Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
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.
|
That's not how the Hadopi law works. The agency requests a meeting, and basically tries to figure out whether or not you're responsible; attendance is optional. If the answers are not satisfactory, or you decline to talk to them, the agency needs to convince a judge that there was sufficient infringement, and the judge is the one who decides to either reject or accept the claims.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
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.
|
They're checking the IP's of infringing file transfers. It's not a sure-fire method, so it is entirely plausible for someone to explain to the agency or judge that "my wireless access point got hacked." Of course, the plausibility of that declines a little bit when you've gotten a registered letter saying "we think you're a pirate" and your IP
still racks up gig after gig of infringing traffic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
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.
|
Arresting people for shoplifting
is a police responsibility. When the local mall develops a serious crime problem, you can bet that the local PD will get involved.
Similarly, there was a rash of car break-ins in my neighborhood, where the thieves would smash a window and steal GPS units. Is it the responsibility of neighborhood watch groups to catch these guys? No, that's a job for the cops. Nor do the cops levy a special tax on car owners to reimburse them for any time spent catching the crooks.