Piracy letter campaign 'nets innocents'

Simon · Jan 26, 2010, 23:13:00

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 · Jan 26, 2010, 23:24:06

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 · Jan 26, 2010, 23:27:03

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

Gill · Jan 26, 2010, 23:32:12

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

Simon · Jan 26, 2010, 23:39:27

Well, I guess they must have some grounds to send the letters... $:-\$

D-Dan · Jan 26, 2010, 23:43:36

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 · Jan 26, 2010, 23:44:56

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 · Jan 27, 2010, 01:31:01

Quote from: D-Dan on Jan 26, 2010, 23:43:36
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 · Jan 27, 2010, 01:59:12

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 · Jan 27, 2010, 07:26:26

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

zappaDPJ · Jan 27, 2010, 09:30:04

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 · Jan 27, 2010, 09:46:59

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

zappaDPJ · Jan 27, 2010, 10:02:59

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 · Jan 27, 2010, 10:07:03

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

gizmo71 · Jan 27, 2010, 11:19:52

Quote from: Rik on Jan 27, 2010, 10:07:03
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 · Jan 27, 2010, 12:48:44

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 · Jan 27, 2010, 12:49:21

Sound advice.

Inkblot · Jan 27, 2010, 14:25:16

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 · Jan 27, 2010, 15:35:44

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 · Jan 27, 2010, 16:09:23

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 · Jan 27, 2010, 16:13:13

dujas · Jan 27, 2010, 17:04:34

QuoteHow 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 · Jan 27, 2010, 17:23:52

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 · Jan 27, 2010, 18:18:16

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 · Jan 28, 2010, 00:01:29

QuoteIf 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.