Quote from: Bob We haven't been approached and the latest NPO hasn't been granted. A lot was learnt from the ACS:Law debacle though so I'm sure there'd be a reasonable amount of resistance on our part. Thanks for the reply Bob, I will keep an eye on what happens when they resume the application and report back ... View more

I cant believe i am resurecting this thread! we all thought that we had seen the back of speculative invoicing when we got Andrew crossley of ACS Law banned and fined, but no it not over yet..... http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2012/speculative-invoicing-returns Golden Eye international are back trying to get an NPO against many thousands of internet users. can someone at plusnet confirm or deny that plusnet /  BT are not involvbed. if they are a named party then i hope (after what happened last time, that you sat back and did nothing to stop the NPOs being issued despite many posts telling you what was going on) that you will send someone to the court next week when the case resumes to defend your customers. at the moment i can only see that O2 Telephonica are implicated. remember THEY HAVE NO MORE EVIDENCE THAN ACS LAW - AN IP ADDRESS. ... View more

Fantastic news...... ;D ;D Let's hope the government takes note and rethinks the digital economy act An IP address does not = a person. ... View more

i have just been reading RALLI, the website where court cases are listed and the transcriptions are posted and have read the judgement from Mondays ACS law hearing. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/10.html in the transcript the judge questions why ACS law did not adhere to section 11 of the NPO regarding the production of a report to the ISPs Quote ii) Paragraph 11 of the order provides that a report will be provided by the Applicant to the Respondent ISPs within 6 months of the date of the order. The report was to state precisely, from the names disclosed, how many persons were sent letters of claim and against which persons legal proceedings were issued. In her witness statement served well in advance of the hearing Ms Perchal drew attention to this paragraph and made the point that it clearly envisages that the legal proceedings were meant to be issued within 6 months of the order. Plainly that did not happen and before me there is no evidence that any report was ever prepared either. The only point taken on behalf of ACS:Law about this is that the breach of paragraph 11 cannot have caused any wasted costs. In my judgment Mr Parker is right that no wasted costs flow from this apparent breach of the order. I will hear counsel as to whether I should direct ACS:Law and/or Media CAT to provide the report to the court and the defendants' solicitors or explain why there is no report to provide. perhaps PLUSNET should write to Judge Birse and inform him that they did incur costs trying to get ACS Law to provide said report in response to this forum. ... View more

Morning PLUSNET, Please can we have some sort of update to what Fletch said Quote Reply #2148 on 22/03/2011, 15:56 Digiprotect was another client of ACS:Law. We have already disclosed some customer details to them under a court order in early 2010.  Since even before the revelations about ACS:Law, we had been challenging Digiprotect on their use of that data but did not get satisfactory answers. We have now taken the matter back to court and secured an order requiring Digiprotect either to issue proceedings or delete the data. The time for issuing proceedings has now expired and the data should be deleted. Has DIGIPROTECT Destroyed the Data given to them in response to ALL NPO's? Has GALLANT McMILLAN and THE MINISTRY OF SOUND destroyed all data given to them in response to ALL NPO's? Has TILLY BAILLY IRVINE destroyed all data given to them in response to ALL NPO's? Also What is PLUSNET's position regarding the DIGITAL ECONOMY ACT and the ACS Law findings. Afterall JUDGE BIRSE said in court that he did not think that a IP address alone was enough to prove Copyright infringement, and this is the ONLY evidence that a rights holder will need to have someones internet connection disconnected. (he did not rule on this however as the court hearing was only MEDIACAT trying to discontinue the cases not them trying to prove copyright infringement) does PLUSNET think it fair that "Alleged infringers" will have to prove that they did not do the infringements (Prove a negative) rather than the rightsholders having to Proove that they did the deed. ... View more

Quote from: Fletch All; I thought it was time for me to share a more detailed update on what we have been doing in relation to ACS:Law.  Over the last 4 months we have been working to resolve a number of outstanding issues around the Norwich Pharmacal Orders in light of developments concerning ACS:Law.  We can now share with you some of the work .............. Fletch PLUSNET (Fletch) Thank you for your work securing this result. I have been quite vocal in the past regarding this issue and would like to say that I cannot think of any other ISP that would have gone this far for their customers. BT and SKY don't appear as customer focused and I don't think that any other ISP would have investigated the concerns raised on a forum like you have done.. Again I thank you for your efforts and hope you also push for a repeal of the digital economy act as the standard of evidence is exactly the same as used in all these "speculative invoice" cases you mention.  IP ADDRESS IS NOT PROOF OF WRONGDOING. THANKS Davethir ... View more

Quote from: A This topic is no longer on-topic. >:( How did BT / Plusnet escape severe financial penalties for sending unencrypted emails containing personal data? I thought they were supposed to provide the information on a encrypted CD? it looks to me like Plusnet and BT are trying to forget about this....we have had no updates for weeks now. ... View more

I take it from reading that that Prakash Mistry has been made to "Fall on his sword" to protect BT. from the information i have read (in the leaked emails) Prakash was the main legal person dealing with both ACS Law and Plusnet. indeed he wrote to ACS Law when we were demanding that plusnet publish the report received regarding the DIGIPROTECT affair in July last year, who told him that they did not agree to them letting us know the results of this "Report". Obviously as PLUSNET has never actually said to us how many persons names and addresses were given as part of the NOV 09 NPO, then i can only assume that a big multinational corporation with a large legal team were frightened by a 2 bit law firm into not releasing the information. this is an extract from the reply to BTs request for the information Quote "We understand from posts on the Plusnets Community forum purportedly by Richard Fletcher, Chief Operating Officer of Plusnet (enclosed) a minority of your subscribers have been putting pressure on Plusnet to disclose the contents of the written report from our client. However, Paragraph 11 makes no provision for such disclosure. The report we believe is private between our client and Plusnet. In addition, under paragraph 9 of the Order our client is required, “...not to use or disclose any documents or information disclosed pursuant to this Order for any purpose other than pursuing a claim for infringement of copyright...” Any disclosure to third parties by your client of the contents of the report once generated would breach the implied privity of the report and the express obligation of our client under paragraph 9. Our client therefore cannot consent to the disclosure of the written report for the above reasons.  For the Record from the Emails sent by Prakash the figures are 880 people disclosed, 3 letters sent, ZERO people taken to Court. ... View more

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. ... View more

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. ... View more

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. ... View more

Plusnet have you seen this https://www.privacyinternational.org/blog/are-ico-fit-purpose It looks like the bigger you are the larger the law you can ignore. FYI - I hold the management of BT wholely responsible for this not the people at plusnet, who I know have been working behind the scenes. ... View more

Plusnet, Sorry to keep banging on about this but........ ACS LAW's Client DIGIPROTECT (a German company) still has the names and addresses of 880 plusnet subscribers from the NOV 09 NPO. In light of the actions of ACS Law (Shutting down) why does PLUSNET not demand the names and addresses back from DIGIPROTECT, they are currently in contempt (my opinion) of the court order by not providing to plusnet a report showing howmany names and addresses they had sent letters to. This whole sordid business is falling down around the companies involved and we dont want our private information being sold on to anyone else for this to start all over again. PLUSNET please think about the well being of your subscribers. ... View more

I see that BT have been let off regarding the blatant incompetent handling of many customers personal information http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/feb/01/ico-bt-acslaw just goes to show that there are two forms of justice in this country. the big corporation and the little man. guess who gets the dirty end of the stick every time. I hope that even with the ICO's decision not to punish BT that you take more care with our personal details in future and ensure we cannot be blackmailed by any company that Digiprotect employs in the future. BT HANDLED OUR PERSONAL DATA INCOMPETANTLY AND IGNORED THE NPO RULE THAT ALL DATA WAS TO BE SENT ENCRYPTED. either the person who sent them was incompetent or there were inherent problems with the systems at BT, either way someone is to blame for sending unencrypted data to ACS Law >:( end of rant ... View more

Plusnet, Please can we have some sort of response from Fletch or the CEO as to what PLUSNET and indeed BT intend to do now. IANAL - as far as i can see there is no reason why DIGIPROTECT should be allowed to hold on to 880 names and addresses (of which only 3 names have had letters written) to enable them to use at any point within the next 6 years. That leaves 877 people whose details are exposed and are only 1 letter away from potentially paying £500 to any Lawyer they (DIGIPROTECT) instruct in the future. ... View more

when i left the hearing i had a word with the BT Lawyer, I explained who i was and we discussed a couple of issues, I asked why BT/Plusnet allowed the NPO to procede without contesting. I was shocked at his answer, BT did not feel it appropriate as they were just a middleman. I explained that because the NPOs were all uncontested, Chief Master Winegarten was forced to accept anything that ACS Law, Gallant McMillan, or any other Liar sorry Lawyer said in evidence. I pointed out that i and many others hold the ISPs responsible for the state we find our selves in today, with the DIGITAL ECONOMY ACT passed which will rely on then same "Evidence" as ACS LAw, and the establishment of the opinion that because CMW in the High court accepted an IP address as proof, that it is true. IT IS NOT. ... View more

Mullard47 on slyck said it very eloquently Quote The other issue, of course, is the Digital Economy Act. The likes of MediaCAT and others have been going to the High Court getting Norwich Pharmacal Orders that have been uncontested. The IP "evidence" presented is highly controversial. The methods adopted to collect that "evidence" have never been the subject of any open scrutiny, and, as far as I am aware, there has never been any research or peer review of the science of this. A number of people involved in that sort of industry say that IP logging was never designed for conclusive mapping of an IP/timestamp to a subscriber account, and that it is inherently unsuitable for being adopted for that purpose. Yet because it has never been challenged by ISP's, it has been accepted as authentic by the High Court on no better authority than that the people who do the logging say it is infallible and are supported in that assertion by other people who appear to be self-appointed experts. The companies that conduct the "monitoring" are obscure. The company working for MediaCAT, NG3 Systems Ltd appears to be a one-man band cloaked by a shell company with a registered office address at a virtual London address, and where the place of business in companies records is a two bedroomed flat in East Ham in east London. Yet BT/Plusnet, a multi-billion pound corporation with supposedly proper legal and internet experts have just bowed and curtseyed to this and handed over their subscriber details without so much as a squeak. On the other hand, now it is going to cost BT millions of pounds to participate in exactly the same charade on behalf of other people (who appear to have a better control over the government than do BT) they come out with statements, as they have, that IP evidence is no more than an indication that a connection "may have been involved". http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=44092&hilit=Gcb&start=15000#p569898 Why oh why and what are you going to do now.....are you going to go to court to get DIGIPROTECT and any other (alleged ) rights holder to stop processing any names and addresses given to them in the past.  INCLUDING A SIGNED LETTER TO EACH PERSON STATING THAT ALL ACTION HAS BEEN DROPPED!! THIS IS THE VERY LEAST THAT WE DESERVE ... View more

Plusnet, In light of the fact that the Judge in the MEDIA CAT V ISP Subscribers indicated that he may impose a ban on MEDIA CAT using any of the names and addresses received in any of the NPO'S for any more letter writing, Does PLUSNET not feel it appropriate to apply to the court to stop DIGIPROTECT using any of the 880 names given to them in respect to the NOV 09 NPO, and if they have not yet released the batch in relation to the NPO in Jul 10, to stop the release of these.(This applies more to BT as they have 9 months to reply) Remember PLUSNET this situation could have been stopped in its tracks prior to the NPO hearing if someone took Customer welfare seriously and contested the hearing. Everyone and his dog now knows that the evidence given to Chief Master Winegarten was flawed and would not have stood up to even the slightest scrutiny. This whole expensive (both in terms of Money, Goodwill and reputation) could and should have been avoided. By the way, on another related point, the "Evidence" used by ACS Law is the same as will be used in relation to the DIGITAL ECONOMY ACT.  >:( ... View more

I was in court again today, and watched with interest what went on, AC turned up for the morning session and spent the entire time writing a witness statement that was read out to the court in the second session after lunch. In it he states that ACSLAW will no longer be continuing to act in the file sharing cases and that media cat have no more NPO's in the pipeline. So I think from what i heared, it is all over bar the shouting The judge still has not made any rulings but intimated that if he were to allow discontinuance at he would make an order that MEDIA CAT would not be able to send any more letters until they could proove they had a case ... View more

Yes i was about to post about the post on SLYCK but you have beaten me to it, I will also say that Plusnet has a duty of care to the 880 persons who they gave personal details of to ACS Law for the Nov 09 NPO, to find out if the DIGIPROTECT Licence that ACS Law used was VALID. If not then surely the information they received is invalid and ACS Law received it illegally. BT/PLUSNET's legal team must look into it as a matter of urgency. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THE MISERY ... View more

If the hearing on Monday decides that media cat do not have the rights to sue (as is being discussed on Slyck) then will plusnet apply to the court to disallow ACS LAW ETCfrom using the information gained by the Npos. Also if DIGIPROTECT have failed to keep to their part of the NPO by producing the report to plusnet  then why are they still allowed to hold and possibly use this information at any time. Hopefully this may start to end on Monday ::) ... View more

I wonder what PLUSNET'S take on this is? ... View more

Quote from: Bob Quote from: davethir Can Plusnet confirm that they have not received the report from Digiprotect, regarding the 880 names given to them by Plusnet in regard to the Nov 09 NPO. Hi Dave, as far as I know (and I could be wrong) we haven't received this report. Unfortunately Fletch is on leave this week so it's unlikely that I'm going to be able to get you any more info until he returns. Hi Plusnet, Just a friendly reminder that the deadline for Digiprotect to explain themselves has long since passed, Please ask BT's Lawyers to find out why they (Digiprotect) have blatantly ignored the deadline. I for one would like to know before Christmas that the case against me has been dropped so i can have a merry one without this hanging over me  :) ... View more

@Bob Thanks for the update, I look forward to the response from ACS Law, I hope Plusnet will publish what is received, as i notice that Plusnet were threatened not to release the details contained in the last report. Lets hope we find out why out of 880 names given to ACS Law and Digiprotect,  only 3 people received letters? Will Digiprotect hold on to the names and addresses until "the fuss dies down" and then issue more letters? or will Plusnet get an injunction to stop Digiprotect from using any of the names. If they are not going to proceed, then will Digiprotect send letters to the people stating that the case is dropped? I for one would like to see this whole saga come to an end and i can then "get back to my day job"! ... View more

Hi Plusnet, 06 Dec 10, the day of disclosure has come round again. incase you have forgotton what Prakash wrote to ACS Law many months ago, here is a quote, 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. Can Plusnet confirm that they have not received the report from Digiprotect, regarding the 880 names given to them by Plusnet in regard to the Nov 09 NPO. if they have not received the report then are Plusnet going to exercise their rights "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" Is there any chance of getting a reply by cease work today, after all it is 1 day since the deadline and if a report has not been received then Digiprotect (ACS Law) are in contempt of a court order. ... View more

Yep, I was one of 20,000 plus people who signed the petition to ask parliament to hold the DEA until after the election.......Guess what they ignored us! I was one of 30,000 plus people who signed the petition to repeal the DEA ...........Guess what they ignored us! I was one of the many who have written to their MP to ask for the DEA to be looked into again.......Guess what they ignored us! Why is it when "Big Business" says Jump......the Establishment does exactly what they ask... Remember the DEA was dreamed up on some Hollywood millionaires yacht, when Lord Mandleson happened to be staying there! ... View more

Well, What do you expect from a Media who almost completely ignored the fact that ACS Law published its 3 month archive of emails on line, exposing thousands of "innocent" (remember the rule of law - innocent until proven Guilty) members of the public's names and addresses. Almost without exception they preferrred to put news about X factor on their front page and many did not run the story at all, (Mainly news international papers). Surely the SUN would have ran a story about the sensational news, but no, not a word. The Days and weeks have dragged on and it looks increasingly like no one is going to do anything about it, I read in the proper papers that BT had caused Gallant McMillan to cease its operations as it was not cost effective. I will ask the question again. In light of the fact that Gallant McMillan have withdrawn from the NPO hearing set for JAN, Why does Plusnet or BT not challenge the "Evidence" and prove once and for all that an IP Address does not  equal a person. and prove that these NPOs do not have a basis in law. remember that the DEA will use exactly the same "evidence" as has been quoted for all of the NPO's and which has been questioned by ACS Law staff in internal emails leaked onto the internet. There is already a company sending out letters of claim referring to the (not yet enacted) Digital Economy Act, this will only increase when the act is brought in if it cannot be proven that the evidence is flawed! ... View more

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. ... View more

@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!! ... View more