"“By saying he knew [his ex-wife] was downloading infringing content, but didn't prevent her from doing so, he self-incriminated,” he told TorrentFreak."
Innocent has a specific meaning - and in this situation it is implied he did not break Hadopi. He broke the law. However ridiculous, shortsighted and just plain wrong the letter (and intent) of that law is - he seems most certainly guilty of it.
The problem is that authorities are sending me, and thousand of other computer literate people like me across France, a very clear message:
It's okay to download music illegally as long as you don't do it from your own connection. Couple that with the fact that most home routers are still running on default WEP (?!) encrypted connections, and we're virtually outside the reach of this law.
This law is a terrible one, I really hope the government will do something about it. Thankfully, it looks like the victim is "only" going to be fined for 150euros. But what if the next scapegoat won't be as lucky? (In all honesty, the madness going on in US courts give me the creeps...)
Did he do anything wrong? In my opinion, no. Did he do anything wrong according to the Hadopi law? Yes.
My statement was purely semantic.
If someone told me that I was guilty of downloading Rhianna songs, I would point the finger at the woman in the house as well, but there's nothing to suggest that he knew that the infractions were happening at the time they occurred.
However, him getting three warnings without responding, well if he actually got those warnings, he deserves the fine.