Over the past several weeks, there has been considerable
about the lawsuit launched by more than two dozen record labels against
Canadian-based isoHunt that relies upon current Canadian law. The
lawsuit is noteworthy since contrary to repeated claims that Canadian
law is unable to address sites like isoHunt, the recording industry has
filed both a statement of defence and a statement of claim in the B.C.
courts that cite current law as the basis for a takedown order and
millions in liability.
CRIA's supporters have argued that the discussion has been misleading
since isoHunt initiated an action asking a court to declare its
activities legal before the record labels responded with their own
court filings. For example, Barry Sookman told
the Globe my comments were "misleading" and that "isoHunt started this
and the recording industry was simply defending [itself]." Liberal MP
Dan McTeague rose on a point of order
in the Bill C-32 committee to similarly declare my column "misleading
and false" and stating that "I just want it clear for the record that
isoHunt itself initiated this legal action."
As I told the Globe, I think the timing issue misses the larger point -
the recording industry has argued in multiple court documents that
current Canadian copyright law can be used to shut down isoHunt and to
force the site to pay millions in damages. While this must still be
proven in court, the good faith reliance on current Canadian law
certainly undermines claims that the law is ill-equipped to address
the site and raises questions about why the industry has persistently
painted Canadian law facilitating a piracy haven when its legal actions
suggest otherwise. However, if the timing matters to some people,
is worth noting that the legal chess match began not with the isoHunt
lawsuit but rather with a cease
and desist letter that Sookman sent in 2008 on behalf of CRIA to isoHunt
months before isoHunt filed its suit.
TagsShareFriday March 04, 2011