I haven't I should add.

 

Apparently, a company called GoldenEye have got a court order to get my name because I've been illegally filesharing.

 

Funny thing is if you go to the goldeneye website it seems more concerned with fighting piracy than anything else. I can smell a [problem].

 

Awaiting a speculative invoice now. Sounds very fishy to me. I'm guessing they do very well out of people who get scared and just pay up.

 

Looks like they do porn films as well. Obviously, they know that if they sent letters in the post demanding payments for downloading porn then this may carry more weight. Can just imagine it. Husband gets letter and thinks flipping heck better pay this before wife sees it.

 

Absolutely scandalous behaviour. Should be illegal.

 

As someone who works in IT, know that an IP address can in no way be used as absolute proof. Its just too easy to spoof. I can't see how they've got a leg to stand on unless they come into your house and find said downloaded file on your computer.

Hi

I got this letter too. I have sky broadband at home used by the whole family, friends, guests

I haven't downloaded any of their material and have no recollection of ever downloading their material. Having done some research, I believe for any official legal action to be taken there must be evidence with regards to who the copyright infringer is. As I've said, my internet is used by a lot of people, so how would this ever be possible?

Since you work in IT, you think this whole issue is something that will gain any official legal momentum and one should worry about? Or simply ignore?

Hi

 

I got this letter too. I have sky broadband at home used by the whole family, friends, guests

 

I haven't downloaded any of their material and have no recollection of ever downloading their material. Having done some research, I believe for any official legal action to be taken there must be evidence with regards to who the copyright infringer is. As I've said, my internet is used by a lot of people, so how would this ever be possible?

 

Since you work in IT, you think this whole issue is something that will gain any official legal momentum and one should worry about? Or simply ignore?

In the test cases which were held in front of a Judge who had specialist knowledge of this area of law,

the ruling was that a claim could not be brought against the person who paid the bill for the internet connection

and under current law the claimant had to try to find out who carried out the copyright infringement.

The copyright holder could obtain the details of who owns the IP address and write to them, but that was about it.

And before you ask i don't have these details to hand, but you will find it covered on forum pages going back a few years.

If you genuinely have no knowledge, you could write back to whoever is chasing this, saying that you have no knowledge of this

and have asked family who share the connection, who also say they do not know anything about this.

Advise that you will not engage in any further communications about something which have no knowledge about.

Or you ignore and you may hear no more.

Whether the new firm chasing will try to take cases to court, i cannot answer.

A bit doubtful, particularly against households with numerous people using the internet connection.

pers I'd ignore and not enter into silly letter tennis

they'll think they've found a mug that awaits fleecing

dx

we could do with seeing one of these new breed of letters

DO ignore the letter

This comes up time and time again and noone is ever prosecuted or taken to the civil courts.

For a criminal action they have to prove it was you that downloaded it.

In a civil case they have to use the balance of probabilities and would still struggle. That they would also have to prove loss (Which they cannot do) and would have their expenses severely limited to the rules afforded by the small claims track which would leave them far more out of pocket than the paltry "penalty" they will try and impose

Ignore Rule Of Law, he is using legal bluffal to try and intimidate and scare you. No defence is needed unless you are prosecuted (Wont happen) and/or receive an N1 Claim form.

If either of those happen return here for advice.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/copyright/the-internet-filesharing-and-copyright/if-you-re-accused-of-online-copyright-infringement/

Gives an alternative guide on what to do if you do not want to ignore the letter

So to summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong

This whole thing is a scare tactic to get misinformed internet users who aren't well read or aware of the wider spectrum of how the internet, downloading, IP addresses etc works to feel ashamed/scared, contact Goldenshi*, admit/give them more details so that they can have leverage and subsequently demand some form of payment.

The company has an infamous track record of trying this tactic since around 2010. In reality an IP address is not enough to actually gain any legal momentum for them as it does not identify the actual infringer with any real certainty.

The ideal course of action is to ignore the correspondence, and if subsequent letters are received from Goldenshi*, reply along the lines of; I deny their accusations, inform them that an individual's broadband is used by a wide range of people - family, friends, guests etc and they need to identify the infringer as I have not viewed their content and have not given anybody consent to download or view their content.

Ignore do not reply

Dx

So to summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong

 

This whole thing is a scare tactic to get misinformed internet users who aren't well read or aware of the wider spectrum of how the internet, downloading, IP addresses etc works to feel ashamed/scared, contact Goldenshi*, admit/give them more details so that they can have leverage and subsequently demand some form of payment.

 

The company has an infamous track record of trying this tactic since around 2010. In reality an IP address is not enough to actually gain any legal momentum for them as it does not identify the actual infringer with any real certainty.

 

The ideal course of action is to ignore the correspondence, and if subsequent letters are received from Goldenshi*, reply along the lines of; I deny their accusations, inform them that an individual's broadband is used by a wide range of people - family, friends, guests etc and they need to identify the infringer as I have not viewed their content and have not given anybody consent to download or view their content.

A fair summary.

Worth reading ACSBore wordpress blog and Slyck.

They have uncovered quite a lot of information on the various people involved in the latest invoice project.

It is exactly what they tried before and this time they apparently don't have any firm of Solicitors officially handling anything,

apart from the IP address info requests.

The American Lawyers mentioned back in Summer in relation to copyright claims has had their company dissolved.

own thread created

could we possibly see the letter please

follow the UPLOAD

dx

Not quite true they wont take action, individuals have been taken to court and lost and had to pay large amounts, although not in the UK as far as Im aware.

Legal action HAS also taken place in the Uk although not successfully as far as Im aware.

I do believe though that it is theoretically possible to take an individual to court with enough information and prove to a Judge that the individual did indeed download a film in question and ask for a reasonable amount of damages (£20 ? for the loss of a DVD sale ?) I dont believe we should dismiss it out of hand, after all the Beavis Supreme Court Case surprised a lot of experts, as did the original banking charges case.

I'm sorry to tack a reply onto a thread from last year, but I have some additional questions around the technical aspects of this.

In the majority of cases consumer internet connection equipment makes use of dynamic IP addressing,

in other words each time your router is restarted you may be issued with a different IP address from your ISP.

This is in contrast with the majority of commercial equipment that uses static IP addressing.

The former means your ISP would need to establish not who's currently using the IP address used to download the content,

but who was using at the time of the alleged offense.

I gather ISPs are now required to keep records of that, so it's not impossible, but certainly more difficult and time-consuming to establish.

Do ISPs have the right to make a charge to the solicitor attempting to gain this information which could in theory be passed on to the alleged offende

r should the matter come to court?

My second question is around WiFi. It's never responsible to operate an 'open' wireless network onto which anyone within range could connect

, but would doing so bolster a defense of not knowing who downloaded the content?

For example, if the consumer were to have realized that their wireless network was 'open' and then closed it at a later date,

would it be more difficult to appoint blame for anything that was downloaded in that time frame,

after all it seems the 'owner' of the connection cannot be held responsible for what's downloaded using it.

Finally, if a firm chasing a consumer must prove specifically who downloaded copyrighted content

and in a dynamic IP environment your ISP will only ever hold the IP address of your gateway (in other words your router)

and not that of any equipment inside your network, how could they ever prove who actually downloaded it?

All they could ever prove is that your connection was used to do it, no?

its a load of old willy waving to fleece people anyway.

none of the money they would get would ever go back to whomever suffered the 'loss'.

straight to their pockets and down the local club with it.

nearly every Broadband router, esp any of the BT ones have free wifi to anyone with a BT login that is nearby

so whom to say it wasn't done by someone parking outside a house and doing it

the occupants wouldn't know nothing about it.

dx

its a load of old willy waving to fleece people anyway.

none of the money they would get would ever go back to whomever suffered the 'loss'.

straight to their pockets and down the local club with it.

 

nearly every Broadband router, esp any of the BT ones have free wifi to anyone with a BT login that is nearby

so whom to say it wasn't done by someone parking outside a house and doing it

the occupants wouldn't know nothing about it.

 

 

dx

Yes I noticed this, it would kill any claim stone dead if you have a similar router, just by BT ?, havnt looked into much but I know its used by BT, my dad has one.

Whats the advice on this now? I see citizens advice say you should respond.

I've had two letters in one envelope from them.

One saying I ignored a recent letter dated 3rd may - I never had this.

And the other which looks like a cease and desist agreement.

Im wondering if the cease desist is a trick.

Get me to sign something say I promise to not share and delete it

- surely this implies I'm admitting to having it?

Worth replying saying no idea what your on about and I've never downloaded etc anyway so can confirm I dont have a copy?

Same advice as every other time.

do wiki search for ben dover (uk porn star) it explains all about his goldeneye [problem].