canada
p2pnet.net News:- Big Music has suffered yet another ringing defeat in in Canada.
The Federal Court of Appeal today rejected its bid to target Canadians file sharers in the way that it does those in the US.
In BMG Canada v John Doe, “The court has reaffirmed the importance of online privacy and confirmed that those seeking to sue Internet users cannot uncover the anonymity of their targets on the basis of mere allegations,” says CIPPIC (Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic) executive director Philippa Lawson.
In March 2004, the trial court heavily criticized the music industry’s evidence and refused to order ISPs to hand over their customers’ identities. It decided the music industry’s electronic investigations were full of gaps, creating a real risk of exposing innocent people to litigation, and that it would be “irresponsible” to order disclosure on this evidence.
However, the appeal court overturned the lower court ruling that plaintiffs must make out a prima facie case of wrongdoing before they can get the identity of alleged file sharers. Instead, it ruled the labels, and others, only need a bona fide claim against their targets.
“We’re concerned that this lower threshold test might allow for unjustified privacy invasions, such as stripping the anonymity of individual human rights activists or whistleblowers in order to silence them through groundless lawsuits”, says Lawson.
Staff lawyer David Fewer says the decision leaves the question of whether or not file-sharers are, in fact, infringing copyright law. It also opens the door for the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) to find better evidence than last time around, and to begin a US-style sue ‘em all campaign in Canada.
“These campaigns have had no impact on deterring file-sharing in the US and will do nothing to compensate Canadian artists,” says Fewer.
“US-style litigation campaigns only tie up Canadian judicial resources, force ordinary consumers into paying outrageously high settlements, and alienate the public. If sued, file sharers face potential minimum liability of $750,000 or more each, as a result of Canada’s controversial statutory damages scheme. These provisions of the Copyright Act were never intended to cover the common practice of downloading more than 1,000 songs for private use, a practice previously ruled to be legal by the Copyright Board.”
Expect to see the CRIA claiming the decision as a ‘major victory’ for the record label cartel.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
heavily criticized – Keep on swapping! Cdn file sharers told, p2pnet, March 31, 2004
May 19th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
Actually it is a victory for them. The level of evidence they need has been significantly reduced. This is a big loss for privacy…All this has bought anyone is time. Dammit, this sucks.
May 19th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
The most critical part of this decision is the level of evidence that will be required. While the court confirmed that privacy legislation needs to be respected, they also said that only a bona fide (”good faith”) case needs to be made, and not a prima facie (sufficient to establish a case unless disproved) case. This puts things as not as bad as CRIA wanted, which is that they not be required to offer any evidence at all, but between that and the sensible situation which would be that adequate proof of copyright infringement be required to prove their case if brought to court. We all know that once the names are disclosed that the excessive statutory damages will mean that Canadians will be forced to settle out of court, whether they committed any infringing activities or not.
Note: I am sitting here listening to the votes on the two budget bills, watching to see if the government will fall.
May 19th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
A victory means a win, and the record label cartel desperately wanted an outright win that would have allowed it to pillory Canadians in the same way it pillories Americans.
No ifs or buts.
It didn’t get it.
Cheers!
May 20th, 2005 at 1:09 am
Did you read the decision? From this article and your interpretation, it appears you did not. The decision agreed with the lower court with many items except when it came to privacy rights. The appeals court ruled the CRIA cannot obtain the customers info, but they lowered the evidence requirements. That is huge, and I am a bit surprised you didnt cover it in your article. But then again, perhaps I am not suprised.
Basically the court said “You cannot have the info this time. Come back next time with even less evidence and then you can have their ID’s”
The CRIA is in a better position now then they were before. This is just a procedural change.
May 20th, 2005 at 1:39 am
the appeals court did not say that the lower court was wrong when he said file sharing was legal under canadian law. What they said was was in Laymen’s Terms the lower court did not have any standing to make such a ruling in that case. The legality of file sharing was the issue in that case. I’m sure the next time the cira tries this again some isp or group will bring that issue to a court
May 21st, 2005 at 4:59 pm
I want to remind people that what we are seeing in the courts is just setup for the battle that will happen in parliament. CRIA is not interested in those 29 alleged infringers, but in scaring parliament into making massive changes to copyright in their favor (against musicians, audiences, and nearly everyone else). In some cases the changes are against themselves, as they are not technologically competent enough to understand the implications of what they are lobbying for. http://p2pnet.net/story/4797
Please turn your frustration and anger into action. Last Thursday I sent a letter copied to 9 members of parliament. This was a letter to the Heritage Minister where I printed out the court decision for her.
“Your words, as quoted by the media around the Junos, suggest that you had had not read or understood the earlier decision of the Federal Court by the Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein (Citation: 2004 FC 488) that was being appealed.”
“Given this, I am including a copy of the appeal of this decision with the hopes that you will read it, and stop spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about Canada’s copyright act.”
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/view/872
Have you written your elected representatives this week? If not, why not?
May 22nd, 2005 at 2:44 am
What part of the court decision didn’t you read? I’d go back and check because the decision strengthened privacy rights and made it just that much more difficult to get real names.
May 22nd, 2005 at 10:38 am
Have you written your elected representatives this week? If not, why not?
one word …
reeeefooorrrmmmmm