February 8th, 2005
|
| A reader, not an expert | | Join Date: January 11th, 2003 Location: Canada
Posts: 4,613
| |
well--who knows?
MediaSentry had to testify in Canada about the methods they used to discover some Canadian file uploaders. Here's an excerpt from The Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein's decision (March 2004) Quote: |
[19] Mr. Millin also testified that his company provided a service called MediaDecoy which distributes bogus or inoperative files over the internet. People downloading these files think incorrectly that they are music files. The files are made to look like real music files, but they are inoperative. When he was asked whether he could tell whether any of the files allegedly copied from the alleged infringers were MediaDecoy files, Mr. Millin stated that he had not listened to any of the files copied from the alleged infringers and that listening to the files was not work that his firm was contracted to do or the “process that we set up with CRIA” (Millin cross-examination, QQ 107-107, 189-196). This kind of remote 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.
| If you are in the USA, try the EFF's excellent info, especially http://www.eff.com/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php
Last edited by stief; February 8th, 2005 at 07:04 PM.
|
Similar Threads 
Linear Mode
