Plusnet will give your personal details to ACS Law with not informing you!!

[#1]

Quote from: Lorenzo48

Did plusnet levy a charge per IP like SKY did?

No, they did not, they have stated they will in future, not as a money making exersize I believe, but as a genuine attempt both to cover their costs and to act as a deterrent since the charge from ISP lowers the profit for the solicitor.

[#2]

Quote from: fourfourdevon

Quote from: Lorenzo48 Did plusnet levy a charge per IP like SKY did? No, they did not, they have stated they will in future, not as a money making exersize I believe, but as a genuine attempt both to cover their costs and to act as a deterrent since the charge from ISP lowers the profit for the solicitor.

I'm not sure I like that answer.  At all.

[#3]

Quote from: fourfourdevon

No, they did not

So effectively PN's customers end up paying for this when the NPO process explicitly allows for charging to cover costs!
Given the way people are complaining about PN's attitude to their customers this just adds insult to injury.

[#4]

Quote from: et0

On the other hand, there are an awful lot of people claiming "I really didn't do this".  Are they all be lying?  It seems unlikely.

I don't feel surprised that so many are innocent. They only thing the IP identifies is the account holder. Considering an average household may consist of 2 Adults and 2 Children all using the same internet account then it's highly likely that a large number of people receiving the letters are actually innocent of the infringement itself.

[#5]

I've seen what SKY were being paid, good money if you can get it 

[#6]

Quote from: et0

Anyone have any insight to this?

BeingThreatend have a PDF all about this, and I and others have made comments here about that same issue which *seem* to have had some impact on Plusnet/BT current attitude the court orders.
i.e. there are any number of reasons why the data might be inaccurate, and if you look at the data supplied by BT/Plusnet to ACS:Law you can see instantly it is full of holes (litterally has many entries where Plusnet have no idea who if anyone was using that IP at that time) which makes you wonder if *any* of the data is accurate, at best, using some professional knowledge both of IP networks and of data integrity issues, I guess the data no more than 70% accurate, which means in a random sample of 10 people from the list, at least 3 will be entirely innocent.

[#7]

Quote from: mrmarkus1981

I've seen what SKY were being paid, good money if you can get it

was it 118 good old english pounds per ip? now if you think about it that's most likely more profit than pn make from a customer in a year

[#8]

The scheme seems more profitable to the ISP;s if less than 1000 IP's are sent per month.
Maybe why Plusnet only sent 880  

[#9]

Quote from: Tidgy

Quote from: et0 On the other hand, there are an awful lot of people claiming "I really didn't do this".  Are they all be lying?  It seems unlikely. I don't feel surprised that so many are innocent. They only thing the IP identifies is the account holder. Considering an average household may consist of 2 Adults and 2 Children all using the same internet account then it's highly likely that a large number of people receiving the letters are actually innocent of the infringement itself.

There is that, though of course legally speaking they are liable for anything that gets downloaded over the connection they pay for.
I had to cringe a bit at that BBC article, the girl saying "and it can't possibly have been my partner downloading [xxxxxxxx] because we were in bed asleep at the time"..  Ever wondered why he leaves the computer on all night, dear?

[#10]

Quote from: et0

I'm not sure I like that answer.  At all.

You don't like that they will charge in future?  Or that they didn't charge?
Plusnet are in a loose/loose position with this one.
No charge = makes it easier for the person seeking the court order
Charge = make it look like Plusnet are profiting from the suffering of their customers
If you can come up with a way for Plusnet to win at this one Im sure they'd be happy to here.

[#11]

Quote from: mrmarkus1981

I've seen what SKY were being paid, good money if you can get it

Indeed, Sky do *seem* to have viewed it as a money making opportunity.

[#12]

Quote from: mrmarkus1981

The scheme seems more profitable to the ISP;s if less than 1000 IP's are sent per month. Maybe why Plusnet only sent 880

Plusnet have to supply what the court order tells them to supply, nothing less, nothing more.

[#13]

@f fourfourdevon  MY BAD!

[#14]

Quote

You don't like that they will charge in future?  Or that they didn't charge?

I'm concerned with the profit-making aspect of it.   This makes it more willing to comply with the requests (although I don't know if they have any other avenue available, if a court has ordered it)

[#15]

Quote from: et0

There is that, though of course legally speaking they are liable for anything that gets downloaded over the connection they pay for.

Nope, not true, as you will find if you read the email archive, ACS:Law know full well that the guilty person is the person breaking the law, so long as the bill payer didn't authorise the downloading, then they are innocent, just as Plusnet are innocent of the downloading even though it is alleged it took place on their network.