Is it 2005?
I thought this sort of case had been dead in the water for decades.
An IP address does not identify a person.
Is there case law in Canada that deems the account owner as the infringing person without any actual evidence?
I think this is the law you are talking about and I’m under the same impression
Thanks for the link:
On December 13, 2018, Parliament amended the Copyright Act to clarify that a notice of claimed infringement that contains an offer to settle, or a request or demand for payment or for personal information, or a reference to any such offer, request or demand, in relation to the claimed infringement, does not comply with the regime.
Yes it should be a crime to subject other people to Ryan Reynolds movies.
Guess I’m not going to be watching/paying for anything Ryan Reynolds in the future. He made that one easy for me, his shtick was getting old anyways.
There’s nothing indicating that Reynolds has anything to do with this, nor any reason to believe he could have anything to do with this. Only the rights holders can bring legal actions over copyright. Acting in a movie doesn’t make Reynolds the rights holder.
I really don’t feel like I should even be having to explain this.
I have to wonder if the aptly named Hitman Two Productions was even aware that this shakedown was going on.
Doesn’t matter at this point. Hit them back hard. Make it so they don’t ever do it again
“Something must be done! This is something, ergo it must be done!”
Hitting Ryan Reynolds makes absolutely zero sense in this, unless there’s evidence I’m unaware of that he was a) aware of, and b) on board with these legal actions. Randomly spraying bullets in a crowd that might have a murderer in it isn’t how you punish murderers. I find it really hard to believe I even have to say this.
You do know that the days of actors being tied to a single studio ended quite some time ago, right? As in, “before most of us were born.”
If you’re going to exact punishment, it generally helps to apply it to the people responsible, not innocent bystanders.
I though the max they could get was 5000? I also though that made it so it wasn’t worth there time. I now in the US they would ask for millions and then settle out of court. Here it doesn’t seem like the numbers line up.
I like how they worded it not more the $50,000 when they are limited by the law which allows for “a sum of not less than $100 or more than $5,000 as the court considers just.” for all non-commercial infringement. So they get $5000 max out of someone torrenting a movie.
I love how these are worded to scare you.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Thousands of Canadians, including at least one here in Windsor, Ont., are the targets of legal action for allegedly infringing on the copyright of a movie starring Ryan Reynolds through file sharing.
The case was brought forward in July by Kenneth Clark, a lawyer at the Toronto-based law firm Aird Berlis, on behalf of Nevada-based company Hitman Two Productions Inc…
CBC News reached out to Ryan Reynolds’ publicist, as well as Hitman Two Productions Inc. with questions about this matter but did not hear back by publication time.
As for the high dollar amount listed in the statement of claim, Clark said the Copyright Act sets the limit, and that in a formal court document you ask for the maximum.
David Fewer is an intellectual property and technology lawyer with the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa and has intervened in these types of cases brought by Clark in the past.
Matt Cohen, the director of Pro-Bono Ontario, which provides legal advice to low income Ontarians mostly over the phone, said that they have gotten about 500 calls on similar matter over the past few years.
The original article contains 865 words, the summary contains 181 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
