Part one of this essay ended with the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) was putting forth a motion to force ISPs to give up the names of P2P file-sharers.
On this motion, the CRIA provided an affidavit from Gary Millin, President of MediaSentry, a company that specializes in detecting the distribution of materials on P2P networks. The record labels supplied MediaSentry with the names of songs that were to be investigated. The company then searched for and downloaded the songs, matched the sources of the files to specific IP addresses and took screenshots of the users shared folders to show the volume of copyrighted material being made available for download.
Justice Konrad von Finckenstein (now chairman of the CRTC) cited Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1974] A.C. 133, a case involving a pharmaceutical company that sought from Revenue Canada the names of alleged importers of a certain drug. By importing this drug, the importer had effectively infringed on Norwich Pharmacal’s intellectual property rights; in this case, it’s patent. Revenue Canada was ordered to disclose the identity of the importer. The judge determined that The Equitable Bill of Discovery Requirements, which is a list of rules that govern whether a third party can be forced to provide information, should be applied in the file sharing case. (Finckenstein, par. 13)
The first rule states that the applicant putting forth the motion must establish a prima facie case against the person they intend to sue. This means that the plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to win the case barring any contest or additional evidence presented by the defendant. The respondents (the ISPs) argued that Mr. Millin did not collect the information provided personally and he did not reveal his sources. Therefore, they claimed the evidence was hearsay. Motions Judge Finckenstein agreed. This judgment that the prima facie test had not been met would be the turning point for this ongoing legal battle and would be addressed thoroughly at appeal.
Another requirement for discovery states that the person that is being ordered to provide information must be the only practical source of information available in order to justify a breach of privacy. The Motion Judge did not feel convinced that the identities could not be more easily sought directly from Kazaa.
The other major roadblock to the CRIA being granted access to the users’ identities was the fact that the discovery requirements state that the interests of intellectual property protection must outweigh the privacy concerns of the alleged infringers. The respondents argued that the time between the alleged infringement and when they could provide the information was too long to ensure the information was valid. The ISPs use dynamic addressing, that is they frequently change the address assigned to a particular user. Even then, “at best the ISPs will generate the name of the account holders; however, they can never generate the name of the actual computer users”. (Finckenstein, par. 34) This unreliable data could potentially breach the privacy of innocent users as well as unnecessarily name them as defendants.
The Motions Judge thereby decided that because the evidence was hearsay, and arguably stale anyway, he found that the requirements for discovery were not met and denied the motion put forth by the CRIA. He did not stop there. The Judge continued with far ranging statements regarding whether this was a case of copyright infringement at all.
