Music Industry Loses In Canadian Downloading Case

pref writes "'Canada's music industry can't force Internet service providers to identify online music sharers, a Federal Court judge has ruled.' They wanted the Internet service companies like Sympatico, Rogers and Shaw to give them the real identities of the individuals so they could sue them for copyright infringement. They were seeking a court order requiring the companies to provide the information. But they didn't get it, so the Internet companies don't have to identify their clients and the music companies can't proceed with their lawsuits.""

Comments

Hooray!

[Vargasan]

Hooray for Canada.

Wait... Which country was the 'Land of the Free' again?

Go after the IP

[grafikhugh]

What is to stop them from suing the IP number and using the court case as a means to identify the user? Didn't the RIAA have to take that aproach after losing a similair lawsuit ?

Favourite qoute from a similar article

[oblivionboy]

In a related article from canoe.ca , the judge was qoute as saying,"I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service,"

Doesn't this analogy actually make more sense, than alot of the analogies to "theft" that the record industry has thrown out?

On the other hand, it may not be that valid, because to actually photocopy an entire book would be prohibatively expensive. Where as with P2P whether you download an entire album or just one song its the same cost. Free.

Canadian court refuses ISP subpoenas

[belmolis]

It isn't clear what the real impact of this decision is. If you read the article, it quotes lawyers as saying that the music industry prepared a sloppy case and that it can always try again. It may only be a temporary victory. But at least it sounds like the Canadian courts are requiring a higher standard of evidence of infringement than the US courts are.

Re:So wait a minute

[RetroGeek]

Legal access to addictive drugs

What, you cannot buy cigarettes where you live?

From the Judge:

[big_groo]

From The Toronto Star: "No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service."

He compared the action to a photocopy machine in a library. "I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service," he said.

Besides, the IP changes, and the ISPs *don't* have to divulge who had the IP at any given time. Kind of hard to sue in that case...

summary is not really accurate

[harlows_monkeys]

OK, think about this for a minute. Canadian law can't work the way the summary implies, because Canadians aren't idiots. To work reasonably, a legal system needs a way to allow you to discover the identity of someone you want to sue if they have done something that makes them legally liable to you.

Reading the story, we see that this is indeed the case. The ISPs weren't compelled to release the IDs because the music companies had not shown sufficient evidence that a copyright violation had occured. If they had shown sufficient evidence, the ISPs probably would have had to cough up the names.

Re:Woo! Proxy Time

[Br!an of Paco]

"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service." http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/2004/03/31/downloa d_court040331 Sounds to me like uploading's legal too.

Re:Woo! Proxy Time

[Abcd1234]

As others have said, that's not actually true. The judge said, and I quote:

"I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service"

So, this goes to the heart of the P2P uploading matter. Basically, it's the judge's interpretation that making files available for download does not constitute uploading.

"Music Industry"? No, It's a Cartel!

[denis-The-menace]

look it up
"a group of similar independent companies who join together to control prices and limit competition"
Do they control prices?
Do they limit competition?
Of course they do! They it's a Cartel!