[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I would remind you that news items often do not disclose affiliations between researchers and who paid for the research, etc.

I have no doubt that the RIAA et al are unlikely to produce objective surveys. At the same time, it's absurdly obvious that copyright infringement is massive and routine.

To wit: Sweden's Internet traffic dropped by 30% when an anti-piracy law was recently enacted.

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

The real trouble is : what if you get wrongly accused ?

Again, this particular incarnation does not provide sufficient legal review. If it did, this would not be any more or less an issue than being accused of any other sort of misconduct.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Under this law, it's treated as neither. 3 strikes (accusations) and you're out. No civil or criminal trial. No chance to defend yourself.

This is incorrect. With HADOPI 2, the accused can request a hearing and go before a judge (instead of a HADOPI panel). The potential problem is that statements made by the Hadopi board are considered to be "proven" and automatically treated as evidence that the accused is required to refute (hence the claims of the violation of the presumption of innocence).

And again, that language in HADOPI 1 resulted in a rejection of the law by the Constitutional Council, and is likely to do so again.

Or to put this another way: The apparent violation of the presumption of innocence is not a necessary or even vital component to this law. You can still have an expedited or simplified process, which allows for valid legal review, without requiring the presumption of guilt, which results in suspending an offender's Internet access for a year.