#Mediatube vs bell tv
“Bell invests hundreds of millions of dollars every year to develop, produce, acquire and deliver great Canadian and international content over multiple platforms, but content piracy continues to undermine the entire media industry, including the work of many Canadians,” said Wade Oosterman, president of Bell Media and vice chair of BCE, in a release.īell’s release goes on to argue that TV piracy costs Canadian broadcasters and distributors $500 million to $650 million per year. In a press release, Bell welcomed the ruling. The statutory damages amount to $10,000 per infringed work, which breaks down as follows: In the published decision, Justice Janet Fuhrer wrote that the defendants “have advertised and sold pre-loaded set top boxes and IPTV services in Canada online and at brick-and-mortar locations, thus providing unauthorized access to the Plaintiffs’ content.”įuhrer goes on to note that the defendants did not respond to or participate in the action, and therefore she granted default judgment against them. The payment will go to Bell (including Bell Canada, Expressvu Limited Partnership and Bell Media), Vidéotron, Group TVA, Rogers Communications and Rogers Media. doing business as (dba) IN元D, Morcor Computers 2000 LTD., Ottawa Tek Corporation dba Ottawa Tek Communications and Raheel Rafiq will need to pay a combined $29.3 million in statutory damages. Prothonotary Aalto further noted that “refusals motions have become the scourge of litigation in this Court, particularly IP litigation” and that, absent exceptional circumstances, refusals motions should address no more than about 50 questions.Ī copy of the Federal Court’s Order and Reasons can be found here.Bell, Rogers and other Canadian media companies were awarded nearly $30 million in damages in a Federal Court ruling in a lawsuit against retailers selling Android-powered set-top boxes that streamed unauthorized and pirated content. The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to re-attend for further oral discovery to answer any questions they agreed to answer (rather than to provide written answers as would normally occur). Either object on proper grounds or let the witness answer or, if the question requires information which the witness does not know, give an undertaking. Counsel should refrain from using this as a backdoor means of objecting.
It has become misused by counsel and is a glib mechanism to avoid having a witness answer a question which may otherwise be relevant. But it is not a substitute for a properly made objection on the enumerated grounds. It may be a useful intervention where the issue of relevance may be a matter for further consideration or discussion with opposing counsel. Generally, counsel must object on proper grounds or let the witness answer: While recognizing that under advisements will happen to some small extent on discoveries, Prothonotary Aalto held that the Court will not permit them to be used as a weapon to interfere in the flow and conduct of an examination. The question is unreasonable or unnecessary or.Prothonotary Aalto noted that the Federal Courts Rules do not provide the ability to take questions under advisement, but rather allow only four categories of objections at an examination for discovery (Rule 242(1)): The Court agreed with Bell and lambasted the current trend in litigation involving the “over abundance of interruptions in an examination by the use of a quasi objection such as ‘under advisement’.” Of these, approximately 1,000 were refused or taken “under advisement.” The Bell Defendants brought a motion to compel re-attendance for further oral discovery on the basis that the large number of questions taken under advisement constituted an abusive attempt to shield the witness from answering questions. In MediaTube v Bell, an action alleging infringement of the plaintiffs’ patent by Bell’s Fibe TV systems, discovery of the plaintiffs entailed nearly 10,000 questions.
0 kommentar(er)
