Piracy letter campaign 'nets innocents'

[Simon]

More than 150 people have approached consumer publication Which? Computing claiming to have been wrongly targeted in crackdowns on illegal file-sharing.

ACS:Law has sent thousands of letters to people claiming they have illegally downloaded material and offers them a chance to settle by paying around £500.

Which? says it has been approached by some - including a 78 year-old accused of downloading pornography - who have no knowledge of the alleged offence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8481790.stm

[Gill]

I'm confused.  If a crime has been committed, it's a matter of criminal law for the police, not a civil matter which lawyers can settle out of court for a lump sum payment.

Isn't it?

[Simon]

I guess they're just hoping people will cough up without a fight. 

[Gill]

Ahhhh.... just like blackmailers.  I reckon the police would be very interested.

[Simon]

Well, I guess they must have some grounds to send the letters...   

[D-Dan]

It's getting to be an old story - they send hundreds - or even thousands of letters, and make money from the gullible.

Not a single case has been heard in court in the UK yet.

Damn - I found a fabulous link - but can't re-find it

Steve

[Gill]

Yup... headed note paper marked "I am a lawyer".

Given a proper police investigation, their note paper will be headed "Wormwood Scrubs" and all letters will be hand-written.

[sobranie]

It's getting to be an old story - they send hundreds - or even thousands of letters, and make money from the gullible.

Not a single case has been heard in court in the UK yet.

Damn - I found a fabulous link - but can't re-find it

Steve

Maybe this link Steve;
http://torrentfreak.com/static/The-Speculative-Invoicing-Handbook.pdf

[drummer]

This a very old story but sadly, there are many who still believe their few quid a year royalties are more important than civil liberties.

The wannabe millionaire Peter Mandelson consulted with the billionaire David Geffen about this when both were being entertained at a villa owned by one of the multi-billionaires who's part of the Rothschild dynasty.

It's wrong, it's immoral and has no basis in law because it's just a speculative trawling exercise  that hopes to "send a message" to the wider, gullible community.

Just say "No" to this illegal bullying.

[somanyholes]

it would be great if a show such as watchdog would do something on this issue.

[zappaDPJ]

The problem with this is as far as the consumer is concerned is it actually does have the weight of civil law behind it and that law is almost certainly going to gain sharper teeth with introduction of the Government's Digital Britain initiative. Anyone who accesses the Internet or allows others to access the internet via their network should make sure they are fully aware of the potential consequences of doing so.

It's often been suggested that this is a scam and to all intents and purposes it is but unfortunately it has the full weight of the law behind it. The way it works is this. Companies like Digitprotect and Logistep harvest timestamped lists of IP addresses seen infringing copyright via BitTorrent swarms. These lists are passed to ACS law who obtain high court orders forcing ISPs to disclose customer identities tied to the IP addresses. Here are the lists of ISPs that have been served with such an order: http://www.acs-law.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=60

I'm not sure if it's entirely accurate to say that not a single case has been heard in court. I believe there have been at least two successful prosecutions where judgment was found in favour of the plantiff simply because the defendant failed to appear. I can't however substantiate that.

I do personally know someone that has been on the receiving end of this nasty practice although the action was initiated by a different law firm, Davenport Lyons who certainly have brought a successful prosecution. I can't remember the full details but a women was fined $30,000 for the alledged distribution of a pinball game.

Of course being accused of committing a crime is one thing, the bringer of the action still has to prove the offence actually took place. If you admit nothing all they can do is apply to the court for your hard drive to be seized, something I suspect they would be highly unlikely to do as that's hardly going to be cost effective unless they are damn sure they are going to win. The bottom line is deny everything and pay nothing and they will probably go away.

[Rik]

I agree with you, Zap. King Mandelson is only going to make things worse.

[zappaDPJ]

I think he is Rik and I think this trend has implications for all of us although the negative publicity this has attracted might ultimately put a lid on these kind of actions. Davenport Lyons and many of their clients have already backed away for that very reason.

It's a modern trend not unlike subcontracting car parking arrangements on private land. You park, you pay and a month later you get a 'fine' for overstaying your welcome even though you've done nothing wrong. It's a scatter-gun approach and in my experience a lot of people simply pay up without realising that they have rights.

[Rik]

I agree, Zap. There are too many things running out of control and too many powers being given to the unelected Mandy.

[gizmo71]

I agree, Zap. There are too many things running out of control and too many powers being given to the unelected Mandy.

Bring back the good old days when the civil service was making all the decisions!

[dujas]

It's not advisable to ignore their correspondence, I'd seek legal advice, as I believe Davenport Lyons won a couple of cases from people not turning up to defend themselves in court.

[Rik]

Sound advice.

[Inkblot]

How do they differentiate between somebody using the pirate bay to download ubuntu or the latest LOTRO update (I've done both recently) and somebody using it to download illegal stuff? SOmething I have always wondered is at what point does it become illegal - for example if a Sunday newspaper gives away a copy of a film to every purchaser and I buy it but then lose the DVD can I download it? Do I write to them and ask for another copy? Do I just say 'Oh well, it was good whilst it lasted'? We always buy the 'Now' series of CDs for my daughter but in addition I download them as well so she has a digital copy for her MP3 player. I've got the CDs here so is downloading them still illegal?

Hopefully not something I will ever have to come up against but it is a minefield!

[Rik]

I can answer two bits of the question, Downloading a copy of a DVD that you once possessed or a CD you do possess would both be considered illegal. Technically, you can make a copy of a CD you own but you need to have a licence from the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society to do so. This is not enforced for private use, and is waived for hospital radio stations (as are PPL & PRS fees). Strictly, you can't make a copy of a DVD as to do so involves defeat the DRM, except when the disc is not protected.

[Inkblot]

Ah, so I better keep quiet about my copy of 'The Cannonball Run' that was lost sometime between the Mail on Sunday giving it away and me wanting to watch it 6 months later

[Rik]

 

[dujas]

How do they differentiate between somebody using the pirate bay to download ubuntu or the latest LOTRO update (I've done both recently) and somebody using it to download illegal stuff?

Its as simple as looking at the title of the file you're currently downloading. Remember they target P2P because whilst downloading a file, you're also uploading (and thus sharing) parts of the file to other computers in the 'swarm'.

[Inkblot]

If it really is that simple then surely all that will happen is that people will rename files before posting them? Although I guess 10,000 people all downloading file123.zip might be a bit of a pointer!

[Technical Ben]

All I can say is, seek legal advice first.
There are too many cons around for you to just cough up the cash. The same is done with some credit agencies.
It is down to the firm/company to prove the case. So if you know your innocent, get a layer to smack the grin off their faces. IP addresses don't prove much in copyright infringement cases AFAIK.

I've just heard of too many innocent people getting caught up in this all. And those who are clever enough to pirate stuff, are clever enough to throw away junk mail.

[dujas]

If it really is that simple then surely all that will happen is that people will rename files before posting them?

Then it's difficult to share the music/film/software as no one will know what it is. Aside from profiteering lawyers, the main aim is to try and prevent 'online piracy' being/becoming a mainstream habit, as that would most likely ruin the various creative forms of media if left unchecked.

[somanyholes]

http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-scheme-a-scam-legal-blackmail-say-uk-lords-100128/

[Rik]

For once, the Lords seem to be doing something sensible. I bet Mandy won't like it though.

[zappaDPJ]

It makes for interesting reading if you follow it through. There's also a rotten cherry to top the whole rancid cake which doesn't get mentioned. It's been alledged that the material used to facilitate this legal thuggery is first given a unique footprint before being uploaded by the scumbags who are operating the scam. The propose of course is to provide rock solid proof that the accused has indeed illegally obtained a file subject to copyright.

[Rik]

Wheel clampers come to mind, don't they.

[somanyholes]

There's also a rotten cherry to top the whole rancid cake which doesn't get mentioned. It's been alledged that the material used to facilitate this legal thuggery is first given a unique footprint before being uploaded by the scumbags who are operating the scam.

Missed that bit. Sneaky little buggers. At least an IP still isn't personally identifiable yet (god knows this might have changed by now) I read with interest that p2p use has risen in coporate environments so that they can't get prosecuted.

[sobranie]

Try this;

http://www.tpuc.org/content/no-contract-return-sender

[Rik]

I'd be interested in a legal opinion on that, Rick.

[somanyholes]

interesting. I'd be a bit nervous about them having proof that I had opened something and read it though. I really like that site. Karmic for that

[dujas]

Even the BPI seems against the ACS:Law approach:

The BPI said it would not be adopting the same approach as ACS: Law if UK legislation on the issue of illegal file-sharing comes into force.

"We don't favour the approach taken by ACS:Law to tackle illegal file-sharing," said spokesman Adam Liversage.

"Our view is that legal action is best reserved for the most persistent or serious offenders - rather than widely used as a first response," he added.

Source

[Rik]

That's good to hear.

[Simon]

Indeed.