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

[#1]

Quote from: SteveA

Is there any actual proof that the original data gathering process actually is robust and that it is actually real?

None has ever been presented, and all those that know about these things say there is a high degree of error
This is what ACS:Laws advisors say:
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=44092&p=558323&hilit=expert#p558323

Quote

h. The Davenport Lyons model was developed by a person with no academic qualifications or experience, of a technical or mathematical nature, that would be accepted by the courts as being of a standard sufficient to be classified as “Expert”.

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=44092&p=558200&hilit=expert#p558200

Quote

" I do not believe that we should answer this as I assume, having no detailed knowledge of the capture process either from the data monitor suppliers or the superficial expert witness report, we do not capture either the swarm size or the period which the IP) address was making available. In addition we have no knowledge of how many people the IP address madfe the work available to. That is an impossibility. "

And for those of us that have seen the files submitted by the ISP, it's plainly obvious there is a massive error rate, at the very least 25%, and almost certainly a LOT higher.

[#2]

Quote from: Mand

Obviously that's not what the law firms say in court, or the evidence collectors say in their sales pitch.

Some evidence collectors DO say it in their sales pitch. Apparently Digiprotect's solgan is "Turn piracy into profit". I can't read German but the BBC have reported it here http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_7766000/7766448.stm

Quote

Little is known about DigiProtect, the German firm behind the latest wave of copyright litigation. The company is based in Frankfurt and brands its business with the motto "turn piracy into profit".

I do believe that ACS Law even mention something simular on their web site. I would check, but it's down.
Perhaps if there were proof provided of actual losses incurred to the copyright owners i may be swayed into believing that the claims for damages are just. Somehow i can't see that happening...
Shouldn't there also be some evidence of the project reducing filesharing? Where are the figures that demonstrate and back up this claim?
Lastly, if these clients are so worried about the misuse of their property then why is it still on torrents? Why no take-down notices?
I quote from the Claims form

Quote

Our client's primary aim is to prevent the misuse of it's members property

Really?
It just amazes me that anyone would see this as an effective and professional way to tackle piracy. Let alone allow it to happen through a legal process.

[#3]

I find this sorry state of affairs quire frightening. Whilst I would be extremely angry to be falsely accused, my wife would freak out if we started receiving solicitors letters accusing us of such activity. Please excuse my ignorance but is this downloading issue restricted to the use of the P2P route? I note that I never have any P2P traffic on my monthly statement so if this is the problem mechanism wonder if PN could set up the control panel so that those of us who have no interest in illegal filesharing could actually remove the facility from our account.
Finally if you're there Mand, I do feel for you! It seems to be your destiny to try to sooth rightfully angry customers and hence take some of the flak caused by the actions of certain PN managers. I just hope your management appreciates all that you do to support them.

[#4]

This particular route the lawyers have found for demanding money is limited to P2P traffic yes.  However not all P2P traffic is illegal downloads and not all illegal downloads come via P2P traffic, in your account settings here at Plusnet you can block P2P traffic from your connection (although it also blocks other things as well so make sure it doesn't block stuff you want) however, due to way these solicitors collect their data even that would not mean that they would not accuse you.

[#5]

Quote from: fourfourdevon

in your account settings here

Looks like you missed out the link.

[#6]

Just realised there's a bit of a discrepancy.
How many torrents (Linux excluded) actually have zillions of downloaders?
Of these super-torrents, how many have hundreds from a single ISP?
This rubbish music must have been downloaded by hundreds of thousands of people.
Is this credible?

[#7]

I'm not sure your maths works out there, but you've got a point. I can't imagine that so-many-thousand people all wanted to download Evacuate The Dancefloor. (At least I hope they don't!)
Moreover, using a torrent to get a single song seems rather like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

[#8]

Something to consider
IF the evidence gathered is not sufficently accurate or verified, the question has to be asked;
Are Plusnet failing in their duty of care to thier customers?

[#9]

Quote

Looks like you missed out the link.

I certainly did, thanks for that.

[#10]

Also imagine those IP addresses of shared connections, for example Libraries with little network restrictions or even nowadays the free internet connections Universities give to students in halls!
They are picking on singular residential addresses for a reason.
On a different note, I've found a picture of some lawyer from ACS

[#11]

Out of curiosity I decided to listen to 'Evacuate the Dancefloor' and having done so I would be more ashamed to be accused of downloading that than some of the more prurient pornography  

It even caused Napster to crash.

[#12]

I Gather that plus net are still going to be dishing out all our private info If they are court ordered to do so from a different company? The outcome of this and plus nets handling of this will determine whether I stay or go, I'm not to comfy with this.

[#13]

Ideally they should refuse to cooperate with anyone without first being happy about the methods used to obtain the "evidence", and that the requests for details are lawful.
Oh, and only if they're ordered to by a court of law.

[#14]

Quote from: Steve

I Gather that plus net are still going to be dishing out all our private info If they are court ordered to do so from a different company? The outcome of this and plus nets handling of this will determine whether I stay or go, I'm not to comfy with this.

If a court orders them to do so, what choice do they have?
What people are hoping for (Expecting) is that PN mounts a robust defence against the motion.

[#15]

Well after this fiasco I would hope they do what TalkTalk and virgin media have done.