MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Ruling: IP address does not identify person

nogle · 05-04-2012, 03:56 PM

What Harry T is defending is making copyright an absolute liability offence. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_liability

In these cases, the Crown does not have to show a guilty mind (an accident or inadvertant breach still allows a guilty verdict). But the penalty is important; a small fine, no loss of liberty, no criminal record etc. is required. In short, the burden of proof is much lower, but so is the liability.

So, in Harry T's scenario, is a small fine ok for a serious pirate or other abuser of internet resources? If not, then the burden of proof must be much greater.

05-04-2012, 03:56 PM	#94
nogle Gangnam style! Posts: 373 Karma: 3646106 Join Date: Aug 2011 Device: Kobo	What Harry T is defending is making copyright an absolute liability offence. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_liability In these cases, the Crown does not have to show a guilty mind (an accident or inadvertant breach still allows a guilty verdict). But the penalty is important; a small fine, no loss of liberty, no criminal record etc. is required. In short, the burden of proof is much lower, but so is the liability. So, in Harry T's scenario, is a small fine ok for a serious pirate or other abuser of internet resources? If not, then the burden of proof must be much greater.