I remember reading about something like this.

Sky gave up the IP (internet provider) contact details to a third party online company who had a broadcasting licence/ rights, as SKY was being threatened apparently.

It is technically pirating if you use a third party's resources to access their films/ music etc

without paying if the services are being charged otherwise.

By the way, there are successful EU law cases pertaining to online pirating, a

nd the UK/ England is subject to those laws since we enacted the European Community Act 1972 in 1973

(they had a year to adjust to the law).

This area of law is also a developing one, SKY has broadcasting rights for movies/ sports it shows,

it has already made arrests in partnership with the relevant gov officials.

All those boxes which were sold as being able to view sky movies/ sports etc were confiscated

and the shop-owners were sued by SKY and got criminal charges brought against them too, if not convictions.

Sky don't just give out details. All requests for IP address owners has to go to a specific court that handles these. There was a time when the internet companies tried to stop the court agreeing to these requests, but i don't think they bother too much now.

UK copyright laws mean you have to identify who was responsible. The government were looking at some system of warnings, where an IP address owner would be warned of their connection being used for sharing copyrighted materials and if this warning did not lead to changed behaviour, that they would require the internet company to take action.

There have been cases about these area, including ISP's being forced to give the internet user's details to the third party companies.

No, the internet providers were allowed to plead a defence as a service transmitting material unknowingly illegal by the third party internet user.

i suggest you get up to date with the law.

If something is free..

. there's something wrong somewhere, it's foolish to think they wouldn't have invented to technologies to stop pirating.. they have and did,

it's foolish to think there would never be a law to stop pirating by illegal downloads,

they have and did, and it is effective currently.

Goldeneye have the legal right to pursue ISPs,

they obtained court orders for this,

and will have obtained court orders for every allegation they make for every letter they send.

The letters are very likely legal and enforceable.

Don't tell them you work in IT...

otherwise you will have constructive knowledge even if you do not actually have actual knowledge unless you have no choice.

In law more is expected from a competent and it's not much of a stretch for a computer professional to know he is downloading third party material illegally *subjective test),

or someone in his position ought to know that he has downloaded said (objective test).

I no longer have access to legal databases but i'll try to research some defence for you.

You could say that you do not have much money, if you could prove this they'd settle for something rather than nothing.

Do not ignore the letter, as it will be at your peril!

From what am reading, a figure of £70 crops up but am trying to determine if this would apply to file down-loaders.

It really would benefit us if you were to download pdf extract but omitting your personal details.

I want to see that this letter is genuine

. Does it have a court reference number, is the court the magistrate or County Court?

Who signed the letter, a solicitor or Golden Eye staff member/s?

What law is cited to you?

Is it an Act provision, ie section such n such of the Digital Economy Act 2010?

This Act apparently puts duties (legal obligation) on all Internet Service Providers (ISP).

Go read the ACS law threads

Out to rip people off and money goes to their pockets

Ignore totally

Until/unless a claim form arrives

Yet another thread disrupted with worthless twaddle

I like it when you say on your profile, 'my opinion'...as that's all it is, your opinion. It is however an opinion not based on the law of copyright. It defies belief just how ignorant people can be. Golden Eye (International) Ltd & Anor v Telefonica UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 723 is the relevant authority. EWHC stands for England and Wales High Court, which means it is a precedent court ratio (legally binding decision) that lower courts such as the County Court must follow.

"This is a claim by Golden Eye (International) Ltd ("Golden Eye") and thirteen other claimants for a Norwich Pharmacal order against Telefonica UK Ltd trading as O2 ("O2"). O2 is one of the six largest retail internet service providers ("ISPs") in the UK. The object of the claim is to obtain disclosure of the names and addresses of customers of O2 who are alleged to have committed infringements of copyright through peer-to-peer ("P2P") filesharing using the BitTorrent protocol. (P2P filesharing using BitTorrent is described in my judgment in Dramatico Entertainment Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd : Golden EYE v Anor & Others (2012) at paragraph 1.

I cant tell if ruleoflaw is a very good troll, or genuinely believes what he/she types.

Sometimes you get posters who take 'special' interest in these issues.

Do you not understand the concept of law, in that common law/ case law (interchangeable terms for higher court precedents including the High Court; Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court) is a major source of the UK's un-written constitution and in fact various common law countries wherein UK Common law derived.

i am not threatening anyone, I am merely representing what the current law says. I am not on anyone's side. Ignore me, you say, hmm the one who has actually studied relevant law including tort and criminal law.

Citizens Advice is to answer all letters from Golden Eye or representatives and say you need more time to consider the implications of the letters. If you ignore the letters from Golden Eye, you will likely be lumbered for Golden Eye's solicitor's time, court fees, and interest. Would someone in your household be downloading adult materials (ie Porn)?

Which we only have your word for.

As always Members are reminded that if in doubt they should seek qualified assistance

EG the link I provided

Also if members do a search of this forums and other places they will see that DX and My position is what actually happens.

There is no statutory requirement (Confirmed by CAB) to identify the person who used your equipment. You have no liability for their actions unless specifically authorised for the download to happen.

Seeing as CAB are a legitimate organisation, I would hope one would put more weight into their advice and the advice of others that have successfully helped others through the same/similar problems than an unknown source from which there is no way to qualify what they say is true.

i am not threatening anyone, I am merely representing what the current law says. I am not on anyone's side. Ignore me, you say, hmm the one who has actually studied relevant law including tort and criminal law.

 

 

Citizens Advice is to answer all letters from Golden Eye or representatives and say you need more time to consider the implications of the letters. If you ignore the letters from Golden Eye, you will likely be lumbered for Golden Eye's solicitor's time, court fees, and interest. Would someone in your household be downloading adult materials (ie Porn)?

And yet the old chestnut comes along. As i said before. An IP address is not concrete info of who downloaded the software/movie in question is it ? It's time YOU actually read up on what can happen, and various parts of law and how they interact with this scenario. Not just you being a random anonymous source of info with no background.

Oh, and check the ACS:Law case. This is exactly the same.

You can tell someone has studied law.. as they sound like lawyers, cite relevant law. Intelligent people know how to reason.

Law changes all the time, and by the way my sources are from legal databases such as Westlaw, and Westlaw Insight.

"And yet the old chestnut comes along," is this statement really relevant? Absolute pointless...

In what way is this post or in fact any of my representations pertaining to troll-like behaviour?

In what way is this post or in fact any of my representations pertaining to troll-like behaviour?

We have seen this before. When someone takes an interest in a thread, gradually becoming more argumentative, tending to support one side.

Holding a law degree does not make you an expert in this particular field.

You will see plenty of information about this issue online and advice from experts. As the law stands the owner of an IP address is not automatically liable for what is uploaded or downloaded. The copyright holder would have to prove their claim and at the moment it is not that easy. Many of the Solicitors who have tried to pursue this have come a cropper.

This is interesting becasue what ruleoflaw says is correct but it the omissions that are telling.

Yes, the porn barons can get a Norwich Pharmacal order and Sky will probably hand over a list of IP addresses

but the technical aspects of identifying a user at the end of that is not straightforward.

People can have dynamic IP addresses so can share one with a large number of other people anywhere in the world,

you could have wifi that is not encrypted so your next door neighbour may be downloading stuff without your knowledge or consent

the lwayers representing these bandits will never ever get an order to trawl through your browsing history

or your own computer so in reality they are on a hiding to nothing

it is like saying that a car that drove down your road committed an offence at some point

and as you drive down your road we are holding you responsible.

Why would you ever consider offering to pay up when you havent done anything to cause them to take action.

The ball is very much in their court.

Oh, the other point is they are known liars

I do not side with one person..

..my political radar is in fact as far from the right as can be reasonably expected.

You presume I am pro creditor because the law I cite appears to be pro creditor.

I am just saying, sometimes it's better to settle out of court than pay these people much more in court.

Incidentally, if they can't sue you, can't criminally prosecute you or take out a private prosecution against you,

they will take a proprietary interest on any homes, other property by the remedy of Charge Order (1979 Act),

after which they'll let that original amount grow until they claim they have sufficient interest to sell your property from right underneath you, in their own right.

This is why I say the things I do because I know exactly the general legal remedies there are in this country.

One of my subjects was also commercial transactions.

NB: I use the name Rule of Law in the moral dimension, of which A V Dicey, Victorian Professor of Public Law,

used the phrase, and in which a prominent judge also embraced it, Thomas Bingham.

The Rule of Law is important in an any country's constitution.

The legal dimension of the Rule of Law, is no power without using the law.

You can tell someone has studied law.. as they sound like lawyers, cite relevant law. Intelligent people know how to reason.

Indeed you can, do you know any ?

How do i know what the Rule of Law is?

This poster gets stranger and stranger with every post. Its got to be a wind up.

Discussion thread created here

Please refrain from hi-jacking active threads for you own soapbox views

Dx

While not discussing the legal aspects of filesharing nor the possibility of legal action, sometime ago many ISP's blocked certain websites such as piratebay after a court case. naturally there are plenty of mirror sites out there and these worked until The Pirate bay was raided and closed down, it didn't take long, so I am told to get the filesharing sites up and running .

I do know there is one porn studio in america that did take people to court and did win although I doubt that many people on here will have heard of it , I will not post the name as many might find it unappealing

Let's use an analogy.

Let's assume the High Court has granted a warrant to bailiffs to take control of goods in a certain property belonging to the debtor.

However, when the bailiffs get there, they fortunately see a bathroom window open as the property owner had a bath but forgot to the shut the window after the steam had dispersed.

The bailiffs let them themselves in through the open window (legally) and came down the stairs to be confronted by the shocked owner (we shall call Peter).

The bailiffs showed Peter a court order to take control of goods to offset the debt owed.

The bailiffs see many goods on the property and say these goods will more than cover the debt owed.

Peter says 'that plasma TV is not mine!' Peter had been living with his girlfriend Frances for a 5 years.

The bailiffs said we're taking it unless you can prove it belongs to another.

However, the owner's girlfriend Frances, a keen guitarist who plays with her band in pubs and clubs,

had her expensive electric guitars, Fender Stratocaster guitars in addition to expensive amplifiers

and sound-mixing equipment in the spare bedroom.

The bailiffs said, unless you can prove these are hers we're taking them and there's nothing you can do about it.

Angered by this, Peter said no what you're doing is illegal, as the onus should be on you to prove that they do not belong to me.

Ok the point of this analogy is that if bailiffs do not need to prove that goods belong to another,

then why would Golden Eye/ Sky/ or any other have to prove the internet was being used by a certain person,

where copyright issues arise.

The live in partner has done nothing wrong but her property has been seized.

We could also use another analogy where a parent has to pay fines of £60 for each time their minor child

, up to the age of 18, does not turn up for school.

The parents have done nothing wrong but they're responsible for those in the household.

I have not researched the law of Copyright thoroughly but my reasoning ability suggests the same

as I have presented in my analogies would reflect the Copyright issues pertaining to downloading 3rd party materials.

I however would and do hope am wrong.

If I can think of this am sure the most adept lawyer would be able to, as the lawyers would argue the economy will be exacerbated if business including collection agencies were restrained, as in law, your honour,

restraining businesses whether the sex industry (even if other have moral objections),

one still has freedom of expression (including selling sexual images).

Furthermore, this country is not long out of recession and is still not on its feet,

and if businesses were restrained at this time ergo businesses lose money there would be no money to be spent,

which will also exacerbate this country's GDP

Another argument:

the all of the areas of the law in free country ought to be and must be consistently applied,

as bailiffs would benefit from the law even through they have no benefit save their salaries from doing those jobs,

albeit the creditor of those goods also vicariously when he/ she receives the goods and therein a sale of those same applies;

whereas this is our business which is affected and it would be an inconsistent use of the law and favour one over the other

, which can only ever be an abuse of the legal foundation of the rule of law.

I think rule of Law should read the new bailiff rules. A bailiff can only enter through an unlocked door. No window entry allowed any more.

Now, can we please keep this thread on topic please. Not Bailiff but Golden Eye

It was an intelligent analogy.

..it was not off topic,

it was a diametrical view of Golden Eye.

The position of the down-loader however is not so compelling, as what rights does he she really have?

The law benefits the rich and this is well known.

The poor are massively under-represented in law, whilst the rich have the best lawyers the poor have Legal Aid and erm, Citizens Advice wherein the latter require no qualifications.

Legal Aid lawyers are not likely to be the most lateral thinkers either.

Do you have a link to the Bailiffs new rules?

Off topic and irrelevant posts removed.