Explore

Representatives from the recording industry sought an order to compel various ISPs to disclose the identity of those who used P2P file-sharing networks (KaZaA and iMesh) to share and download over 1000 music files that were protected by copyright. The court held that an order for the release of subscriber information may be granted if the copyright holder can show a bona fide claim and different interests including the subscribers’ privacy rights must be be balanced. Here, the order was denied because privacy concerns outweighed the benefits of disclosure. It was also noted that even if a disclosure is granted, the court could place certain restrictions on the order to protect the privacy interests of the accused.

(1) The LSUC operated a library, and was accused of copyright infringement by providing photocopying services to its patrons. The Supreme Court ruled that the LSUC did not infringe copyright because its dealings with the claimants’ work were for the research purpose of its patrons and was fair. The courts will consider six factor to determine whether a dealing is indeed “fair”: (i) the purpose of the dealing; (ii) the character of the dealing; (iii) the amount of the dealing; (iv) the nature of the work; (v) available alternatives to the dealing and (vi) the effect of the dealing on the work (para 53). (2) Further, the Court held that a finding of authorization of infringement requires proof that the intermediary has done something beyond providing a neutral technology that could be used for copyright infringement...

This case demonstrates a successful application for a disclosure order under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure (30.10 and 31.10). Defamatory emails were sent to 75 employees working at the plaintiff’s company. The plaintiff was able to trace those emails to particular IP addresses belonging to the ISP company iPrimus. Given that the plaintiff established a prima facie case, the ISP was required to reveal the owners of the IP addresses in question. The court also noted that ISPs does not have an obligation to disclose user information without a court order.

The main case to reach the Chilean Supreme Court and involving a so-called “right to be forgotten” was an action requesting Diario El Mercurio to delist from search engines content relating the plaintiff to crimes of child sexual abuse, that would impede the claimant’s reintegration and would bring him serious psychological harms, violating his constitutional right to psychological integrity (Art. 19, 1) and to private life and honor (art. 19, 4). Therefore, although requesting the publisher to delist the content from search engines, the case is not related to a data protection claim, but to the more traditional idea of rehabilitation or reintegration of the plaintiff to society, after having his name associated with a crime that took place more than 10 years before. In its reasoning, the court recognized the passing...

Chile is partecipating in the negotiation of an international agreement including a section on Internet service provider liability, with countries lining up either in favour of a general notification obligation or a notice-and-takedown system with the prospect of terminating subscriber Internet access and content blocking. Chile favors the former approach. See M. Geist Blog post