Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Interesting Letter?
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Plusnet Community
- :
- Forum
- :
- Help with my Plusnet services
- :
- Broadband
- :
- Interesting Letter?
- « Previous
-
- 1
- 2
- Next »
Re: Interesting Letter?
19-02-2010 11:32 AM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
Quote from: Bob
I'm certainly not going to get into a legal debate about this.
Fair enough and understood.
But just to add to the info you should give to your legal people. It seems (from what I have read) that just the statement that you will contest the court order causes you (as an ISP) to be dropped from the request. They don't want to set a precedent of losing.
This seems an easy win for you, and a win your customers would expect you to try for.
Message 16 of 20
(260 Views)
Re: Interesting Letter?
19-02-2010 12:00 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
That's an interesting link collinet. Thanks for posting. As I said in my earlier post ACS is presently under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Message 17 of 20
(260 Views)
Re: Interesting Letter?
22-02-2010 12:16 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
Sadly this is an industry that's becoming much like debt collection agencies.
Haven't had anything on file sharing but I did have a take-down notice on You Tube of some (shaky cam amateur) concert footage I shot at an open air concert on public land. I know the UK copyright law in respect to this and the fact is the copyright to the footage is mine regardless. The only enforcement opportunity the gig management had was to prevent cameras being entered into the area, but once a shot is taken (even on private property), the copyright is still with the person shooting it (trademark infringement is another matter, but there wasn't any and a live concert in public is not copyrightable). Anyway, Warner waded in and told You Tube it was copyright infringement. You Tube didn't stand up for me or give me a chance to defend myself, they just took the footage down and blacklisted my account all because Warner told them to do so. They did say I could subsequently appeal but risked having my account deleted if I did!
So it's no surprise that the music and movie industry gets companies to just trawl around, harvest what they think might be infringement and then regardless of whether it is or not, they move it onto a so called "law" company to do the heavy handed work.
They still don't get it though. Regardless of the legal or illegal activities going on in regards to file sharing, they still haven't worked out that the game has changed. The likes of Spotify have, and (for example) have presented a very good legal way of consuming music without going down the traditional CD route (which is actually still doing very good business), that to me does away with any need for "file sharing", at least for music.
Anyway, just my 2p.
Haven't had anything on file sharing but I did have a take-down notice on You Tube of some (shaky cam amateur) concert footage I shot at an open air concert on public land. I know the UK copyright law in respect to this and the fact is the copyright to the footage is mine regardless. The only enforcement opportunity the gig management had was to prevent cameras being entered into the area, but once a shot is taken (even on private property), the copyright is still with the person shooting it (trademark infringement is another matter, but there wasn't any and a live concert in public is not copyrightable). Anyway, Warner waded in and told You Tube it was copyright infringement. You Tube didn't stand up for me or give me a chance to defend myself, they just took the footage down and blacklisted my account all because Warner told them to do so. They did say I could subsequently appeal but risked having my account deleted if I did!
So it's no surprise that the music and movie industry gets companies to just trawl around, harvest what they think might be infringement and then regardless of whether it is or not, they move it onto a so called "law" company to do the heavy handed work.
They still don't get it though. Regardless of the legal or illegal activities going on in regards to file sharing, they still haven't worked out that the game has changed. The likes of Spotify have, and (for example) have presented a very good legal way of consuming music without going down the traditional CD route (which is actually still doing very good business), that to me does away with any need for "file sharing", at least for music.
Anyway, just my 2p.
Message 18 of 20
(260 Views)
Re: Interesting Letter?
25-02-2010 9:38 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
But this isn't a case of a rights holder legitimately perusing their damages. This is law firm getting into bed with rights holders (of dubious reputation) to use copyright infringement as a revenue stream.
It is even alleged that the material is released into the fileshareing systems by the rightsholders in the first place!!!
It is even alleged that the material is released into the fileshareing systems by the rightsholders in the first place!!!
Message 19 of 20
(260 Views)
Re: Interesting Letter?
26-02-2010 5:30 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
Quote from: collinet ... I will be coming after you under the terms of the data protection act. I don't know if I will have a legal leg to stand on, but you can count on it that I will be finding out.
PN, sorry I mean BT, are on dodgy ground in all this, as you point out the DPA is one very powerful law, it could be many thousands of people would have a valid case if this ACS Law company are found to have no cause, PN/BT get fined per incident I believe and that could be very costly.
--
3Mb FTTC
https://portal.plus.net/my.html?action=data_transfer_speed
3Mb FTTC
https://portal.plus.net/my.html?action=data_transfer_speed
Message 20 of 20
(260 Views)
- « Previous
-
- 1
- 2
- Next »
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page