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

[#1]

ACS Law - gone, Media C.A.T gone, Gallant McMillan - gone, Ministry of sound - Gone. this only leaves DIGIPROTECT left in this business.
plus net, please get an injunction against DIGIPROTECT to stop them using any of the 880 (877 names have not yet received a letter) names from the Nov 09 NPO,
yes i will not let this drop,
i myself have received my letter from =ACS law and they have been proven to be just a "paper tiger" and they hold no fear for me but i am doing this for the other 877 people you did not see fit to defend and just gave their names away to this company.  if they have gone bust and we have not heard then please inform us of that information, if on the other hand they are still trading and have blatantly ignored your request for the report as stipulated in the nov NPO then it is your moral duty to stop them using any information gained in this way.
i would love to stop "hassling you for answers"  but i and i think many more would like to see this end fully with all our names and addresses not being put at risk.
come on Plusnet, be the one ISP to stand up for your subscribers.

[#2]

The judge said some very interesting things in regard to NPO's, I suspect nobody will be able to obtain an NPO for IP addresses on such easy terms ever again.
Amongst the things he said about NPO's was that the information obtain by them is under the control of the court, and that court could restrict or even rescind the use at any time.  He also made it very clear that obtaining the NPO's for the purpose of running a speculative invoicing scheme was wrong, and that perhaps in future NPO's disclosures  should be managed by a 3rd party solicitor effectively acting on behalf of the court to ensure that no abuse took place.  The judge also suggested that the correct way to deal with copyright infringement cases like this would be to select a few defendants from an NPO and pursue those in court to the end of the judicial process BEFORE pursuing the rest.
Theres a lot in the judgement, you can read it here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/6.html

[#3]

An interesting part for me is this (in bold)

Quote

45. For the hearing on 24th January the claimant filed a first witness statement of Mr Andrew Crossley of ACS:Law dated 21st January 2011. This statement dealt with the Norwich Pharmacal orders (see paragraph 16 above) and explains that ACS:Law inherited clients previously represented by Davenport Lyons. The processes and precedents incorporated by ACS:Law were a direct development of the same processes and precedents used by Davenport Lyons 46. The statement explains (paragraph 3) that the Media CAT agreements are not always even with the copyright owner. They are either with the copyright owner or an exclusive licensee. So in some cases the copyright owner does not appear to be involved. When Media CAT's claim is based on an agreement with a mere exclusive licensee it will be all the more important to identify the copyright owner and decide whether or not the case can proceed without them.

PN you stated that you were waiting for the Judges verdict before doing anything further. Your lawyers surely have enough information now? These licenses need investigating in detail. Are Digiprotect a "Copyright owner" or should they too be making JOINT claims.
You say you are listening, but we see you do nothing. I know the internal cogs work slowly, but please, please update us. Are you investigation further? Will you go back to the Judge that granted the NPO's to get them nulled?

[#4]

Quote from: fourfourdevon

... Theres a lot in the judgement, you can read it here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/6.html

Fascinating reading - I'm about 1/5th through.

[#5]

I think perhaps the judge had a eye to who might be the main consumers of judgement, since for a judicial ruling I found it surprisingly readable, only on two or three occasions thinking I needed a law dictionary.

[#6]

Probably in the sense that it could be used in written replies to speculative invoicers in the future...

[#7]

From BBC News -
ACS:Law told file-sharing case must continue by court
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12396443

[#8]

Quote from: Tidgy

You say you are listening, but we see you do nothing. I know the internal cogs work slowly, but please, please update us. Are you investigation further? Will you go back to the Judge that granted the NPO's to get them nulled?

Please respond Plusnet. What are you doing?

[#9]

They aren't listening.

[#10]

Quote

QUOTE « Reply #1 on Today at 16:20 » Thanks a lot rogadodge! I'll make sure the right people get recognised for the good work on this. Adam Walker Plusnet Support Team Service Status :: RSS :: Email Report to moderator    Logged ]

It nice to see that plusnet are not ignoring everyone...........just us
Please acknowledge us even if you cannot answer our question,  why has fletch not commented on BT's stance in light of the ruling from judge Birss in the Patents court.

[#11]

As i appear to have a bit of time on my hands this morning i decided to do a little digging on our DIGIPROTECT friends,
i found an article from 2008 which shows that their motto "Turn piracy into profit" is just that, it is not about protecting copyright.
http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-lawyers-start-protecting-gay-gestapo-porn-081118/

Quote

However, most worrying is the leaked contract between DigiProtect and Evil Angel, as it contains the following paragraph, which one would believe applies to these UK cases too: http://cabalamat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/vertrag.pdf Quote "To achieve the purpose outlined in clause 1, LICENSOR grants DIGIPROTECT the exclusive right to make the movies listed in Appendix 1 worldwide available to the public via remote computer networks, so-called peer-2-peer and internet file sharing networks such as e-Donkey, Kazaa, Bitorrent, etc. for the duration of this agreement" This destroys claims that these actions are for strict anti-piracy purposes, this is a clearly a money-making operation, designed from the ground-up.

as i said this came from a torrent freak article from 2008, and the files in question are pornography, as far as i am aware DIGIPROTECT were only granted an NPO for GURU JOSH INFINITY. if that is the case and they indeed did put the music on line as is suggested in the contract, then that leads to a much greater case of copyright infringement, as the album they are claiming for NOW THATS WHAT I CALL MUSIC 71 contains 41 other songs which they have no license for. isnt it time that the license that was granted to DIGIPROTECT from GURU JOSH or his management be checked to ensure that
A. They have the correct rights (IANAL so i don't know what they should have) remember it has been PROVEN that MediaCAT did not infact have the correct rights.
B. they did not put the albums on line in the first place, if they did then it is a clear case of copyright infringement.
C. what do they intend to do with the names and addresses given to them so willingly by PLUSNET
on another note, now that the "IP Address EVIDENCE" has been questioned in court, by Judge Birss, is it PLUSNET AND BT'S intention to question this with OFCOM, after all you know how flimsy the so called evidence was in the MEDIACAT V 27, this is the same information as will be required if the DIGITAL ECONOMY ACT ever sees the light of day in its present form. you PLUSNET will be policing the internet for the rights holders and you will have to have a way of proving that the download actually happened, that it came from the IP address in question, that the person behind the PC is the correct person (or are you just going to send the letter to the account holder like ACS LAW). that the time in question, the IP address was allocated to that person.
i know that your systems are not that sophisticated, you would have to employ deep packet inspection, this thankfully is still illegal at this time, and you would have to employ some kind of individual logon to each account with no form of mistake. (fingerprint etc) not feasible.
so hopefully common sense will prevail and the BPI, hollywood, disney etc will be told that the ISPs are not their police force that the money they paid to mandelson to create the DEA is lost and that they will have to create a sustainable business model instead of trying to fight the very people they should be trying to get as customers.

[#12]

Another link that may interest about possible resurrections of situation
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/365098/barrister-fears-acs-law-will-be-back?DCMP=NLC-Newsletters

[#13]

Quote from: Tidgy

Will you go back to the Judge that granted the NPO's to get them nulled?

With reference only to those NPO's granted to MediaCat, I believe paragraph 108. of the judgement along explains that with MediaCAT's ceasing to trade, those NPO's are now legally inaccessible.
See Slyck forum posting for details.

[#14]

Quote from: davethir

It nice to see that plusnet are not ignoring everyone...........just us Please acknowledge us even if you cannot answer our question,  why has fletch not commented on BT's stance in light of the ruling from judge Birss in the Patents court.

According to what I read in the first 37 pages of your thread, it would seem Plusnet only quired their lawyers due to this thread created by innocent customers.
A simple search of law websites flags up concerns and issues regarding certain law firms and individuals connected with them.
When BT and Plusnet recieved initial enquires did they not run a check on those law firms and individuals and question why they should hand over customers details without objection?
800+ innocent customers some of whom were wrongfully accused of downloading pornography had their details insecurely passed on to a legal firm, those details and accusations were then made public.
Despite claiming to have robust systems protecting customers details, no explaination has been given how the system allowed an email of unencrypted information was to be distributed.
Didn't the court order stipulate the information had to be supplied encrypted on CD?
Last July Plusnet stated a charge would be made for supplying customers details, was that merely to cover costs or to price companies like ACS Law out of demanding customer details?
Are customers who's details were sent unencryted to be informed of such a breach of their privacy?
Could the magnificent 27 bypass the the Office of Information and a bring action against BT or whoever for breaching data protection laws?

[#15]

Quote from: christmas

Last July Plusnet stated a charge would be made for supplying customers details, was that merely to cover costs or to price companies like ACS Law out of demanding customer details?

From my reading of what Plusnet have said, it was put in place to act as a disincentive to companies like ACS:Law by undermining the profit motive of speculative invoicing.