Quote:
Originally Posted by fredr123
The lower court's decision isn't as solid as many think it is. Many of the conclusions drawn by Justice Finckenstein were reached with little evidentiary foundation and are speculative at best. It is dangerous to rely on those statements as positive authority for your online activities.
|
Yes, I agree:
http://www.cippic.ca/documents/Brief...A_Decision.pdf
Quote:
The FCA made some comments regarding copyright which indicated that the trial judge’s
findings on that issue were premature. However, the FCA did not reverse those findings,
but merely left the question of copyright law and file-sharing for a future case:
“In my view, conclusions such as these should not have been made in the
very preliminary stages of this action. They would require a consideration
of the evidence as well as the law applicable to such evidence after it has
been properly adduced. Such hard conclusions at a preliminary stage can
be damaging to the parties if a trial takes place and should be avoided.”
(para 47)
|
You can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the reason why the appeal was not allowed (and the lower court's ruling upheld) was because they did not believe there was enough in the case to violate the accused's privacy and force him to reveal his IP address for further evidence collecting. That is why the ruling of the lower courts was declared premature because they did not pass the aforementioned test first. If the CIRA or whoever were ever able to bring enough to the table, I think this is where we would finally see the courts comment on Justice Finckenstein's arguments of 2004. Until then, can't really be sure if it is reliable... Of course, this probably means that the courts definitely willing to hear future lawsuits on this matter.