Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
Incorrect, a hearing with a judge is required before fines or sanctions can be levied.
|
With the burden of proof on the accused rather than the accuser ... and if it is anything like the UK version, you would also need to pay a fee before you had a chance to prove your innocence.
How would you go about proving you didn't do something anyway? I'm reasonably computer literate and I wouldn't have a clue how to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
Should the costs of maintaining traffic lights be paid back by tickets for running a red light? Should the fines for DUI cover the costs of police overtime and breathalyzers? Should the penalties for cheating on your taxes pay for the hours of the IRS auditors? If my neighbor is making too much noise, should the police hand my neighbor a bill every time they show up? No, no, no, no.
|
None of those are offences that only hurt a few large corporations. What the Hadopi does is like expecting tax payers to cover the cost of having police officers in every shop doing the job of store detectives so that the shops don't have to hire people to do the same job. Except it isn't every shop that gets a free store detective, it is only the very large ones, the independent shops still need to hire their own security staff. So all you are really doing is subsidising the large shops at the expense of the smaller ones.