Slashdot Mirror
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.""
Of course Canada, a socialist country harboring terrorists, would have a judge corrupt enough to *not* allow the law to break down the doors (and backs) of pirates. The whole country is a cesspool of leftist anti-american pot smoking jocks. Half their salaries taxed and for what? Medicare, Infrastructure, Social Programs, and Freedom? Give me some good old fashioned blatant class differences based on race any day of the week. We need to buckle down and attack these northern communists ASAP. Axis of evil anyone? Downloading music is the first step to the downfall of America, we must stop them at all costs. I have a gun and i'm on my way!
A better CAPTCHA solution?
Sunday March 14, @02:10PM
Pending
To CAPTCHA or not to CAPTCHA?
Saturday March 13, @06:12PM
Pending
Why Don't I Have a Girlfriend?
Saturday February 07, @10:22PM
Pending
Hooray for Canada.
Wait... Which country was the 'Land of the Free' again?
Putting the romance back into necromancer.
I was hoping to get sued in Canada instead of the States. After the exchange rate, I was hoping to pay about $0.78 per song, beating the iTunes price!! :)
Comprehensive health care, weed is basically legal, and the music industry has lost!?!?! Why do we pick on Canada again?
I think I know what country I'll go to college in now.
Dion or no Dion - I'm moving to Canada :D
- Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
C'mon you Slashdotters in .ca, how about setting up some anon HTTP proxies so that the rest of us can download freely? Your ISP logs can't be subpoenad, so we can all download stuff via your pipes, and the Evil Record Companies can't do anything!!!
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
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 ?
The Surgeon General says sigs are bad for me.
"Until then, Canadian online music traders are free to keep swapping songs, Akin said."
Um, but aren't they facing the chance of being sued anyway? So yes, you can go back to swapping songs, since nobody has been sued YET - but that doesn't mean you aren't leaving yourself open to it when they get their act together.
As an American living in Canada, I feel good about this. The main benefit from living in Canada I've found so far is just a lower stress level. The people at the wheel seem saner, more composed and less twitchy, it doesn't seem as absolutely imperative to pay attention the news, that sort of thing.
Stuff like this only helps.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
Too bad for the R I Eh Eh, Eh?
Another Source
This ruling not only means that the CIRA can't get user information from the ISPs, but that file swapping in Canada does not even infringe on copyright - it's completely legal.
If you're Canadian, that means a big weight off your shoulders, for now.
It's not a "downloading" case, it's an "uploading" (distribution) case. Downloading is legal in Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/31/canada/downlo ad_court040331
Contains a few links to older information about the story and whatnot.
~jaraxle
So this is what happens when you have tech-literate judges! Where can we get some from?
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
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.
The Canadian Press version of the story really slaps it to the record industry. Quite a different focus to it. Have to read all ofthem and boil them down to get the real facts.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Two other newsfeeds are carrying the story as well -- both say essentially the same thing, but CBC has some related stories that may be worth reading: The Toronto Star and CBC
IANAL, but I believe this comes from the quirk in Canadian law that you may make copies of something for yourself quite legally, just not for others. Since the people sharing aren't making the copies, it's legal.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
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.
First off, I'm surprised but elated that the Judge seems to have been technically competent enough to see this. However, downloaders be warned: the music industry will now proceed to actually participate in copyright infringement by downloading those shared songs or otherwise monitoring the downloads of those shared songs. The "my songs are shared out but were not actually downloaded" argument might not work next time.
i thought the mounties rode around on horses...
When they do, it's usually part of a show.
Or crowd control. People get out of a horse's way, most of the time.
All the judge said was that the people sharing the music weren't committing any illegal acts. And depending on how you read Canada's copyright law, it may even be legal to download songs via P2P networks. It'll be interesting as this law is put to tests -- if the network traffic passes through the States, does it then become subject to American law? What if one person is in Canada, and the other isn't?
Specifically, he said:
To me, this sounds like he's saying that standard P2P file sharing is not copyright infringement. It sounds like as long don't actively upload the file to someone else, or personally authorize them to download it from you, then its OK.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
And Then I got flamed because in Canada we pay excise tax on CDs (and soon to be other recording media) because they can potentially be used for pirating copyrighted works. I totally agree with that law. The money goes to the recording industry (I think) and everyone is fairly content with the deal. (besides, it's only a few bucks and it seems fair enough to me. Yeah, i know, majority of the people use the CDs for legit purposes, blah blah blah).
-I DDoSed your mom.
it's because it's on a technicality about "insufficient information."
What's wrong with the CRIA obtaining subpoenas against people that they can positively identify as file uploaders of the member companies' copyrighted material? It's not outrageously hard to have somebody at minimum wage sit behind a terminal and try to download music from Canadian ip addresses. And once you have that, it's a known act of copyright infringement anyway, which as we all know, is illegal.
I don't condone the recording industry's stance and think they should be looking to leverage the technology instead of fighting against it, but they do have the legal right to demand information on people that they have reasonable evidence of illegal activity on. Let them sue the people that upload, not people that use the technology that could either upload or not.
Besides, I'm not sure we want the ISPs to take on the role of gatekeeper either. This is a legal liability on ISPs and the costs of that will be borne by the end-user.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
In case you're tired of living in a freedom-loving dictatorship, here's how to apply as a skilled worker immigrant to Canada: :)
(Wouldn't I be surprized if someone actually takes it...)
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/skilled/how-1.html
It seemed relavant
The opinons expressed are those of the voices in the author's head and are not necessarily those of the author.
Yup, it's legal to download, but redistribution is still a no-no. So you have to force your client software into a 'leech-only' setting to remain within the law.
;)
Still, this doesn't mean Canadians will be able to get off scott free when it comes to downloading music and other media. The storage media levies that get put in place may be quite substantial, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a "study" result in a claim that people that use greater than X amount of bandwidth a month are more likely to be pirating and therefore should incur additional levies.
On the plus side, Canadians are less likely to be robbed at gunpoint for their iPod full of tunes.
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...
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.
I've been saying for a while in comments here on /. that leaving an open share (what the CRIA would refer to as uploading) would not necessarily constitute copyright infringement.
According to the Globe and Mail, the judge stated ""The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution"
This is a huge win for the Canadian public if it stands on appeal as Canadians will be legally able to download, and to have music available in shared directories, allowing both uploading and downloading.
Well I worked in the ISP business for three years and we never heard of such a law. Of course we kept our logs for a longer period of time then that but we were never subpoenaed for them.
I wonder what would happen if you just ignored their initial e-mail subpoena request the way AOL used to ignore their abuse mailbox. By the time they get around to mailing you a certified letter hopefully your logs will have expired and they are SOL.
Sorry, but as a network admin I have better things to do then research my clients for RIAA when they haven't even won any sort of lasting judgment saying they have the right to this information.
If law enforcement comes knocking and tells me that one of my clients threatened to kill the President or blow up the school then that's quite another story (somebody's life might be in danger).
But if RIAA wants me to spend a couple hours digging though my logs then they can pay me my usual consulting rate to do it. And they will agree to indemnify me in the event that they lose their case saying they have the right to this information and my client(s) that I turned over decide to sue me. Otherwise they can go to hell.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How long can Canada do this before they get pressured to follow in their oppressive neighbors' lead?
... who's oppressive now?
I'm sorry
Canadian broadcasting law includes Canadian content restrictions. Fully 35% of all music broadcast on Canadian radio must be CanCon, meaning at least two of the composer, performer, recording venue, and lyric writer must be Canadian. For television the fraction is 50%.
Sounds pretty benign, until you realize that it is therefore illegal for US stations to broacast in Canada, which includes satellite broadcasts. It is illegal to receive US-based satellite signals in Canada, and doing so could result in a visit from the RCMP and confiscation of your satellite equipment. All this for simply watching HBO, MTV, or even the Superbowl commercials (local stations rebroadcasting the Superbowl in Canada substitute their own ads).
In spite of this, Canadian television has yet to produce a domestic hit television series, and virtually all our recording artists flee to the states.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
The real ruling is that simply putting the mp3 files into a shared directory (via a P2P) is not copyright infringement - that goes under personal use. IANAL, and I haven't read the text of the ruling, but to make a call like that probably requires the judges to create a for deciding whether or not something is personal use or copyright infringement.
So now, we have to find where the line is:
- Financial gain - This would invalidate the GPL and add fuel to the fire for SCO v. IBM. It seems that the core of their argument against the GPL is that it is "harmful" because it isn't made for financial gain. We can't have anything adding legitimacy to their farcical arguments
- Active distribution - perhaps the argument is that making a file available is different from giving a file to a person in the same way that unplugging a person's life support is different from injecting poison into their veins. Now everything distributed on the web is no longer protected by copyright which also would invalidate the GPL as I know of no GPL program that has its initial method of distribution being anything other than making it available for download from the web.
So, where is the line? What does a person have to do to infringe copyright these days?- Thomas;
___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
I'm truly proud to be Canadian today... Oh, except for that tax on media ..
Oh, and Celine Dion. Yeah... sorry about that.
IP Therefore I am.
First of all, I'm downloading my albums through bittorrent, so it's not like I'm hosting thousands of files on kazaa on a permanent basis so they can't bust me for being a major supplier which seems to be the people they're targeting. Second, if they took one look in my house they'd see an enourmous pile of store-bought cds, the majority of which have been bought in the past 5 years and after listening to my downloaded copy. If they check my computer, they would find that for every complete discography of a band I really like (and for many of these own the actual cds already and am working on the rest) they might find 1 lone album from a band I wanted to "try out". I'm your fucking customer and I'm using my downloads to make critical music purchases, so don't try and make me stop or else I will!
Hey! Letting my hair get greasy is a way to plan for the future.
If, for some ungodly reason, I did decide to spike my hair, I wouldn't have to put grease in it to get it to stay in shape.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
I hear they're going to make 35 percent of piracy be Canadian content as well! Several of my friends have recently had CRTC officials show up with MP3's of Anne Murray - mind you I think he went the easier route and just went to prison....
(The above posting should not be read by the sarcasm challenged. If you are unsure if you are sarcasm challenged, please immediately report to your local comedy club for testing. Do not, repeat, do not take any sarcasm unless able to process it - otherwise grave side effects of confusion, loss of bowel function, and several people pointing and laughing in your general direction may be experienced. At no time operate any kind of humour while unable to process sarcasm. Lock all puns in a safe place and gently croon yourself to sleep in a darkened room. Trust me you'll feel better for it)
In the globe and mail story, they report that the judge declared that *both* copying and sharing are not copyright violation in Canada ... I've been assuming
it was perfectly alright to download files
in Canada (for personal use); now it appears
to be equally ok to share them
see here where it is stated: "As part of his ruling, the judge found that simply downloading a song or having a file available on peer-to-peer software such as Kazaa doesn't constitute copyright infringement."
What's next in Canada? Free ponies?
IANAL, but since imposing the levies on CD-R and other recordable media on behalf of the recording industry, downloading for personal use has been permissible under copyright law in Canada, as is sharing music with a friend (e.g., by loaning them a CD, from which they might make a copy of the music). Uploading/serving music for public consumption (without proper clearance from the owner) is not legal, and that is what the music industry case was apparently about. They weren't going after downloaders, because there is no legal basis for doing so in Canada.
;-)
So, download away if in Canada. If you have ever bought a CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-R, or other types of recordable media, you have already paid for the priviledge. But your sources will potentially still be in trouble
It is a weird situation that the music companies can only try to go after uploaders/servers here, but I think it is just payment for the obscene recording media levies that everybody has to pay. I'm bitter, because I buy all my music on ordinary CDs (I think it is the right thing to do, unless the artist provides some other means of compensation), and yet I pay that damn levy every time I buy a data backup CD-R with no music on it at all. So, enjoy the fruits of the levy deal, music industry! Maybe you should lobby the government to repeal the levy
Ha Ha!
This is probably obvious, but the reason that they can't sue the ISP's in the US for copyright infringement is that they are protected from the actions of their customers. This is why they are going after the networks (Napster, Kazaa, ...) and the users. Does Canada have similar laws protecting the service providers? If that's the case, as long as the Canooks are around, p2p will have a steady stream of uploaders. I can't wait to go home and download some more Gordon Lightfoot and Anne Murrey. Just kidding, it's nice to see a court system back the privacy of the individual over the media conglomerates interests.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
Canoe's coverage of the story has the judge quoted 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," he said.
Furthermore he said that downloading a song or making files available in shared directories, like those on Kazaa, does not constitute copyright infringement under the current Canadian law.
http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusic/mar31_cria-cp.html
On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.
I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but, it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.
I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own.
I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours.
I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I notice you've rebuilt it! It's Very Nice.
I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but, we Feel your Pain.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you wanna' have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was
different. Everyone knew he had weapons.
And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a thinly
veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this. We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.
Thank you.
In spite of this, Canadian television has yet to produce a domestic hit television series, and virtually all our recording artists flee to the states Like with all other statments you should check the facts before fudding - Here are a couple examples for ya: Trailor Park Boys Corner Gas
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/pubs/can-con/can_ con.html
If you follow the government link you will see the rules are stated differently. The original link contends that "music" must be Canadian. I'm not sure which is correct but I was under the idea (having worked in a volunteer position in sports broadcasting for a local small radio station) that "up to" 35% of the content played on the radio from 6am to midnight" had to be Canadian.
Anyone who listens to daytime radio can verify that a good portion of it isn't music. I can say that one of the reasons that the radio station covered this live sporting event was so that they could air 3 hours of Canadiana per day. That allowed for 6 fulls hours of free playing. It was my understanding as well that locally produced advertising and the DJ's themselves were considered Canadian content. The link that you gave and the link that I gave are confusing on this.
"In general, 35% of the sound recordings played on a radio station between 6 a.m. and midnight must qualify as "Canadian content" as defined by the MAPL system."
Regardless.....we do have laws that force our radio stations to air Canadian content. This is not in doubt.
Well I, for one, just use a good ripper to get all my music. Looks like WinAmp on the network, isn't traceable, is legal (at least from a fair use perspective) and I get up to 2k new songs a day. Screw the RIAA.
Well, I, for one, welcome our new downloading overlords.
Seriously, maybe I should move to North Mex^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCanada. Less psychotic right-wing fundies. And Canadian chicks are hot, they have good beer, and they don't shoot everything that moves on two legs.
blog |
There should be an mod option called "Predictable"
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
My gay lover and I are getting married! In addition to alcohol, we're serving pot at the reception! The entertainment is downloaded music and movies! If anyone gets sick, we'll take 'em to emerg for free medical care! And we're only 19! Yay Canada!
It was Colin Mochrie who did it.
"Old man yells at systemd"
You obviously aren't aware of why CanCon exists in the first place.
The CanCon rules were put in because Canadian content providers were *not* presenting Canadian content at all. Canadian radio stations would *not* play Canadian music. And this has nothing to do with quality. There was no such thing as fair competition; radio producers would throw out demos without listening to them. Canadian musicians had no chance.
The only way that Canadian musicians could get popular in Canada is if they made it big in the States beforehand. Think of how many Canadian musicians you actually know of before the 1970s. Neil Young? Robby Robertson? Paul Anka? All of whom gained fame south of the border first.
So bitch all you want. But our content situation Would be in an even *worse* situation without CanCon.
Music wants to be free.
instead :)
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
(2004 FC 488) Decision rendered on March 31, 2004, IN THE MATTER OF BMG Canada Inc. et al v. Jane Doe et al
0 4.pdf
read it here [in pdf]:
http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/bulletins/whatsnew/T-292-
>If law enforcement comes knocking and tells me
>that one of my clients threatened to kill the
>President or blow up the school then that's
>quite another story (somebody's life might be
>in danger).
How can you say that, dude? The lives of Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti are most certainly in danger if someone is pirating songs or movies. Hilary might not get that Caviar Flambe' Cheese Souffle for breakfast and starve to death, and Jack might get killed in an auto accident because he couldn't afford the air bag upgrade for his H2 and drove the Testarosa that day instead - and all because you couldn't find the time to "dig through" your damn log files.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
- Stargate SG1
- Due South
- Degrassi Junior High
- Relic Hunter
- PSI Factor
- Reboot (Be proud!)
- SCTV
- Andromeda
And of course, if you mean "made it past two seasons" as being a domestic hit, there is always:You get the picture. OH wait, maybe a couple of musicicans too then, There are tons of them,but the short list off the top of my head:
There's tons of great Canadian stuff out there. Spend a bit of time on Google before you spew out idiotic comments like that.
Fine, wrong word, whatever. I'm not exactly familiar with anyone forcing someone to take their mp3's over P2P, so sharing them would be about as close to uploading as you can get.
It is important to get it right, especially if you live in Canada and plan on sharing music (legally). Upload that song to an FTP or web server somewhere and you've broken the law in Canada. Leave it sitting on your hard drive and open the door for others to download it (via bittorrent or what have you) and you are, apparently, not breaking the law in Canada.
This is important to understand if you're planning on doing something like this. It may seem like a nit-pick, but in an environment where large, dying corporate powers are routinely smashing the little guy's life to smithereans in a belated effort to save their obsolete business models, legal definitions like these are critical. Get it wrong, and you'll find yourself wearing a big fat bullseye inviting those thugs to destroy your financial life.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The irony is that, in order for the RIAA or whoever to prove that a user downloaded copyrighted material, they'd have to post it themselves to the network -- which, being the copyright holder, would make it legal to download.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
I believe it is legal to download anything for personal use, but it is still illegal to actually distribute copies.
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!
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/bulletins/whatsnew/T-292-0 4.pdf
No!!
The personal copying rules which make this legal only apply to music. See Section 80 of the Copyright Act.
Slashdot circa 2000:
"They shouldn't be suing Napster or Kazaa, they should sue the individual copyright infringers! That is the legal and moral thing to do."
Slashdot circa today:
"Nobody should be suing anybody! I have no good reasons."
It's right there in the title "Liberal Party of Canada
Yeah, and don't forget that the USA PATRIOT ACT is PATRIOTIC too.
That's *so* good! Its just sad that Videotron are such a jerk company, which are probably still willing to collaborate with the CRIA.
Videotron is the cable / ISP division of Quebecor, which sales music records through Archambault and also produce records for its "artistic" reality show, Star Academie. That's why they are so eager to give names to the cria.
What happens when Trusted Computing architectures meet these p2p services, and a "bug" is found that allows anonymous access to all shared content? What if the network operators refuse to expire the certs on the "buggy" software? Are they liable for the infringement of the users, who refuse to stop using the software because they use it for other things?
The users can't stop the copies from being made because they're locked into the software, and shouldn't be expected to stop using the service (which they use for other reasons).
The authors can't be expected to be liable for the (mis)use of software bey their userbase, so long as it has a "substantial non-infringing use".
Vendor lock-in meets free speech.
OK, I know I'm way out west, here...
I was reading through some threads here about the canadians isp's not having to give up file-sharers names and I didn't see this point mentioned. The judge didn't keep the isp's usersname's secret because of the users or companies right per se. The judge turned their request down because he did not believe that the any copyrights had been broken as a result of the user participating in file sharing. HA!
I'm not sure if the lawyers just made a really weak case or what the deal was, but the judge just didn't think that the users were violating any copyrights, ergo, there was no need to reveal their names.
It's true. My Canadian news told me so.
$2.50 ?
Its 77 cents (canadian) for a normal cd-r.
Its also not a tax, its a levy (there is a difference).
Also, the levy is NOT to compensate for pirates, it is to compensate for the legal copying of music in canada. As I and many others have mentioned many times, copying your friends cd's and downloading music from P2P services is 100% legal in canada.
A nice FAQ on the levy and and legalities of copies and stuff is available here.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Danhm, I don't know if you've seen this yet, but you're quoted in the Toronto Star.
Thestar.com - Court rejects music lawsuit
Enjoy your 15 minutes!
case can be downloaded from this page:
e w_e.shtml
t ml
http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/bulletins/whatsnew/whatsn
docket number: T-292-04
on SLOPPINESS: at para [19] the judge wrote that having the president of the company as a witness was not good enough because he had not *personally* matched the uploaders with specific infringing files, so all his testimony was hearsay.
on COPYRIGHT: at para [27] the judge follows the precedent set by the Supreme Court in that the availability of a tool that can be used to infringe copyright is not enough to trigger infringement, because the element of AUTHORIZATION was not evident. the judge also cites a WIPO treaty which is not yet in force in Canada, that if it is enacted, would make this activity illegal.
SCC case cited can be found online at: http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2004/2004scc13.h
on PRIVACY: due to the system of dynamically assigned IP addresses, the log info that can be used to identify individual account holders with infringing activity is time-sensitive. at para [42], the judge wrote that IN THIS CASE, the privacy privacy concerns outweigh the public interest concerns in favour of disclosure.
GOOGLE DOES NOT TRUMP AN EXPERIENCED LIBRARIAN
for the experienced librarian, google is merely one tool of many