Not so surprising gideongallery is a Canadian

Huh ... I wonder what companies they are referring to ........

.

http://torrentfreak.com/canadian-bit...-court-110615/

Rest assured, if the US makes a step in any direction, the US will make a "suggestion" that Canada follows suit, or face a basket list of consequences. Therefore, will will do whatever you do.

wrong thread

backing up media your purchased in a cloud in order to time shift it = not piracy.

probably because he shared the file on an actual US based site. if it was canadian based site i think it would be different.

A judgement in a US court against a Canadian - how are they going to collect the money? They will need to file a lawsuit in Canada to collect the money and I'm really not sure about the law regarding a foreigner suing a Canadian for damages awarded in a US court. Maybe somebody here who knows more will comment.

The lawyer for Corbin Fisher says Canada is a signatory to international copyright treaties - methinks that and a dollar will get them a cup of coffee.

Yes, a US judgement against a Canadian can be collected through a Canadian court. This guy might be fucked but at the end of this article it says in recent years Canadian provincial courts are more rigid on what it defines as a 'real and substantial connection' between the US jurisdiction and the Canadian defendant. So in this Corbin Fisher lawsuit the defense would say that California had no real and substantial connection with the copyright infringement committed, the tracker site was Russian based, not in California.


Procedure for Enforcement
An action on a U.S. judgment is usually begun by a writ endorsed with a statement of
claim for the amount of the judgment, interest and costs, and can be pursued by way of a
motion for summary judgment. Lawyer?s fees, court costs and the calculation of interest
are handled in the same manner as any other action. Where a plaintiff is granted an order
for enforcement, the plaintiff will be entitled to an award of costs, which will be assessed
by the court pursuant to tariffs fixed by provincial statute.

The Basic Test for Enforceability
Generally speaking, the enforceability of a U.S. judgment in Canada is determined by
two guiding principles: 1) the foreign court that grants the judgment must have
appropriately exercised its jurisdiction to try the case, according to its own rules; and 2)
in trying the case, the court must have acted in accordance with due process. Where the
defendant is not physically present in the jurisdiction at the time of the action, and has not voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction, the test for ?appropriately exercised jurisdiction? is whether there is a ?real and substantial connection? between the jurisdiction and the defendant or the subject matter of the action.

Recommended Advice to Clients and U.S. Lawyers
As a result of the changes precipitated by Morguard, Canadians who receive notice that
they are being sued outside Canada are almost always advised to defend the action,
provided they have the financial capacity to do so. Where there is any connection
between the subject matter of the action and the originating jurisdiction, it is too great a
risk to allow the action to go undefended.
That being said, U.S. litigants seeking to have a judgment enforced in Canada are also
recommended to seek advice on the laws of the province in which the motion will be
heard. This is particularly true because Morguard and Hunt have left the question of
enforcement to be decided on a case-by-case evaluation of ?order and fairness?.

Recent
Initially, the generous approach to comity espoused in Morguard made the requirement
of a ?real and substantial connection? relatively easy to meet ? through satisfaction of the
?order and fairness? test. In recent years, however, some provincial courts have
narrowed the scope of what constitutes a real and substantial connection through a more
restrictive conceptual application of the test.6 As the British Columbia Court of Appeal
put it in Braintech, Inc v. Kostiuk, there has been an attempt to put some flesh ?on the
bare bones of ?real and substantial connection?.?7
In Braintech the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that, in the context of an action
for defamation over the Internet, the mere possibility that someone could access comment
on the Internet within the originating jurisdiction was insufficient to establish a real and
substantial connection. The Court required better proof that the defendant had entered
the jurisdiction (in this case Texas) and therefore refused to enforce a default judgment.