an article by
Drake Zamanov
April 1, 2004
from slyck:
On March 31, Kondrad Von Finkenstein ruled in favor of the 29 Canadian file sharers named in the CRIA’s lawsuit. The case against the 29 Canadian file sharers was virtually identical to the cases against American file sharers. Despite the similarities, the outcome was extraordinarily different.
The CRIA lost the case because they failed to provide sufficient evidence against these 29 file sharers that they claim violated copyrights. Here are a few highlights of the judge’s decision.
In regards to Media Sentry’s President, Gary Millin’s affidavit, the judge stated, “The major portions of these affidavits are based upon information which Mr. Millin gained from his employees. Accordingly, they consist largely of hearsay. Pursuant to Rule 81(1), hearsay and other forms of information gained on belief may be admissible provided that the grounds for the belief are stated. Beyond stating in cross-examination that, as President of MediaSentry ‘a company of 20-25 employees’, he had ‘general oversight for the business and particular strategy”, Mr. Millin gives no reason for his beliefs. This is insufficient.” The judge went on to say that MediaSentry employees would have been in a better position to swear the affidavits in question and to answer questions in court.
The Judge also pointed out that Mr. Millin testified that his company also provided a service called “MediaDecoy” which distributes bogus or inoperative files over the internet. Mr. Millin stated that he didn’t listen to any of the files copied from the alleged 29 infringers and stated that his company was not hired to listen to these files. In his decision, the judge stated the following; “This kind of remove evidence in no way qualifies under Rule 81. There is, thus, no evidence before the Court as to whether or not the files offered for uploading are infringed files of the plaintiffs.”
In addition, the CRIA failed to inform the court how these 29 IP address were identified. The judge was not impressed by the lack of evidence and stated, “There is no evidence explaining how the pseudonym Geekboy@KaZaA was linked to IP address 24.84.179.98 in the first place. Without any evidence at all as to how IP address 24.84.179.98 has been traced to Geekboy@KaZaA, and without being satisfied that such evidence is reliable, it would be irresponsible for the Court to order the disclosure of the name of the account holder of IP address 24.84.179.98 and expose this individual to a law suit by the plaintiffs."
more..