dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to Tx

Re: This ought to be interesting...

Burden of proof. Canadian law. Innocent until proven guilty. An IP address is not enough to prosecute. The person must be identified, while doing the deed. Nobody in Canada is stupid enough to testify against friends and family for essentially a victim-less crime. Without actual witness account of the person doing the downloading of copyright content without permission, the person accused of such merely needs to declare "I did not do it" to be declared innocent, for the charges to be dropped.

In fact, even if an IP is enough to investigate, if the accused still claims innocence, evidence gathered during investigation is still not enough, if there is no direct witness of that person doing the deed. I personally had such an experience with a hit-and-run, where I was a witness to it, and gave my testimony, with license plate and everything. The investigation even included a recreation, where the owner was asked to bring the car, examine the paint marks, the shape of the indentation in both vehicles, etc. It all matched. However, the entire investigation rested on a single very specific item: My visual identification of the person doing the deed. It so happened that the person who owned the car was not the person driving it at the time. When I was presented with a photo layout of 6 possible suspects, I could not identify the owner, because he just wasn't the one driving the car at the time of the incident. How could I identify a person whom I've never seen before, let alone absent during the incident? The charges were dropped. Ironically, the owner of the car was a lawyer student. He certainly knew about burden of proof.

If that's how it works for hit-and-runs where there is actual real physical damage, imagine how little legal resources the Canadian courts are willing to put toward prosecuting victim-less crimes like copyright infringement.

"I did not do it"
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
said by JonyBelGeul:

Burden of proof. Canadian law. Innocent until proven guilty. An IP address is not enough to prosecute. The person must be identified, while doing the deed. Nobody in Canada is stupid enough to testify against friends and family for essentially a victim-less crime. Without actual witness account of the person doing the downloading of copyright content without permission, the person accused of such merely needs to declare "I did not do it" to be declared innocent, for the charges to be dropped.

In fact, even if an IP is enough to investigate, if the accused still claims innocence, evidence gathered during investigation is still not enough, if there is no direct witness of that person doing the deed. I personally had such an experience with a hit-and-run, where I was a witness to it, and gave my testimony, with license plate and everything. The investigation even included a recreation, where the owner was asked to bring the car, examine the paint marks, the shape of the indentation in both vehicles, etc. It all matched. However, the entire investigation rested on a single very specific item: My visual identification of the person doing the deed. It so happened that the person who owned the car was not the person driving it at the time. When I was presented with a photo layout of 6 possible suspects, I could not identify the owner, because he just wasn't the one driving the car at the time of the incident. How could I identify a person whom I've never seen before, let alone absent during the incident? The charges were dropped. Ironically, the owner of the car was a lawyer student. He certainly knew about burden of proof.

If that's how it works for hit-and-runs where there is actual real physical damage, imagine how little legal resources the Canadian courts are willing to put toward prosecuting victim-less crimes like copyright infringement.

"I did not do it"

I absolutely agree with you, i was merely stating what these idiot lawyers think is all they need.

I stand by this very statement: IP is NOT a person. Burden of proof should still be on them, yet several convictions simply off an IP in the states of which i also find bs


drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada

1 recommendation

reply to JonyBelGeul
said by JonyBelGeul:

Burden of proof. Canadian law. Innocent until proven guilty. An IP address is not enough to prosecute. The person must be identified, while doing the deed. Nobody in Canada is stupid enough to testify against friends and family for essentially a victim-less crime. Without actual witness account of the person doing the downloading of copyright content without permission, the person accused of such merely needs to declare "I did not do it" to be declared innocent, for the charges to be dropped.

In fact, even if an IP is enough to investigate, if the accused still claims innocence, evidence gathered during investigation is still not enough, if there is no direct witness of that person doing the deed. I personally had such an experience with a hit-and-run, where I was a witness to it, and gave my testimony, with license plate and everything. The investigation even included a recreation, where the owner was asked to bring the car, examine the paint marks, the shape of the indentation in both vehicles, etc. It all matched. However, the entire investigation rested on a single very specific item: My visual identification of the person doing the deed. It so happened that the person who owned the car was not the person driving it at the time. When I was presented with a photo layout of 6 possible suspects, I could not identify the owner, because he just wasn't the one driving the car at the time of the incident. How could I identify a person whom I've never seen before, let alone absent during the incident? The charges were dropped. Ironically, the owner of the car was a lawyer student. He certainly knew about burden of proof.

If that's how it works for hit-and-runs where there is actual real physical damage, imagine how little legal resources the Canadian courts are willing to put toward prosecuting victim-less crimes like copyright infringement.

"I did not do it"

+1
IPV6 ALREADY!
--
Cheers!