cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Interesting Letter?

tonycollinet
Grafter
Posts: 1,140
Thanks: 5
Registered: ‎14-08-2007

Re: Interesting Letter?

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.
artmo
Aspiring Champion
Posts: 19,524
Thanks: 421
Registered: ‎12-08-2007

Re: Interesting Letter?

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.
deadkenny
Rising Star
Posts: 257
Thanks: 2
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎13-09-2007

Re: Interesting Letter?

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.
tonycollinet
Grafter
Posts: 1,140
Thanks: 5
Registered: ‎14-08-2007

Re: Interesting Letter?

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!!!
godsell4
Rising Star
Posts: 3,366
Thanks: 15
Registered: ‎06-04-2007

Re: Interesting Letter?

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