Downloading and possible breach of copyright?

[Bookworm]

Knowledge is power. So true. ;-)

[honey5]

certainly madam Anti-Piracy Company Breaches Privacy, Ordered to Shut Down | TorrentFreak Edited July 11, 2008 by honey5

[Bookworm]

Honey, *ex-mod's hat on*, can you edit your post to add a link (if acceptable)to your source or state the source of the article? Talk of copyright theft...

 

PS: expect your post to get CAGbotted, there's a lot of undesirable links there... ;-)

[crazybadger]

*update*

 

Orange have replied stating that they HAVE been submitted with a high court justice order to hand over IP addresses

 

i have asked them whether they did charge Davenport Lyons admin fees to do so and why they didnt inform me about the handing over of data

(Davenport are trying to charge me for those admin fees)

 

i'm awaiting a reply

 

i will be seeking legal advice shortly to see what happens

 

regards

 

crazybadgers

[Jackath]

 

Why haven’t orange notified me in person or by letter regarding my contact details being passed on?

 

Crazybadger

 

This is something Im also very concerned about!

 

Anti-Piracy Company Breaches Privacy, Ordered to Shut Down | TorrentFreak

 

This is the Logistep company I referred to and indeed this article is something of interest! Though Davenport Lyons do not explain how they acquired their evidence or who did, all signs point towards Logistep and I will write to Davenport Lyons requesting this information..

[Carlp]

Though Davenport Lyons do not explain how they acquired their evidence or who did, all signs point towards Logistep and I will write to Davenport Lyons requesting this information..

 

In the letter I received it does state at the bottom of the opening page that the data was collected by their "forensic IT experts, Logistep", some experts since I checked my IP address using an online application and the addresses don't even match!!!

 

Also, my ISP is Orange Home UK and they have listed my provider as Energis, I don't suppose anyone out there whether this information is correct and Orange just act as an intermediary or whether they have my details totally wrong?.

[tomterm8]

If I were subject to such a legal action, as someone with a qualification on this, I might consider seeking disclosure of the technology they are using to "gather" your IP address.

 

it is quite possible this technology is itself unlawful, if it gains unauthorised access to data, under the computer misuse act 1990.

 

I would also suggest that the person who rents the internet connection and the person who downloaded this software are not necessarily the same person. It would, in any event, be for them to prove who actually downloaded it.

 

Maybe the computer had been made available to many members of your family, and friends?

[Carlp]

I am on a wireless network so it's entirely plausible that someone could have hacked my connection from anywhere within a 25-30 metre radius of my router.

 

Also from what I'm lead to believe, Logistep, the company responsible for the actual gathering and selling off of other peoples IP addresses are a swiss company and have indeed been ordered to cease their activities as it breaches data protection laws in more than one country.

[Jackath]

The point about disclosure of the technology and Logistep's unlawful processes should be enough, in writing, to deter Davenport Lyons from continuing their action no?

 

Lyons will have sent hundreds of these letters out and it will be the unlucky folk who are scared into paying up right away that they're targeting. With any reasonable retaliation i'm sure they'll desist. Im sure the last thing they want is to actually end up in court as we're all aware; their evidence and protocol is shabby to say the least

[crazybadger]

Morning all,

I’ve contacted a solicitor who deals with computer and IT law, they will be contacting me shortly to arrange a meeting I will try to get a better understanding of what’s going on, but I will only be able to speak with them if they offer an free interview. (I really can’t afford their legal fees at the mo).

Still it may prove t be useful

In the mean time I’m considering writing a letter back to Davenport similar to a few others; I don’t want it to drag on too long while I wait.

Has anyone got any tips as to what is the best terminology or wording to put in this letter?

I assume asking for more detailed information puts them off?

Anything else they would help to make them realise I wont be bullied?

Regards

Crazybadger

[Jackath]

I hope the solicitors can offer you some helpful advice, I think I'm going to try and seek the same help.

 

But yea, I can share with you the way I shall write my letter but you probably already the right idea..

 

- Ask for for lots more information - precise details and even more proof, pinpointing a PC on your network or something.

 

- Make your tone authoritative and confident that your willing to fight but without being rude and ****ing them off I guess

 

- Throw some of the the terminology they used back at them

 

- Perhaps, looks some stuff up if you need, and use some computing terms to argue against the claims and make their evidence unsupportive.

 

A friend of mine works in law, albeit in a different area, and he is also helping me piece together a letter so I will relay anything interesting he says

 

Good luck!

[Carlp]

Hi all

 

I was just wondering if anyone had any more legal information regarding this issue as I'm about to draw up a letter of reply to Davenport Lyons and I'd like to hit them with as much as possible.

[nicolee2931]

would it be a good idea to S.A.R. them to see what information they hold on you, and try to focus on information on how your IP address was collected, as this seems to be the key as Logistep seem to have some involvement and have been asked to stop collecting information on IP addresses. This information could then be included in a letter telling Davenport Lyons to get stuffed.

[locutus]

bit more info I've found on the issue. (Interesting read... not really relevant to UK law tho)

 

German court throws out P2P lawsuit

Techdirt: UK Law Firm Tries Suing As Many People As Possible For File Sharing

[Guest forgottenone]

Just a tip regarding Orange and their Livebox as someone has brought up wireless broadband theft. If you have it on a wired connection, turn off the wireless facility and liveprinter in the LIVEBOX/INVENTEL configuration page ... even though it is wired to your PC/LAN etc it still can be hijacked regardless as when set to 'wireless' connection ... anyone can send/receive within range of the signal/house/flat. If you already know about this then ignore. Just thought to mention it because sometimes people don't realize if on a wired connection wireless signals still get broadcast.

[fr33d0m]

Usually the downloading of anything even with owning of an original is breaking copyright. But you are allowed to keep the file file for 24 hours.

 

Problem with P2P is you share the file. Also game companies hinder you from copying the disc you own (Perfectly legal) but putting security software on them.

 

 

[daKlone]

Copying your 'own' games is still tricky legally, since although it is legal to make a backup copy it is ILLEGAL to circumvent any protection schemes put in place by the manufacturer in order to do it - confused? You will be!!!

[locutus]

Putting the systems in place to stop people making a backup is also skirting the law, as people have the right to back things up.... it is a minefield!

[woad]

You have no right - under UK law - to make a backup copy. It is an urban myth that you do, probably stems from the fact that during the late 70's and early 80's most software installation instructions advised the user to make a backup copy [or two] and install from that, putting the original media in a safe location. It was also widely considered at the time to be best practice, never to install from original media.

 

This was an era when disk drives were not wholly reliable, and head crashed were quite common. The read/write head would literally hit the disk, gouging scratches into the surface.

 

But to re-iterate the point, you have no legal right to make a backup copy unless the terms of the software provide for it. Otherwise, it is "unlawful".

[locutus]

The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992

50A.—(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to make any back up copy of it which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of his lawful use.

 

(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 50B and 50C a person is a lawful user of a computer program if (whether under a licence to do any acts restricted by the copyright in the program or otherwise), he has a right to use the program.

 

(3) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).

 

It is your lawful right to create a backup providing you have the legal right to use the software.

[daKlone]

Sorry Woad, but you are wrong. To quote the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988:

 

"Back up copies.

50A.—(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to make any back up copy of it which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of his lawful use.

 

(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 50B and 50C a person is a lawful user of a computer program if (whether under a licence to do any acts restricted by the copyright in the program or otherwise), he has a right to use the program.

 

(3) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void)."

[daKlone]

Locutus: SNAP!

[locutus]

SNA... damnit... I never win at that game!

[The_Grumlin]

Media in most instances of infingement is irrelevant, it is the license which is usually purchased. You need to check the EULA or license agreement that came with the application/game.

 

It is my understanding that to prove their case the Agents acting for the copyright holders (Atari) would have to make a physical connection to your machine to confirm that the material is made available for sharing. Not just by the collection of IP addresses in the swarm or distributed network.

 

It also worth looking at the detailed studies done into p2p monitoring and copyright infingment. Particularly the parts about poor detection and false positives. Also look at the cases where they get is very wrong quite a few have been reported in last few months.

[fr33d0m]

Actually it has been seen that the companies doing the sueing for copyright infringement arnt actually checking the game was actually downloaded/completed.

 

They only see a connection from a computer to a server they set up hosting the file on a p2p network and get the user info from that IP. Also that still doesnt prove that the user of that IP actually donwloaded the file to their own computer. But cliaming your wifi was broken into is still a little sketchy.