legal filesharing

Like in the US, the recording industry in Canada is trying to sue people who
distribute songs over filesharing networks

Unlike in the US, the judge has stopped them cold. He turned down their
request for an injunction to learn the identities of the users they wanted
to sue, saying there was no evidence that anything illegal was happening.

He ruled that

  1. Making the files available to others is not itself copyright infringement
    (though the people doing the downloading might be infringing copyright),
  2. Making the files available is not the same as uploading,
  3. Downloading songs for personal use is not copyright infringement.

Re: legal filesharing

Woohoo :slight_smile:

Winston wrote:
> Like in the US, the recording industry in Canada is trying to sue people who
> distribute songs over filesharing networks
>
> Unlike in the US, the judge has stopped them cold. He turned down their
> request for an injunction to learn the identities of the users they wanted
> to sue, saying there was no evidence that anything illegal was happening.
>
> He ruled that
> 1) Making the files available to others is not itself copyright infringement
> (though the people doing the downloading might be infringing copyright),
> 2) Making the files available is not the same as uploading,
> 3) Downloading songs for personal use is not copyright infringement.
>
>
>

Re: legal filesharing

Shena Delian O’Brien wrote:
> Woohoo :slight_smile:
>

We’ll see what happens. I have a little suspicion that there just might be
an appeal :slight_smile:

I’ve just read the judge’s decision. He really didn’t like the plaintiffs’
case.

Other interesting parts of the ruling:

-The plaintiffs can compell the ISP’s to disclose documents, but not to
create documents, and no documents currently exist which link IP addresses
to specific users.

-The security company who did the research for the recording industry also
(on another project) placed bogus files into the P2P networks that looked
like MP3’s of popular songs but were actually duds. When they identified the
users to be sued, they didn’t listen to any of the files. So the judge says
they didn’t even establish that the files they saw on users’ machines
actually contained any music at all.

-No evidence was provided linking usernames on the P2P networks to the IP
address in question – just the statement of the security company that this
P2P user was using this IP.

-The affadavit from the security company was hearsay. The president was
reporting his employees’ conclusions without the reasoning or facts behind
their conclusions. The judge says that the employees would obviously have
been better candidates for giving this testimony and cites a precedent that
says “an adverse inference may be drawn from the failure of a party to
provide evidence of persons having a personal knowledge of material facts.”

-The plaintifs failed to give evidence that the ISP’s were the only
practical source for the information requested (the identity of the users).

So basically,
-they didn’t give evidence that what they said happened had actually
happened.
-even if it did happen, they didn’t prove that it’s illegal
-they didn’t show that they had correctly identified the people they want to
sue