Originally Posted by MidnightBlue
I see nothing wrong with a person losing Internet access for proven piracy or copyright infringement, but not for nothing more than accusations of copyright breaches.
Agreed, as for other alleged civil offenses. But it wouldn't be reasonable to allow the defense that some other member of your household must have been the downloader. This is comparable to a parking ticket, where the owner of the car is presumed responsible for misuse of said vehicle.
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
For those that don't know, Hadopi is the group that enforces France's draconian law that kicks a user off the internet after that user is accused of copyright infringement three times.
Life without parole is draconian. Three strikes and a life sentence is draconian. Giving someone a permanent criminal record, checkable by employers, is, I think, almost always draconian. Imposing a fine so high as to take a big chunk of your kids' college fund is draconian. But losing your internet access is the opposite of draconian. And it is more fair than fines and civil judgments, because the sting of the punishment is less greatly mitigated by wealth.
Here is what draconian punishment looks like:
Justices allow 25-year-to-life terms for shoplifting