Quote from: watching

Torrentfreak is carrying a news article with a pretty full account of Monday's court hearing: http://torrentfreak.com/judge-warns-of-end-to-file-sharing-cash-demands-100922/

The part i like is....

Quote

But it doesn’t have to be this way. ISP TalkTalk have told TorrentFreak time and again that they refuse to cooperate with these companies and – surprise, surprise – TalkTalk are never required to hand over the details of their customers since they are never included on a court order application. All this despite being one of the country’s largest ISPs

Like we have said before. TalkTalk can do it.....they HAVE done it.... WHY are PN not doing the same? There is NO reason. NONE.
Stop faffing around...stop stalling....what the hell are you waiting for? We can't make it more simple for you.....this process is unjust....STOP CO-OPERATING!
Come on PN for christs sake  just REFUSE to comply.
/rant over

Further to my post on Monday, I wanted to provide additional information on the contents of the report we received from ACS:Law.  Simply put the report stated that following disclosure, ACS:Law hadn't written to any of our customers, and therefore no one had been taken to court.  As I said on Monday we asked for clarity about this point as some customers had received letters from ACS:Law in February 2010 in relation to the NPO on the 19th of November 2009.  This was the explicit reason for my request for letters from customers.  I have yet to draw this to conclusion and continue to seek legal advice.
Many of you have asked why we haven’t shared this information sooner.  I want to assure you we have been working on this, but it is difficult for us to comment because of legal issues.  I have however done a couple of updates to PUG (Plusnet User Group) who are under NDA to keep customers informed of details, and explicitly the content of the report. 
Customers have asked why we don’t take the same approach as TalkTalk on NPO requests for disclosure.  My understanding is that TalkTalk to date have not challenged applications legally, i.e. they have not been in court to oppose an NPO, rather they have said they would do so if brought to court. 
Digital rights holders do need a method to protect their rights online, and at the moment the NPO process is one of the few ways for them to do so.  However, as we stated in our blog in 2007 there are issues with the process around wireless security etc, which potentially could lead to false allegations.  You can see more details here: http://community.plus.net/blog/2007/11/28/file-sharing-letters/
While we might not wholly agree with the processes involved neither are we pro piracy.

Meanwhile the reported comments by the judge (Chief Master Winegarten) at the hearing on Monday 20 September clearly sound interesting and will be borne in mind as we develop our position.
Thanks,
Fletch

Quote from: Fletch

Meanwhile the reported comments by the judge (Chief Master Winegarten) at the hearing on Monday 20 September clearly sound interesting and will be borne in mind as we develop our position.

Don't take too long "developing" a position.
Try writing to the court, apologise for not bothering to turn up and explain a few technical details to the judge (if he excuses your non-attendance).

@Feltch, I too agree that rights holders should be able to see and seek recompense for their rights, after I don't actually want to see the music, film and perhaps other creative industries fail, I love (well often enough anyway) what they do and want them to continue.  However, what we are talking about here is not that, if ACS et al were serious about identifying and prosecuting offenders I would have no problem, and would have no fear either (I don't down load or up load others copyrighted works without their permission) but I do do things that *might* get me on the list, and then I would probably be in receipt of what amounts to a demand for money with threats for no good reason.
Whilst I understand your desire not to deprive the rights holders of their rights, what I can't quite understand is why you are (apparently) not willing to defend your own customer database from being mined for the purposes of extorting money by a 3rd party.

Now that is one skewed repsonse from Fletch. The idea that because some body of people have few legal options open to them that this then justifies you in providing information about your customers which you know can lead to false allegations against that customer and that customer has even less chance of defending themselves against the might that multi-million pound industry is perverse. You seem to charactarise the creative industries as helpless when in fact it is the falsely accused that stand little chance against them. They should be provided with information which has stood up scrutiny. If it can't pass the scrutiny of the courts it should not be provided. It is for you as a reponsible company to defend the interests of your customers. Your loyalty is not to the creative industries. It is their fight to have, not yours, unless you are compelled.

Quote from: Fletch

Simply put the report stated that following disclosure, ACS:Law hadn't written to any of our customers, and therefore no one had been taken to court.

So what is plusnet going to do about the blatant lie told by ACS Law, I received a letter of claim from the nov 09 NPO and sent you the letter as proof

Quote from: Fletch

Customers have asked why we don’t take the same approach as TalkTalk on NPO requests for disclosure.  My understanding is that TalkTalk to date have not challenged applications legally, i.e. they have not been in court to oppose an NPO, rather they have said they would do so if brought to court.  Digital rights holders do need a method to protect their rights online, and at the moment the NPO process is one of the few ways for them to do so.  Fletch

So basically you won't challenge the NPO because you still believe that this is an "Anti-PIracy" method that rights holders are entitled to use. Have we not made it plainly obvious that this is a revenue generating method not an anti-piracy one?
Why do you think TalkTalk are not listed on the NPO anymore eh Fletch? That's right.....you said it yourself. They told the solicitors that they WOULD challenge the NPO if brought to court.
hmm....why don't they appear on the NPO's now? What are ACS Law and the others hiding? If there was nothing to hide, if thier so called evidence was infallible then why wouldn't they welcome a challenge from an ISP? because they know they would lose
I am utterly gobsmacked at your blatant disregard for your customers and your apparent incomprehension of the total farce of this whole scheme....it's a joke. This is not anti-piracy.  Anyone would think you're getting something out of this! I give up....we waste our breath on PN..what a spineless company.
The rights holders have options, they always have. Some lowlife found a loophole in the law to abuse and make money from. YOU are aiding this.
PN can still challenge the NPO and put an end to it.  The fact that you still don't do this speaks volumes.

Quote from: davethir

Quote from: Fletch Simply put the report stated that following disclosure, ACS:Law hadn't written to any of our customers, and therefore no one had been taken to court.  So what is plusnet going to do about the blatant lie told by ACS Law, I received a letter of claim from the nov 09 NPO and sent you the letter as proof

Are you going to bring this to the attention of CMW?

Quote from: Bob

Am I missing something here or was this thread started back in May?

@ Bob Pullen
I'd like to remind you of this thread from February (3 months earlier than May) which you contributed to.
http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,83559.msg689243.html#msg689243

@Fletch - that is the worst post I've seen you make in this thread, for all the reasons given (eg by Tidgy) above.
For the hard of understanding:

• Talk Talk make it clear they will contest NPO requests


• As a result Talk Talk are not included in them.


• As a result, Talk Talk are protecting their customers from these completely unacceptable extortion methods.


• It is not Plus nets job to protect the rightsholders at the expense of plusnets customers. You do not represent them, and have no legal responsibility to them.


• This in any case is not about rights, it is about revenue. It is called speculative invoicing.


• The methods used to identify people are clearly fallible (How accurate are your databases of IP to User per time for years back? How good are the scammers at maintaining that data integrity? How good are the scammers at accurately determining the time when a file was downloaded, and maintaining the integrity of that data.)


• In other words how convinced are you that all the accusations will be valid, and given how much stress they cause - do you even care.

Given all the above - WHY will plusnet simply NOT STATE that they will contest the NPO's - and then, if necessary, do so.
@Fletch - your statement implies that plusnet believes the behaviour of these lawyers to be reasonable. If that is the case, then I have lost a long held faith in the integrity of Plusnet.
I personally have never used file sharing, for legal purposes, or otherwise, and have no concern that I could be validly accused. I AM concerned that I can be the victim of speculative invoicing simply because the perpetrators don't care if they accuse validly, they only care about scaring people into giving them money. And they are being aided and abetted by Plusnet.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Sorry for double post but this is important:
Please read the thread at the link I give in my previous post. It also gives us hints as to how we should respond to Plusnets behaviour
You - Plusnet - were being urged in the STRONGEST terms, to contest these requests back in February 2010 (again for the hard of understanding - 6 months ago). This was backed up with links to evidence and accounts of the illegitimacy of the organisations making the requests.
WHY ARE WE STILL EVEN DISCUSSING IT?
Unless Plusnet agree with the approach, and are more than willing to go along with it?
I've been reading this thread for much of my spare time today. Up until the last post of Fletch, I thought Plusnet were taking the issue seriously, and behaving responsibly. Now I feel pretty certain that you are not. Frankly I am sickened.
*wanders over to Talk Talk site - kicks tyres of talk talk  - looks unhappy*  

Short of swearing and getting myself banned (if thats possible) all i am going to say is
Fletch, your response sir, is an absolute joke. I hope your proud.

I don't think Fletch has any powers within Plusnet legal circles.
All the members who have posted have said it all.
Duhhh, we have not sent any letters so we have not taken anyone to court.
How about asking ACS to ask for IP's information when they intend to take court action and if not do not ask for them.

Bit late in the day, but it looks like ACS:Law get your details from Plusnet on the grounds that they suspect you have committed a criminal offence.
Then they use the information to pretend to start a civil action.
Like many things they do, this is surely of dubious legality?