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

[#1]

Quote from: davethir

One suggestion is that if the Law insists on allowing these NPO's then they should limit the amount of unknown items ie IP adresses to be limited to say 10. that way the rights holders can still apply and get an NPO to ask the ISPs for addresses but it will not be as cost effective as they will need to file numerous times (costs will increase) (but if they are protecting artists rights then that shouldnot matter)

I was hoping for this too, but Ministry of Sound say that they have the right to pursue everyone regardless of how many infringements they have recorded against them.
I can't agree that this would be good business for them, but i can't deny their right to do it. Perhaps they could be monitored as to how many of those they do threaten with court action that they actually DO take to court. We just don't want these threats to be 'empty'. I would like to see them present the data in full to each alleged infringer that they threaten with court action. Show them the time length that the file was shared etc. Why shouldn't this data be openly available at pre-action protocol stage?
Really though i believe that the Ministry of Sound are making a huge mistake. If someone wanders into a Marks and Spencers and steals a £1 pack of socks and gets caught by the security man then how likely is it they would prosecute that person? Would they make a fuss? Would it be worth it? Or would they make a record of it, warn them and send them away. If someone was caught repeatedly then they would prosecute. I'm not sure that's a good analogy but i'm sure you get my drift?
Perhaps a different approach would be best? But it seems the big company's don't WANT to do this.........
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1745795/virgin-media-looks-spotify-music-service
BROADBAND ISP Virgin Media will partner with Spotify after its plan to launch a music service of its own was scuppered by the greed of the major music recording labels

Quote

Big media, whether it be film studios or record labels, have let their collective greed rule out any sensible approach to offering customers a fair price for content. Instead companies such as Virgin Media, who offer a free shop front for the rights holders to make even more money have been shunned in the hope that the decades old model of charge as much as you dare will win the day

This just feeds my annoyance at the whole thing. WE are your customers. Why wont the music and film industry work with the ISP’s to provide the public what they are crying out for!
One word. Greed.

[#2]

Another embarrassment for BT thanks to a cock-up from a contractor.  I got one of these last night :-
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4427-bt-race-to-infinity-in-another-email-calamity.html

[#3]

Heh. I almost put my number and email into the BT Infinity site to enter their competition thing. Then I thought better of it, and I'm thankful I did or my email address would now be circulating the intertubes.

[#4]

To add weight to PN argument against handing over users details here is another company that has just leaked a load of private e mails onto the internet !
http://torrentfreak.com/movie-rental-outfit-hacked-emails-leaked-redirected-to-the-pirate-bay-101018

Quote

ACAPOR, a Portuguese organization which represents the interests of local movie rental companies, has been defaced by Anonymous as part of Operation Payback. The ACAPOR website currently shows a message from Anonymous and then redirects to The Pirate Bay. To make the shaming complete, a 640 MB email database of the outfit was leaked and posted to The Pirate Bay.

[#5]

Oh dear. It seems that some people haven't quite learned any lessons from the past few weeks!

[#6]

Quote from: Fletch

Further to my post on Monday, I wanted to provide additional information on the contents of the report we received from ACS:Law.  Simply put the report stated that following disclosure, ACS:Law hadn't written to any of our customers, and therefore no one had been taken to court.   As I said on Monday we asked for clarity about this point as some customers had received letters from ACS:Law in February 2010 in relation to the NPO on the 19th of November 2009.  This was the explicit reason for my request for letters from customers.  I have yet to draw this to conclusion and continue to seek legal advice. Thanks, Fletch

Fletch,
It's been just over a month now. Can you advise if things have moved forward on this report issue? Are Plusnet taking steps to ensure that ACS:Law follow the instructions on the court order? Or are Plusnet going to highlight the concerns of their customers that these NPO's are being granted, our personal information shared and then not used in a timely fashion?

[#7]

I have just found a post from Slyck forums which shows that Plusnet tried to stop ACS Law from using any of the details given to them in the Nov 09 NPO. ACS Law state that their Clients Digiprotect have not issued any claims to any Plusnet customers

Quote

Quote By your above mentioned email you state that in fact Digiprotect has failed to take any steps whatsoever against the persons named in the relevant disclosure by Plusnet pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Order. In these circumstances, we note the following - (1) such is certainly a breach of the Order for Digiprotect to make a written report on such matters; and (2) such shows that contrary to the impression which Digiprotect gave in support of the application for the above mentioned Order, Digiprotect does not in fact consider that the prompt pursuit of the persons disclosed by Plusnet is reasonably necessary [cont.…]

They go on to say that there can be no excuse for not using the Nov 09 NPO to pursue Plusnet customers, as per the terms of the NPO. Now we all know for certain that ACS Law were LYING about not processing any of the Names given to them for DIGIPROTECT by Plusnet, as I am one of the people sent a letter, and I know of at least two others who frequent this forum.

Quote

[…cont.] Quote As to the breach of the Order, this is a matter which Digiprotect can overcome by the delivery forthwith to Plusnet of a written report confirming that nothing has been done in relation to the disclosure by Plusnet. However that very failure to process the disclosure by Plusnet is a serious matter. It is clear that an applicant for Norwich Pharmacal relief, in general and certainly in this case, is under an implied obligation to the Court to deal with such processing with reasonable care and diligence. Plusnet considers that there can be no excuse for the failure to process the 880 name and address details provided by Plusnet, pursuant to the Order [cont.…]

Plusnet then go on to say that they will require a written report from Digiprotect immediately to explain why they have not processed any names and addreses (We know they have so it will be interesting to hear whether or not ACS Law had permission to send these)

Quote

[…cont.] Quote Accordingly Plusnet invites Digiprotect (1 ) to serve a written report forthwith, and (2) to explain precisely why none of the 880 name and address details have not yet been processed. Furthermore, as you envisage in your email, Plusnet will also require another equivalent written report, however, this should be provided within four months time i.e. by close of business on 5 December 2010 and not the six months you suggest. In addition Plusnet reserves the right to seek any further report from you should you not have processed all the data provided by Plusnet by 5 December 2010. If Digiprotect fails to address these matters immediately, Plusnet reserves the right to bring the matter back before the Court for further directions. in an appropriate case such directions could include an Order that Digiprotect is debarred from using any of the disclosure by Plusnet. I particularly like the paragraph which says that Plusnet may go to court to stop Digiprotect from using any of the 880 Names and addresses given to them, So I ask the Question to Plusnet, have you received a report from DIGIPROTECT explaining why they have not proceeded against any Plusnet customer? (Oh wait we know ACS Law have sent at least 3 letters) If Not then have you booked a court appearance to stop DIGIPROTECT from using any of the names and addresses you gave in reference to the Nov 09 NPO? And finally, have you Plusnet, informed the other 877 people who have had their details given to Digiprotect (and were not in any of the leaked emails) that they are at real risk from receiving a letter of claim from either ACS Law, Digiprotect, or any other Shyster lawyer that Digiprotect employ in the future.

Nice to see that we get a mention, even though ACS Law sent a letter back stating that Plusnet could not release the information to us!
Remember ACS Law are not the “Expensive Law firm” we all thought they were, they are facing a £500,000 fine for their incompetency over the Email leak and hopefully Andrew Crossley will be struck off in the near future when the SRA tribunal sits.
[Moderator's note by Thomas (Be3G): fixed quotes and hopefully made things a bit clearer – it was difficult to be certain of the difference between the quoted order, the quoted post, and your own writing.]

[#8]

@tidgy,
I cannot believe it, there have been no posts on this forum since the 18 Oct then just as i am about to post, i see someone has posted
Amazing "great" minds think alike!!

[#9]

Quote from: davethir

@tidgy, I cannot believe it, there have been no posts on this forum since the 18 Oct then just as i am about to post, i see someone has posted

Although it’s been quiet regarding postings I’m still actively searching for a fairer anti piracy method for all parties concerned. I'm always reading the news and forums to keep up to date.
Recently on Slyck (i think) someone a link to this http://pirateverbatim.com/ ; which logs all the Artists views regarding Piracy. I’ve found it very interesting to read the mixture of responses.

Quote from: davethir

Remember ACS Law are not the “Expensive Law firm” we all thought they were, they are facing a £500,000 fine for their incompetency over the Email leak and hopefully Andrew Crossley will be struck off in the near future when the SRA tribunal sits.

ACS:Law have been the most prominent law firm acting for rights holders and due to this and  their approach have been subjected to heated remarks and criticism.  They will probably face a tribunal who will determine if their methods of practice were within the rules and they may face being stuck off, but the rights holders can opt to use any solicitor that will take this scheme onboard. It won’t stop when / if ACS:Law cease to exist and we must not lose sight of that. 

[#10]

Plusnet, Please do not ignore us and think that we will go away, ........
It didnot work in the begining of this thread and it wont work now....
We (I) would like an answer to the following questions, as i think that they have not yet been answered.

Quote

I particularly like the paragraph which says that Plusnet may go to court to stop Digiprotect from using any of the 880 Names and addresses given to them, So I ask the Question to Plusnet, have you received a report from DIGIPROTECT explaining why they have not proceeded against any Plusnet customer? (Oh wait we know ACS Law have sent at least 3 letters) If Not then have you booked a court appearance to stop DIGIPROTECT from using any of the names and addresses you gave in reference to the Nov 09 NPO? And finally, have you Plusnet, informed the other 877 people who have had their details given to Digiprotect (and were not in any of the leaked emails) that they are at real risk from receiving a letter of claim from either ACS Law, Digiprotect, or any other Shyster lawyer that Digiprotect employ in the future.

Please answer the questions.

[#11]

Court appearances are unlikely to be booked until after 5th Dec at the earliest given that that particular date appears as a deadline given to Digiprotect.

[#12]

Quote from: Tidgy

... the rights holders can opt to use any solicitor that will take this scheme onboard. It won’t stop when / if ACS:Law cease to exist and we must not lose sight of that.

Yep. True.
Which is why the court, curteousy of Mr CMW should if possible get a ruling that 'An IP address does not identify an actual person', which means the NPO really is not appropriate and get these people out of the courts. Obviously the data breach was unfortunate, however that was not the scope if the NPO, that is for the ICO and DPA to deal with.

[#13]

An IP address is not proof of guilt and a NPO is only a means to identify a user for further investigation. There is no other means to track down copy right infringement to an individual as it's a civil offence. So if NPO is not acceptable for the posters on this thread perhaps copy right infringement should be a criminal offence.

[#14]

Quite right Dave, I was not going to post again until December when they should be getting a report from one of the companies.
I still can't get over how easy it is for one party to ignore a court order and get away with it.
Maybe ISP's should take the same stance and drag it out for as long as possible and never send the data, or  at least not send any more data until all the other IP's given before have been settled in or out of court.

[#15]

The usual way to do this is to ignore all deadlines and if a response is required by a certain date, send a letter which is of no material use.
When your opponent is spitting blood and finally arranges a court hearing, you deliver the information a few hours before the deadline.
Why do you think these cases where a Hospital accidentally removes the wrong kidney etc can easily drag on for 5-6 years...