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

[#1]

Didn't realise that, thanks.
dick:quote

[#2]

Quote from: et0

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?

Ahaha i laughed at that as well. It's pretty easy to run a torrent client or server 24/7, i have a small QNAP device capable of running a torrent server (obviously i have never looked at this or used it :o).
But the ignorance of this woman shows the level at which ACS thought they could target and bully these people who knew nothing to pay up.

I did laugh when she said
"I would never download a film like CHUBBY CHASERS"
"my partner was made redundant and was asleep" ahaha

[#3]

Quote from: fourfourdevon

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.

How about they charge the cost of a years internet access and give each IP they send free internet for that year.

[#4]

Quote from: et0

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)

I'm pretty sure that any monetary gains that PN might make would be far outweighed by the negative publicity, and the money they'd lose because of it. If PN were to start charging, it would only be to cover their costs, and most importantly, to act as a deterrent in the first place. If they make some money out of it, fair enough, but I don't believe that would be their sole reason for doing it.

[#5]

Quote from: Toolbox

How about they charge the cost of a years internet access and give each IP they send free internet for that year.

Has some merit, although Plusnet would need to first have the court agree that that was a reasonable price to ask (1 years subs) and that the subscriber could be informed of the court order (hence why they suddenly got free internet), but perhaps there is a theme here Plusnet could look at?

[#6]

Plusnet were/are going to start charging.
You ask Fletch.

[#7]

Quote from: Toolbox

Plusnet were/are going to start charging. You ask Fletch.

If it deters ACS:Law and co from asking for the contact details in the first place, I say let them charge. £50 per IP address ought to do it.

[#8]

Quote from: et0

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

Thats a rash but common misconception, the argument is one similar to if you car is hypothetically stolen and it jumps red lights, etc. The car is registered in your name, but if you have good grounds to cause reasonable doubt that it was not you driving, you will not be charged.
There is clearly reasonable doubt that it is not the account holder that was performing the alledged downloads.

[#9]

Plusnet were due to start charging, so that the rest of the customer base didn't have to subsidise ACS:Law or Gallant McMillan's 'fishing' expedition.
There are real costs incurred by responding to the NPOs - someone has to collate that information together from the relevant sources, check it for (in)accuracy etc.  
IMO, I would rather Plusnet charged ACS:Law than pay for it out of my subscription paymetns every month.
B.

[#10]

Quote from: fourfourdevon

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.

Simple. Plusnet don't pre-agree not to contest the order.

• Doesn't make it easy for those with flimsy evidence to gain a court order


• No costs to anyone


• No customer data exposed

(and in the event that a copyright holder actually had strong evidence that someone had committed an infringement they'd still be able to apply to court and potentially gain an NPO - it would just mean that they'd actually have to disclose their evidence for fair testing)
Plusnet have an opportunity to demonstrate (a modified version of) this win/win/win/win approach on October 4th. I guess then we'll see how seriously they're actually taking all of this and how much of it is PR fluff in an attempt to pacify it's customers that it clearly seems to think are idiots.
Edit: Typos and added bullet points

[#11]

Or this whole debacle could just be a ploy to get rid of what Plusnet sees as its heavy file sharer users, as they can't afford to upgrade their archaic infrastructure to cope with them.

The PN team have gone very quiet since the BBC news article

[#12]

Quote from: foxtrck

Or this whole debacle could just be a ploy to get rid of what Plusnet sees as its heavy file sharer users, as they can't afford to upgrade their archaic infrastructure to cope with them.

^^ The stupidest comment I have read thus far.

[#13]

Quote from: foxtrck

Or this whole debacle could just be a ploy to get rid of what Plusnet sees as its heavy file sharer users, as they can't afford to upgrade their archaic infrastructure to cope with them.

Not sure this makes any difference to Plusnet, as Plusnet throttle your connection once youve reached your limit, i.e. heavy file sharers can't exist on Plusnets network, their policies won't allow heavy file share users.

[#14]

Quote from: foxtrck

Or this whole debacle could just be a ploy to get rid of what Plusnet sees as its heavy file sharer users, as they can't afford to upgrade their archaic infrastructure to cope with them.

If we wanted to do that we could have reduced allowances at the last product refresh, or changed chargeable times etc, and saved all this negative feedback. We're adding capacity faster than ever before, and have been doing for many months.
We don't condone piracy, but a heavy user is a heavy user, it's not *what* they're using that matters.
I love a good conspiracy theory, but that one is just not a viable one.
The PN team is me and Bob, Bob's gone home early (he's worked a LOT of hours over the last few days) and I'm trying.

[#15]

I think/hope Plusnet (Not BT) turn up in the next court NPO but with a team of legal advisers and a few IT professionals.