BMG Canada Inc v Doe

Last updated
BMG Canada Inc. v. Doe
Court Federal Court of Canada, Federal Court of Appeal
Full case nameBMG Canada Incorporated v. John Doe
Citation(s) 2004 FC 488 aff'd 2005 FCA 193
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting von Finckenstein J., Federal Court; Richard C.J., Noël and Sexton JJ.A., Court of Appeal
Keywords
Copyright, Infringement

BMG Canada Inc. v. Doe, 2004 FC 488 aff'd 2005 FCA 193, is an important Canadian copyright law, file-sharing, and privacy case, where both the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal refused to allow the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) and several major record labels to obtain the subscriber information of Internet service provider (ISP) customers alleged to have been infringing copyright.

Contents

Background

CRIA made an application under the Rules of the Federal Court to compel 5 ISPs (Bell Canada, Rogers Communications, Shaw Communications, Telus, and Vidéotron) to divulge the account information of 29 IP addresses that were believed to have downloaded approximately 1,000 copyrighted music files through the KaZaA and iMesh file-sharing software. Shaw strongly opposed the motion, citing customer privacy and technical difficulties. Telus, Bell and Rogers also expressed varying levels of disagreement, also on privacy grounds. Vidéotron offered no opposition: they chose not to appear at the court hearing, instead stating their support of the CRIA's position and readiness to provide the requested information as soon as a court order was issued.

Federal Court decision

The judgment of the Federal Court was delivered 31 March 2004 in Toronto, Ontario.

Justice von Finckenstein held that the ISP could not be compelled to divulge their user information. To be able to compel the ISPs to divulge personal information that was protected by both PIPEDA and user agreements with the ISPs, von Finckenstein ruled that several conditions must be met:

(1) applicant must establish a prima facie case against the unknown alleged wrongdoer; (2) person from whom discovery is sought must be more than an innocent bystander; (3) that person must be only practical information source; (4) said person must be reasonably compensated for expenses of compliance with the discovery order; and (5) the public interests favouring disclosure must outweigh legitimate privacy concerns. [1]

He noted that there was no evidence that the files being downloaded were illegal. [2] He held that under the Copyright Act, downloading a song for personal use was not illegal. [3] CRIA had only been able show that the users made copies available on their shared drives. CRIA also failed to show that there was no alternative to gain the requested information. [4] Von Finckenstein concluded that the plaintiff was unable to show that the importance of the disclosure outweighed the importance of the right to privacy, and denied the request for discovery.

Federal Court of Appeal decision

The judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal was delivered 19 May 2005, at Toronto, Ontario.

Justice Sexton, for the court, upheld the core finding of the previous case, that the identities should not be revealed to the plaintiffs. He found that merely placing files in a shared directory does not constitute the "authorization" needed to infringe on the distribution right. [5] He modified the test required in this kind of case and also said that, given the preliminary stage of the proceedings, the lower court should not have commented on whether the alleged file-sharing was actually copyright infringement. [6] However, Justice Sexton only held that exceptions to the private right of copying were not considered, not that downloading a song in and of itself was a violation. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

In computer networks, download means to receive data from a remote system, typically a server such as a web server, an FTP server, an email server, or other similar system. This contrasts with uploading, where data is sent to a remote server. A download is a file offered for downloading or that has been downloaded, or the process of receiving such a file.

Music Canada is a non-profit trade organization that was founded 9 April 1963 to represent the interests of companies that record, manufacture, produce, and distribute music in Canada. It also offers benefits to some of Canada's leading independent record labels and distributors.

TorrentSpy

TorrentSpy was a popular BitTorrent indexing website. It provided .torrent files, which enabled users to exchange data between one another.

<i>Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn of Internet Providers</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Ass'n of Internet Providers 2 S.C.R. 427, 2004 SCC 45 - also known as the Tariff 22 case - is a leading decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on ISP liability for copyright infringement. The Court found that there is no liability for information found in caches. An ISP's liability depends on whether it limits itself to "a conduit" or a content-neutral function and is not dependent on where the ISP is located.

File sharing in Canada relates to the distribution of digital media in that country. Canada had the greatest number of file sharers by percentage of population in the world according to a 2004 report by the OECD. In 2009 however it was found that Canada had only the tenth greatest number of copyright infringements in the world according to a report by BayTSP, a U.S. anti-piracy company.

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia, program files, documents or electronic books/magazines. It involves various legal aspects as it is often used to exchange data that is copyrighted or licensed.

Louis Lee Stanton is a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act 1998 U.S. federal law

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional 'safe harbor' for online service providers (OSP) by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users.

Graduated response is a protocol or law, adopted in several countries, aimed at reducing unlawful file sharing.

<i>Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd</i>

Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & others v iiNet Ltd was a case in the Federal and High Courts of Australia between members of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) and other movie and television studios and iiNet, Australia's second-largest Internet service provider (ISP). The alliance of 34 companies unsuccessfully claimed that iiNet authorised primary copyright infringement by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent its customers from downloading and sharing infringing copies of films and television programs using BitTorrent.

A Doe subpoena is a subpoena that seeks the identity of an unknown defendant to a lawsuit. Most jurisdictions permit a plaintiff who does not yet know a defendant's identity to file suit against John Doe and then use the tools of the discovery process to seek the defendant's true name. A Doe subpoena is often served on an online service provider or ISP for the purpose of identifying the author of an anonymous post.

File sharing in the United Kingdom relates to the distribution of digital media in that country. In 2010, there were over 18.3 million households connected to the Internet in the United Kingdom, with 63% of these having a broadband connection. There are also many public Internet access points such as public libraries and Internet cafes.

Copyright Alert System (CAS) was a voluntary industry effort to educate and penalize internet users who engage in the unauthorized and unlawful distribution of copyrighted works via peer-to-peer file sharing services. The program was operated by the Center for Copyright Information, a consortium consisting of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and the internet service providers AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon.

TekSavvy

TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (TSI) is a Canadian residential, business, and wholesale telecommunications company based in Chatham, Ontario. In most of the country, it is a wholesale-network-access-based service provider and voice reseller, connecting its service to existing last mile networks from telecom carriers Bell Canada and Telus Communications, and cable carriers Rogers Communications, Cogeco Cable, Shaw and Vidéotron. However, in parts of rural southwestern Ontario, the service is provided over TekSavvy's own fixed wireless network.

"Authorization" and "Secondary Infringement" are two instances of "indirect infringement" in Canadian Copyright law. In cases of indirect infringement, individuals can be held liable for infringement even where they did not personally make the copies of the copyrighted subject-matter. This expands the scope of liability. The Canadian courts have dealt with these concepts in a number of cases, several of which will be elaborated upon below.

Countries blocking access to The Pirate Bay Overview of countries blocking access to The Pirate Bay

This is a list of countries where at least one internet service provider (ISP) formerly or currently censors the popular file sharing website The Pirate Bay (TPB).

<i>Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–1,495</i>

Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–1,495, Civil Action No. 11-1741 (JDB/JMF), was a United States District Court for the District of Columbia case in which the court held that anonymous users of the peer-to-peer file sharing service BitTorrent could not remain anonymous after charges of copyright infringement were brought against them. The court ultimately dismissed the case, but the identities of defendants were publicly exposed.

Internet censorship in Switzerland is regulated by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland on a case by case basis. Internet services provided by the registered with BAKOM Internet service providers (ISPs) are subject to a "voluntary recommendation" by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, which requires blocking of websites just after 18.12.2007. As of October 2015, this might change soon and additional topics like Online gambling are on the focus now.

References

  1. ↑ 2004 FC 488 (para. 3)
  2. ↑ 2004 FC 488 (para. 18)
  3. ↑ 2004 FC 488 (para 18)
  4. ↑ 2004 FC 488 (para. 31)
  5. ↑ 2005 FCA 193 (para. 15)
  6. ↑ 2005 FCA 193 (para. 46-54)
  7. ↑ 2005 FCA 193 (para. 50)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.