Not to mention, we may not even be aware of copyright. If someone uploads a cartoon clip to their youtube and says it is theirs, how should we know whether or not it is, YT has security against this now but other sites may not and I don`t think we should be forced to restrict to Google stuff.

There seems to be at least two ways of approaching this: if you will be dealing with this as a violation of a federal statute (as you suggest), the accused should be judged in court based on preponderance of evidence as required in a civil case (i.e. less than ‘guilty beyond a reasonable doubt’, but much more than a simple accusation on the part of the copyright holder). The consequences for being found guilty of the violation usually include some kind of monetary damages or fines.

The other way is the three strike rule, which doesn’t rely on a federal statute, but instead on an ISP’s terms of service. Since there is no threat of damages or fines, presumably the standard of proof should be lower than that required by a court when deciding whether or not a federal statute has been violated. That is not to say however that there shouldn’t be a standard of proof and that an accusation alone should suffice. To be honest with you, I’m not quite sure what that standard should be. But there needs to some kind of body that would hear evidence (arbitration? commission? I’m not sure…)

Since we both agree that a court is not the right place to hear these kinds of cases, and arbitrations and commissions are an expensive endeavour, I think we can both agree that there needs to be another system set up.

The third option is to find a way to legalize file sharing. There are any number of ways of doing this including levies on internet subscribers, some kind of usage limits (i.e. it’s legal to download for personal use only and illegal to upload), and/or some other ideas. I think that legalizing is the best way to go if we don’t want to open the floodgates of copyright claims in Canadian courts or set up expensive arbitration processes for ISP-customer relations.

I hope I’m being clear, but to answer your question about the standard of proof, all I can say is ‘I’m not sure’. I know that it has to be more than a simple accusation, but I am open to suggestions on how much more.

I’m in total agreement with you with respect to where the burden of proof should lie. And I appreciate your practical example. However, I am more interested in the standard of proof that you feel should be required for a violation of this federal statute; and if it should be adjusted according to the seriousness of the offence.

I will give you an example. I have a (relatively) well protected wireless network. But if someone were to park their car outside my house, hack into my system and start sharing files, it would be unjust for me to face a disconnection of my internet. And let’s not forget that not everyone is tech-savvy enough to set up the wireless protection that I have on my router.

Proving these kinds of things should not the burden of the accused. If we’re talking about any kind of punishment for violation, the burden of proof should be on the accuser.

In terms of your last point, I’m not sure I agree with the categorical statement (“every minor offence–most of which do not carry a penalty of imprisonment–to the authority of the courts would unnecessarily waste judicial resources, taxpayers money and time”), but I addressed this case in the last sentence in my post. I fully agree with you…in this case, which is why I’m suggesting that the “three-strike” approach be rejected. I do however think there are times when the courts should be involved, even if there’s no prison time. But that’s a subject for another post.

I’m not quite sure if you’re suggesting that a government regulated enforcement regime under the supervision of the courts is a satisfactory approach to this problem. Whether or not you are, I wouldn’t mind hearing your thoughts on the level of proof required to deem someone in violation of the relevant law and the extent of the due process requirements you mention.

My view is that to subject every minor offence–most of which do not carry a penalty of imprisonment–to the authority of the courts would unnecessarily waste judicial resources, taxpayers money and time.