Canadian Court Tries to Dampen Copyright Trolls In P2P Lawsuits 60
An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian federal court has released its much-anticipated decision
in Voltage Pictures v. Does, a case involving demands that TekSavvy,
a leading independent ISP, disclose the identities of roughly 2,000
subscribers alleged to have downloaded movies without authorization.
Michael Geist notes that the court was sensitive to the copyright troll concern, noting
that 'given the issues in play the answers require a delicate balancing of privacy rights versus the rights of copyright holders.
This is especially so in the context of modern day technology and
users of the Internet.' In order to strike the balance, the court
required full court approval of the content of any demand letters
and bold warnings that no court had found a recipient liable for any
damages."
Re:That's only part of the story. (Score:5, Informative)
I particularly like the part where the demand letter to subscribers will include a copy of the court order and "clearly state in bold type that no court has yet made a determination that such subscriber has infringed or is liable in any way for payment of damages."
No pulling the wool over peoples' eyes. I still don't get the summary though.
Re:Erm, what? (Score:5, Informative)
The case management judge will make sure the suit goes the way the law allows, without the opportunity to extort settlements. The does will have the chance to defend themselves, and the troll will have to spend cubic yards of money to make a case, or give up and go home.
I expect one attempt to proceed to see if they can frighten someone into pleading guilty, but if the does band together, a roughly 0% chance of success for the troll, whether or not any individual doe is arguably guilty.
--dave
A nerd, not a lawyer
Re:Erm, what? (Score:2, Informative)
In short: The court must approve the contents of a copyright claim letter before it can be sent AND it must come with a warning stating that no court has ever convicted anyone of copyright charges.
Re:Erm, what? (Score:5, Informative)
Summery: [dslreports.com]
* Teksavvy must reveal identity of alleged infringers.
* TSI gets all legal costs, admin costs & disbursements.
** TSI gets paid before Voltage sees even a single name. No money, no names.**
* Any/all letters from Voltage MUST be approved by both the Court & CIPPIC, so as not to provide false information to defendants, and coerce them into settlements.
* Letter will include a statement that 'no Court has yet found any recipient of the letter liable for infringement and that recipicies should [seek] legal assistance".
* Every letter to an alleged infringer will get a copy of the judge's order.
* Any subscriber can request a full copy of the order, for which the Plaintiff (Voltage) must pay for.
* Voltage will only receive Name & Address attached to specific IP addresses of the alleged infringers, and nothing more.
* There will be a special Judge assigned to this case, and will 'monitor, as necessary, the conduct of Voltage in its dealings with the alleged infringers."
* If Voltage splits a subscriber out of the herd (so to say), the special judge will keep hold of the new case.
* Voltage cannot make statements to the media, releasing defendant names or addresses.
Re:Erm, what? (Score:4, Informative)
For those interested here's the CIPPIC information. [cippic.ca]