Courts May Compel the Disclosure of the Identity of Internet Users in Copyright Infringement Cases

1
COURTSMAYCOMPELTHEDISCLOSUREOFTHEIDENTITYOFINTERNETUSERSIN
COPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENTCASES

By
AlexandraSteele*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.
Lawyers,PatentandTrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE–8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca–info@robic.com
TheFederalCourtofAppealrecentlydismissedanappealofadecisionof
theFederalCourtrelatingtothedisclosurebyInternetServiceProviders(ISPs)
oftheidentityInternetuserswhohaddownloadedandmadeavailablean
importantnumberofcopyrightedmusicfiles.Bothinstancesagreedthatthe
ISPshadpresentedinsufficientandinadequateevidence.However,the
CourtofAppealheldthattheprinciplesrelatingtoEquitableBillsofDiscovery
wereapplicableinacaseasthisandtherefore,ISPscouldbecompelledto
disclosetheidentityoftheircustomers.[BMGCanadaInc.v.JaneDoe,2005
FCA193,Richard,Noël,SextonJJ.A.,May19,2005]
THEFACTS
Severalwell-knownmusicprovidersandcopyrightownerswereattempting
touncovertheidentityof29Internetuserswhohaddownloadedandmade
availablethroughapeer-to-peer(P2P)filesharingprogramover29,000
copyrightedsongs.Theidentityofthemusicproviderswasofcourse
necessaryforacopyrightinfringementactiontobeinitiatedbythemusic
providers.TheISPshadpreviouslyrefusedtovoluntarilydiscloseany
informationconcerningtheircustomers.Themusicproviderstherefore
petitionedtheFederalCourtforanordercompellingtheISPstodisclosethe
namesofthe29customerswhohadallegedlycommittedactsofcopyright
infringement.






Lawyer,theauthorisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmof
lawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.PublishedintheMay2005issueoftheWIPR.
Publication142.176.

2
THEFEDERALCOURTJUDGEMENT
TheFederalCourtJudgeseizedofthePlaintiffs’motionruledthatthe
procedurerelatingtothediscoveryofthirdpartydocuments,(Rule233
FederalCourtsRules),didnotapplyinthisparticularcasebecausethe
documentsthatPlaintiffssoughttoobtain,i.e.theidentityofthe29
customers,didnotalreadyexistastheISPswouldhavetocreatealistoftheir
customersfromtheirlogsandtapes.However,theJudgeconfirmedthatthe
properwaytobringsuchamotionfordisclosurewasthroughacombined
applicationoftheproceduralrulesrelatingtotheoraldiscoveryofthird
parties,(Rule238FederalCourtsRules),andtheprinciplesrelatingto
EquitableBillsofDiscovery
1.
TheMotionsJudgeformulatedthefollowinglegaltest:
“EquitableBillofDiscoveryRequirements

(a)theapplicantmustestablishaprimafaciecaseagainsttheunknown
allegedwrongdoer;
(b)thepersonfromwhomdiscoveryissoughtmustbeinsomeway
involvedinthematterunderdispute,hemustbemorethanan
innocentbystander;
(c)thepersonfromwhomdiscoveryissoughtmustbetheonlypractical
sourceofinformationavailabletotheapplicants;
(d)thepersonfromwhomdiscoveryissoughtmustbereasonably
compensatedforhisexpensesarisingoutofcompliancewiththe
discoveryorderinadditiontohislegalcosts;
(e)thepublicinterestsinfavourofdisclosuremustoutweighthelegitimate
privacyconcerns.”
TheFederalCourtconcludedthatinlightoftheevidenceadducedbeforeit
that:
(a)thePlaintiffshadnotestablishedaprimafaciecaseofinfringement;
(b)theaffidavitsfiledinsupportofthemotionconstitutedhearsay
evidenceandwerethereforeunreliable;
(c)thePlaintiffsdidnotsatisfytheCourtthattherewasnootherreliable
sourceofinformationconcerningtheidentityoftheInternetusers;



























































1





























!”#$%&
’
”((
)*+,
-











!”#.”&
”
’
/
%”$
)/,


-


-
+














!”
)”##.,
.”

/
)(
-,
($
)0’,

3
(d)ISPswouldhaveneededtobecompensatediftheMotionhadbeen
granted;and
(e)inanyevent,andrelyingontheprovisionsofthePersonalInformation
ProtectionandElectronicDocumentsAct,2000,c.5(PIPEDA),the
privacyinterestsoftheInternetusersoutweighedthepublicinterest
concernsinfavourofdisclosure.
THEFEDERALCOURTOFAPPEALJUDGEMENT
TheFederalCourtofAppealagreedthattheaffidavitevidencesubmitted
bythePlaintiffswasinsufficientandthereforethatMotionsJudgehadnot
committedanyoverridingandpalpableerrorinhisassessmentofthefacts.
Onthisgroundalone,theCourtwouldhavedismissedtheappeal.However,
sincetheJudgehadgoneoverandbeyonddiscussingsimpleprocedural
andevidentiaryissues,theCourtproceededtoreviewtheothergroundsof
theFederalCourtjudgement.
TheFederalCourtofAppealagreedwiththeMotionsJudge’senunciationof
therequirementsforanEquitableBillsofDiscovery,except
forthefirst
criterion,namelythatthePlaintiffswererequiredtomakeoutaprimafacie
caseofcopyrightinfringement.TheCourtofAppealstatedthattheproper
testwaswhetherthePlaintiffshadabonafidecaseagainsttheInternet
users.Havingreviewedthecaselawemanatingfromvariousprovincial
jurisdictionsinrelationtoEquitableBillsofDiscovery,theCourtofAppeal
ruledthataprimafacierequirementwastooonerousofaburdenforthe
Plaintiffsatthisearlystageoftheproceedings,astheyarestillinthemidstof
buildinguptheircase.ThePlaintiffsneededtoshowonlythattheyintendto
bringanactionforinfringementofcopyrightbasedon,amongstothers,the
evidencetheywouldobtainfromtheISPsandthattheinformationwillnotbe
usedforanyimproperpurpose.SincetheaffidavitevidenceofthePlaintiffs
wasdeemedunreliablefromtheoutset,theFederalCourtofAppeal
maintainedthatthatthePlaintiffshadnotmetthelowerthresholdofabona
fidecaseofcopyrightinfringementagainsttheInternetusers.
TheFederalCourtofAppealalsoadmonishedtheMotionsJudgeforhaving
reachedaconclusionofcopyrightinfringementmostlikelyduetothehis
(incorrect)requirementthatthePlaintiffsmakeoutaprimafaciecaseof
infringement.IntheCourt’sview,theMotionsJudgeshouldnothavemade
thisfindingsinceitcouldpotentiallybedamagingtothepartiesifatrialwere
totakeplaceinthefutureandmoreover,theMotionsJudgehad
inadequateevidenceandwasnotseizedofthemeritsofthecase.

4
TheCourtofAppealwentontogiveexamplesofwheretheMotionsJudge
haderredinhisfindingofcopyrightinfringement:
1)theJudgehadruledthatundersection80(1)CopyrightAct,(R.S.C.1985
c.C-42),reproductionofamusicworkforprivateuse
doesnotamountto
infringement.However,theFederalCourtofAppealnotedthatthe
learnedMotionsJudgehadfailedtoconsiderthepossibilitywherea
defenceofprivateuseisnotavailable,suchaswhenamusicalrecording
isreproducedforsale,rental,distribution,communicationby
telecommunicationorperformancetothepublic;
2)theJudgedidnotconsiderwhethertherequirementsforadefenceof
privateusewereinfactsatisfiedinthiscase;
3)theJudgeprematurelyruledthattherewasnoauthorisation
bythe
Internetusersforotherstodownloadthemusicfileswhichwereavailable
on-line.However,theCourtofAppealnotedthatmakingthemusicfiles
availableontheInternetinandofitselfmayconstituteauthorisationsince
thefilesarereadilyavailabletobecommunicatedandcopiedbyothers;
4)theJudgefoundthattherehadbeennodistribution
pursuanttothe
CopyrightAct,sincedistributionrequiresa“positive”action.TheFederal
CourtofAppealnotedthattheCopyrightActissilentastowhetherornot
distributionrequiresapositiveactiononthepartoftheinfringer;
5)theJudgefoundnoevidenceofsecondaryinfringement
pursuantto
section27(2)CopyrightActashedeemedthattherewasnoevidence
thattheInternetusersknewthattheywereinfringingthePlaintiffs’
copyrights.However,theCourtofAppealpointedoutthatsecondary
infringementoccursiftheinfringersknew“orshouldhaveknown”that
theiractionsconstitutedcopyrightinfringement.
TheFederalCourtofAppealthereforereiteratedthat,atthisearlystageof
theproceedings,therecouldbenofindingofinfringement.TheCourt
thereforedismissedtheappeal,withoutprejudicetothePlaintiffs’rightto
commenceafurtherapplicationfordisclosureoftheidentityoftheInternet
users.
CONCLUSION
ThiscaseisprimeexampleofthenewchallengesfacingtheCourtsin
dealingwiththeprotectionofbothintellectualpropertyrightsandtherights
ofpersonstoprivacyinthisneweraofInternetcommunicationsand

5
technology.Intellectualpropertylawsarerequiredtoprotectthe
promulgationofideas;ifintellectualpropertyrightsarenotenforced,thereis
areducedincentiveforinnovatorstoexpressthemselvesfreelyandtomake
theirexpressionofideaspublic.Ontheotherhand,privacyconcernsmust
beaddressedsincetheinvestigationoftheidentityofpersonssuspectedof
infringingintellectualpropertyrightsmayleadtothedisclosureofprivate
informationconcerninginnocentbystanders.Theremustthereforebe
safeguardsinthesetypesofproceedingssothattherightsofthepersons
underinvestigationwillbeinvadedinaminimalway.
Ifthemusicprovidersareeventuallysuccessfulintheirquesttoobtainthe
identityofInternetuserssuspectedofbreachingcopyrightlaws,thiswillsend
astrongmessagetoallInternetusersoftheresponsibility,careandcaution
wemustalltakeinusingthisnewcommunicationstool.

6
ROBIC,ungrouped©avocatsetd©agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsd©origine;droitsd©auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel©artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsde
commerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademark
agentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofall
fieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;
trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsand
plantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;
licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationand
arbitration;duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL©INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD