When your client is named in a torrent lawsuit, preparation is key to an effective settlement. Landlords, retailers, cafes and other businesses with public networks should impose terms of service on network users. Clients can reduce their exposure by securing their wireless networks against unauthorized access. Recipients are exposed to thousands of dollars of potential liability and legal fees, regardless of the merits of their case. The mere fact of receiving a statement of claim or notice of application in an Internet copyright case is disruptive. If the Supreme Court decides for Voltage, the result would almost certainly be explosive growth in the number and scope of Internet-based copyright infringement cases. The cost of identifying that many subscribers is a significant barrier to Voltage and other copyright owners. On the other hand, Voltage has identified 55,000 Canadians who might eventually join a class of defendants in the novel proposed “reverse” class copyright proceeding that Voltage is seeking to certify. Rogers says it was ordered to disclose subscriber identities for 274 IP addresses in 2016 and 13 identities in 2015. The dollar amount involved sounds trivial - but not in the aggregate. The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the order granting compensation, reasoning that the Copyright Act already required Rogers to retrieve and verify the information, and Parliament had not made provision for reimbursement. The court held that because the notice-and notice system did not contemplate such disclosure, Rogers was entitled to claim compensation for its hourly fee to retrieve, verify and provide the information (Voltage Pictures, LLC v. 37679), Voltage obtained a Federal Court Norwich order compelling Rogers to disclose the identity of one of its subscribers in such a copyright infringement action. Voltage Pictures, LLC (Supreme Court File No. Copyright owners must seek Norwich orders compelling the ISPs to disclose the identities of the Doe defendants. That is why copyright owners in these cases name unidentified “Doe” defendants associated with a list of IP addresses. The “notice-and-notice” system allows content owners to issue infringement notices to ISPs, who forward those notices to subscribers without revealing their subscribers’ identities. Owners can detect uploaders’ IP addresses and their respective ISPs, but not their identities. ISPs do this millions of times per year at the request of copyright owners who monitor the Internet for uploads of their content. Under the “notice-and-notice” system set out in Canada’s Copyright Act, Internet service providers (ISPs) - like Bell, Rogers and TekSavvy - must forward copyright infringement notices to their Internet subscribers. Now, the Supreme Court is set to hear a case about $150 that could change the trend of copyright enforcement in Canada.
Another torrenting action is launched, and your client must respond. Finally, a statement of claim arrives at your client’s doorstep. There is a first Doe, and another, and then a Norwich order or two. PUBLISHED October 2018 IN Copyright & Designs, Enforcement & Defence, IT & E-Commerce