ACS:Law copyright file sharing claims, Gallant Macmillan - and probably some others along the way...

[Guest DJMadMax]

Scooter or Metallica ?

 

 

Scooter...!!! lol thats the main one there on about

 

i have to say now... i'm a DJ as if you did not know lol

now i'v done gigs all over as i'm a mobile disco and some of the gig's i'v done i pick up a wifi and can go on the internat with it now there are a number of homes that are the same so any one can use there internet without them knowing and most of you dont even know how the modems even work let lone know if you have a wifi key or even if it's locked..

and on that note there asking you to sing the letters even if it was a kid that done it DONT DO IT you sing that and no matter what you'll have to pay it.. it's done so if you sing it your tied to it and there is no way out of it....

[Nikkinooch]

Scooter...!!! lol thats the main one there on about

 

i have to say now... i'm a DJ as if you did not know lol

now i'v done gigs all over as i'm a mobile disco and some of the gig's i'v done i pick up a wifi and can go on the internat with it now there are a number of homes that are the same so any one can use there internet without them knowing and most of you dont even know how the modems even work let lone know if you have a wifi key or even if it's locked..

and on that note there asking you to sing the letters even if it was a kid that done it DONT DO IT you sing that and no matter what you'll have to pay it.. it's done so if you sing it your tied to it and there is no way out of it....

 

I know I will sound really daft but I am with sky and I have managed to find out on my PC that I have an encription on wireless connection so does that mean that I am safe from someone hacking in on it? If yes then I have no idea what has happened ...... (my sisters have used my PC but I don't think any of them are into Scooter and even so if there saying I made it available for uploading (filesharing) then surely I would have seen it on my computer.

 

Honest to god - there are some things you half expect to happen to you in this life but this I would never have expected.

[Guest DJMadMax]

I know I will sound really daft but I am with sky and I have managed to find out on my PC that I have an encription on wireless connection so does that mean that I am safe from someone hacking in on it? If yes then I have no idea what has happened ...... (my sisters have used my PC but I don't think any of them are into Scooter and even so if there saying I made it available for uploading (filesharing) then surely I would have seen it on my computer.

 

Honest to god - there are some things you half expect to happen to you in this life but this I would never have expected.

 

BSkyB use Netgear modems that yes are locked but there is what they say is a 20 year hack garante but that dont meen any thing if you modem is on a window or some were the back/bottom of it can be see then your Key may be known by any one also there are softwere out there that can make your PC give out any IP address, we are testing some of them now and it may take a long time for us to get what we need if it go's to court but all i can say is so far it's working

[Guest DJMadMax]

Just so you all know there was a time were ISP's was sending out wifi modems that was not locked but now most are i can be 100% that BT and Sky are locking there modems and AOL was giveing out unlocked ones but i think they steped BUT if you go out and buy one mose of them do not come pre set with a lock but do tell you to lock it and if you look in the hand books it will tell you what to do.... if your still not 100% your modem is locked this is the best way to test.....

 

for vista users

1. get a laptop or PC with wifi hardwere

2. in the right hads side were your time is you'll see a computer icon

that may have a red X on it or a green planit click on it then go to

connect or disconnect..

3. a box will open up a name of your modem this may by BTHomeHum0-aaa0 or sky1234 next to the name you'll see Security-enabled network

 

if your one is Security-unenabled network that meens any one can use it and thay can do more that use your internet they can go in to your PC or Laptop and take files or put files on there

[Guest DJMadMax]

The very site linked with the files in the letters...!!!

 

The Swedish software firm, Global Gaming Factory X, has bought the file-sharing site The Pirate Bay for almost £4.7m.

GCF CEO Hans Pandeya said that to continue, The Pirate Bay would have to develop a new business model. "We would like to introduce models which entail that content providers and copyright owners get paid."

In April, the founders of The Pirate Bay were sentenced to one year in jail and fined £2.4m.

They confirmed the purchase on their site and said:

It's time to invite more people into the project, in a way that is secure and safe for everybody. We need that, or the site will die. And letting TPB die is the last thing that is allowed to happen!

Referring to the proposed changes, the founders said that if the new owners "screw around with the site, nobody will keep using it".

Global Gaming Factory also acquired Peerialism, a "next-generation file-sharing" company which started with research at the KTH Royal

Institute of Technology and SICS, Swedish Institute of Computer Science

[Guest DJMadMax]

* Little-known software firm buys The Pirate Bay website

* Says downloading site will compensate copyright owners

* Analysts sceptical, see no future for new Pirate Bay

(Adds quotes, analysts, detail)

By Veronica Ek and Mia Shanley

STOCKHOLM, June 30 (Reuters) - A little-known Swedish software firm has snapped up file-sharing website The Pirate Bay with the hope of turning the source of legal controversy into a money-spinner that appeals to both users and content providers.

Global Gaming Factory X AB, which operates internet cafes and provides software, said on Tuesday that it had agreed to buy Pirate Bay for 60 million Swedish crowns ($7.7 million).

The website made world headlines in April when the three Swedish founders and a financial backer were each sentenced to one year in jail and ordered to pay a combined $3.6 million in damages for breaching copyright law with the free downloading site, which was one of the biggest sites of its kind on the Internet.

Swedish News Agency TT cited one of the founders, Peter Sunde, as saying that the money would not go directly to him or any of the others sentenced in April.

Sunde told TT that the money would be placed in a company outside Swedish borders and it would be used for internet projects other than downloading sites.

Pirate Bay could not be immediately reached for comment.

Global Gaming said it believed the website was a viable business with its plans for a new, legal business model.

"We would like to introduce (business) models which entail that content providers and copyright owners get paid for content that is downloaded via the site," the company said in a statement.

 

USERS AS EARNERS

Global Gaming Chief Executive Hans Pandeya told a news conference that the revamped website would generate money via advertising, supplying storage space and helping telecom operators optimise internet traffic.

He also said users would be able to earn money by supplying storage space, which would encourage people to use the site.

"That's what is interesting. If you can earn money by file-sharing, it's no big deal to pay for what you download," Pandeya said.

Analysts were unimpressed by the move, comparing it to Napster, an online file-sharing site that quickly lost popularity after it started to charge its users.

"It looks like they are going to Napsterise it," said Leigh Ellis, intellectual property partner at Gillhams Solicitors.

Mark Mulligan, vice president at research firm Forrester, said that many of Pirate Bay's around 20 million users would move on to other free downloading options.

"The bottom line is that most people who use file-sharing networks use it because it's free. They are not likely to start paying just because the owners have a new business model," he said.

"There has not yet been a single example of a legal file-sharing network which has made a successful transition to a legal business." ($1=7.826 Swedish Crown) (Editing by Jon Loades-Carter and Karen Foster)

 

 

This all seems funny to me... that this new onwer of this site is from the same place as Logistep, and this well known user thats sharing the files link back to the IP Tracking,,,, it's all seem like there linked some were...

[darkone0]

couldnt we all just use the same lawyer,im sure some lawyer would take on 7000 people to fight for them

yes haggishunter I quite agree. strength in unity. Thats what this site is all about

D:-o

[haggishunter]

FAQs - The Innocence Defence under UK Copyright Law

 

There are a number of defences available for copyright infringement, including those for fair dealings, review, criticism and news reporting, non-commercial educational purposes, amongst others.

Copyright infringement is a tort (simply a civil wrong, rather than a criminal offence) of strict liability. Section 16(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states that a copyright is 'by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright'.

So subject to any applicable defences, mere reproduction of any of the rights set aside for the exclusive use of the copyright owner, which are set out in section 16(1) constitutes an infringement. There is no qualification in section 16(2) for lack of knowledge or innocence, therefore by copying a copyright work, the tort of copyright infringement is made out.

In the event that a defendant can show that the copying was innocent, that fact may come into account in an assessment of damages, and thus reducing or negating a damages award.

[wizzer21]

can't find the file is the ID missing any think or isit wrong in any part..??

 

also itis 100% true but it's only a IP address they have on you

look up SRA phone them and tell them about it the more that do it the better...

 

The file ID is correct, nothing missing.

Edited June 30, 2009 by wizzer21

[nicknack09]

My dad got one of these letters about 5 days ago and I have been looking through the forum with much interest. My dad uses the main PC and I use my laptop. He/I/we have allegedly d/l Scooter aswell.

Now I have d/l somethings online before but ceased to when I knew all the problems with it.

Reading through the forum (first 11 and last 5 pages to be exact) it does seem there is something not quite right. Many have been mentioned such as the link with Davenport Lyons etc, and with Terrence Tsang (on that note if anyone checked the acs flaw blog it shows an "alleged" picture of him, and a "alleged" twitter address. Looking at his friends who he is following seems to have a link with a p2p website. Don't know if I'm reading too much into it but seemed a bit weird).

 

When looking at the letter I also noticed that it said scooter released the album in the UK in October 2008 and the alleged download was in May. However, checking amazon.co.uk it came out before the alleged download! Plus the download name had year 2007 in it

 

I cannot confirm if I did or didnt d/l this. I can't remember, and I dont have Ipod I used back then, and if so I have not had use of laptop since June 08 when it stopped working.

 

 

 

PS, can someone remind me how i can find what my ip address to see if any pcs match the one on letter

Edited July 1, 2009 by nicknack09
removal of paragraph

[purple_lady]

My dad got one of these letters about 5 days ago and I have been looking through the forum with much interest. My dad uses the main PC and I use my laptop. He/I/we have allegedly d/l Scooter aswell.

Now I have d/l somethings online before but ceased to when I knew all the problems with it.

Reading through the forum (first 11 and last 5 pages to be exact) it does seem there is something not quite right. Many have been mentioned such as the link with Davenport Lyons etc, and with Terrence Tsang (on that note if anyone checked the acs flaw blog it shows an "alleged" picture of him, and a "alleged" twitter address. Looking at his friends who he is following seems to have a link with a p2p website. Don't know if I'm reading too much into it but seemed a bit weird).

 

When looking at the letter I also noticed that it said scooter released the album in the UK in October 2008 and the alleged download was in May. However, checking amazon.co.uk it came out before the alleged download! Plus the download name had year 2007 in it

 

I cannot confirm if I did or didnt d/l this. I can't remember, and I dont have Ipod I used back then, and if so I have not had use of laptop since June 08 when it stopped working.

 

My dad has contacted a solicitor regarding this issue, if not just for peace of mind. The person he spoke to wasnt sure of what to do. He has referred to someone more in touch with subject to see what he thinks. We should here back in day or two. I think he may have seen the letter. I will let you know of any feedback once we here back

 

PS, can someone remind me how i can find what my ip address to see if any pcs match the one on letter

 

google find my ip address:cool:

[Guest DJMadMax]

The file ID is correct, nothing missing.

 

ye it was right but DEAA49C0D2B8F152E8486E83E:-oFB2929B3F9A1CAB

there was a space in there

file name is

Scooter - Jumping All Over the World (2007).torrent

Size

67.1MB

and guess what.... it's linked to the same IP address

Edited July 1, 2009 by freakyleaky
removed unauthorised links

[Toulose LeDebt]

Some good points made a couple of posts up by 'HaggisHunter'.

 

I'm going to throw a curved ball into the discussion.

 

Imagine if the difgital data alleged downloaded had not been a song by 'Scooter' or a second rate video game. Imagine if the digital data had actually been:

 

An indecent photograph of a child.

 

Now I'm putting this up for debate because there has been quite a lot of legal activity on this front and statute and case law exists which whilst obviously not directly relevant are in my opinion relevant enough for the same questions to be asked and proven.

 

A photo is downloaded from the internet and stored as a digital file on a computer.

That scooter song is downloaded from the internet and stored as a digital file on a computer.

 

Now it is quite rightly a criminal offence to have an obscene photo of a child in your possession and possession can be taken to mean on your hard drive in such a format that it can be viewed or restored if deleted.

 

Here's the legal bit:

 

Criminal Justice Act 1988

 

Possession of indecent photograph of child

160 Summary offence of possession of indecent photograph of child

 

(1) It is an offence for a person to have any indecent photograph of a child (meaning in this section a person under the age of 16) in his possession.

 

(2) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove—

 

(a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph in his possession; or

 

(b) that he had not himself seen the photograph and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or

 

© that the photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for an unreasonable time.

 

(3) A person shall be liable on summary conviction of an offence under this section to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

 

(4) Sections 1(3), 2(3), 3 and 7 of the [1978 c. 37.] Protection of Children Act 1978 shall have effect as if any reference in them to that Act included a reference to this section.

 

(5) Possession before this section comes into force is not an offence.

 

Now it's the defences which interest me. Even for such a serious crime as child pornography there are acceptable defences 2a is unlikely but 2b and 2c are possible and have been used with success on occasion.

 

So the law accepts that it is okay to have something illegal on your hard drive if you haven't seen it and/or you have no reason to suspect it.

 

A little elaboration on this matter from the Crown guidance:

 

Section 160 Criminal Justice Act 1988

 

Section 160 Criminal Justice Act 1988 covers the offence of possession of an indecent photograph of a child. There are four defences to this offence, three are listed at section 160(2) Criminal Justice Act 1988 Archbold: 31- 115 and one is listed in section 160A. Three of these defences are very similar to those that apply to some of the offences under s.1 PCA 1978, i.e. marriage, etc of a child aged 16 or 17, legitimate reason, and the defendant's lack of knowledge. The fourth defence, which is not found in the PCA 1978, is that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him on his behalf, and he did not keep it for an unreasonable time.

 

For the mental element that the prosecution must prove; and what appears to be a photograph or pseudo-photograph see Atkins V DPP; Goodlands v DPP [2000] 2 Cr.App.R. 248 Archbold: 31- 115 although this now needs to be read in the context of the Court of Appeal judgment of R v Porter [2006] EWCA Crim 560.

 

Atkins V DPP is significant, in particular with respect to (1) computers with multiple users, where there is no forensic evidence as to which user accessed a site, and (2) prosecutions relating to possession of material stored within automatically generated areas of the hard drive. Forensic examination of the hard drive can usually identify what material is held within the temporary internet file, and assuming the identity of the user is known, such material may equally attract a charge of 'making' each such image without the need to prove knowledge of the automatic cache. If a user is demonstrated (e.g. by admission, or by proof he has accessed the temporary internet file off-line) to have known of the existence and effect of automatic operating software, the offence of possession may arise. Archbold: 31- 118

 

However in R v Porter the Court of Appeal held that an image will only be considered in possession if the defendant had "the custody or control of the image at that time. If at the time of possession the image is beyond his control, then...he will not possess it". This has implication for the use of forensic examinations if an image has been deleted, "possession" will depend on whether the defendant had the know-how and the software to allow him to retrieve the image. Where, however, the offender admits that he downloaded the image or accessed it on the Internet then a charge of 'making' under section 1 may arise. Archbold: 31- 118.

 

 

The R vs Porter appeal was upheld, primarily because the appellant had deleted the images in question PRIOR to his hard drives being forensically examined, the convicting Judge held that a deleted file constituted possession the appeal Court thought differently.

 

So if the DPP cannot gain a conviction under statute over posession of a digital file if that file has been deleted and the recycle bin emptied, I struggle to see how a Civil Court case could be succesful.

The argument of what constitutes possession has been well made and argued and is very clearly documented and although the files in question are obviously very different types they are all digital data which can be stored on a computer hard drive with or without the knowledge of the user. I suggest that short of seizing each individuals hard drive and proving that the file(s) in question are actually on there at time of seizure and were on there and retrivabe at the time of the alleged copyright offence, legally proving possession of a copyrighted file is going to be extremely difficult for this shower.

 

I'm pretty sure the Police and investigating agencies get full access to the ip addresses involved. tellingly no attempt at using the ip address is apparently ever made in pursuing a conviction under sec 160, presumably it's all a bit too vague for real Judges who need to see some proof.......

[Guest DJMadMax]

it's like i keep saying they have your IP address... that don't meen any thing as an IP address can be faked or any IP softwere can change it... the only way they can do any thing is be takeing your hard disk drive and testing it but still after 1 year most pep's have a new PC so it's going to end up having a new hard disk drive i know i dont have the same one i'm all way updating my PC all the time i get about 3 new one's a year so lets hope they dont send me a letter becuase i'll phone them and tell them were to get off big time lol

[the_shadow]

PS, can someone remind me how i can find what my ip address to see if any pcs match the one on letter

 

In windows Open up a dos window and type in IPCONFIG

 

S.

[the_shadow]

it's like i keep saying they have your IP address... that don't meen any thing as an IP address can be faked or any IP softwere can change it... the only way they can do any thing is be takeing your hard disk drive and testing it but still after 1 year most pep's have a new PC so it's going to end up having a new hard disk drive i know i dont have the same one i'm all way updating my PC all the time i get about 3 new one's a year so lets hope they dont send me a letter becuase i'll phone them and tell them were to get off big time lol

 

Or if people have done a few simple PC cleanup routines it would be hard if not impossible to find evidence....

 

such as deleting the file, clearing out recycle bin regularly, deleting all internet explorer temp cache.

 

Then the extra's like deleting the hidden internet explorer history files that record every site you visit, and running a defrag on the hard drive regularly to move all old file parts around.

 

S.

[Guest DJMadMax]

Or if people have done a few simple PC cleanup routines it would be hard if not impossible to find evidence....

 

such as deleting the file, clearing out recycle bin regularly, deleting all internet explorer temp cache.

 

Then the extra's like deleting the hidden internet explorer history files that record every site you visit, and running a defrag on the hard drive regularly to move all old file parts around.

 

S.

 

that dont work the only way of any files being rid of off your HD for ever is not to bin them or format then but a KILLDISC softwere or go to the western digital web site and get any Data Lifeguard Tools and there is kill disk softwere on that the softwere works be reseting the disk to defult and writes all 0's on the to the disk this softwere will work on on hard disk drive BUT by doing this you will have a total loss of all files so if there is any thing you want to keep back it up

[Guest DJMadMax]

is free to use and to download i'll post a link on F on the fun site

Edited July 1, 2009 by freakyleaky
removed unapproved links

[Toulose LeDebt]

I've not had one of these letters but this is what I'd send them.

 

Sir.

 

I recently received a claim in the amount of £***:** from yourselves in respect of an allegation that a computer user on my network had downloaded a copyrighted work on **/**/2008.

 

I refute your claim and put you to strict proof that I am culpable.

 

Please supply me with the following:

1) Proof that the file existed and was retrievable on a computer on my network at the time and date alleged.

2) Proof of the identity of the computer on my network on which this alleged infringement occured. I require in the very least the MAC address of the computer network card and motherboard in order that I might identify the computer as being one that I own or which uses my network.

3) Proof of the identity of the user at the time of the alleged offence. I will not accept the ip address as proof of identity, the ip address simply relates to the router/modem, individuals on my home network are identified by a local ip address and subnet mask and computer name. I require all three pieces of information in order to accurately determine which user of my network your claim is made against.

4) A copy of the information provided yourselves by my ISP proving that the ip address you cite was indeed in use by my router/modem at the time of the alleged incident. Please include the times and dates of any other ip addresses my modem leased from the isp in the preceding 7 days in order that I may establish the frequency with which my ip address changed. I also require more information on the ip address in question specifically the time and date on which it was assigned to me, and the time and date on which it was both leased to the previous leaseholder and released by that leaseholder. This is pertinent relevant information to request because there is one rather large and easily provable flaw in your user identification procedure:

 

If I reset my modem and release and then renew the ip address I receive a new ip address from my isp.

By enabling my pc as the default DMZ target and using logging software I can see that for a period of several hours the modem is receiving TCP/UDP traffic on unusual ports. This traffic is addressed to my current ip address but the port numbers and reverse ip lookups suggest that this is persistent data on bittorrent protocols. My modem is and has been receiving for some hours bittorrent packets and yet I have no bittorrent clients installed or running. This traffic has been generated by the previous leaseholder of my current ip address and yet if this traffic contained copyrighted files which your system tracked it is not the person who generated the request who is shown to be currently receiving them but myself who is wholly innocent of any such behaviour.

I therefore also require you to prove that any data packets received via TCP or UDP containing the material you allege was downloaded were firstly requested and then secondly received and compiled by a computer on my network and not by the previous leaseholder of the ip address in question. I suggest that if at the time and date in question my modem was receiving data packets containing the copyrighted files it was entirely without my knowledge and since my computer would not have the requisite software needed to compile these data packets into usable data these packets would have been dropped or refused by my modem without my knowledge.

Failure to provide all information requested within 14 days from the date of this letter will lead me to conclude that your claim against me is as I allege wholly unfounded and I shall discontinue communication with you. Should you persist in harrassing me for monies for an alleged infringement of copyright without reasonable proof that such an offence has been committed by a particular user of my network I may resort to litigation against yourselves through the County Courts and/or complain about your conduct to any regulatory bodies by whose standards you must abide.

 

I shoud also like to point out that the subject of what constitutes possession of digital data on a computer hard drive has been well covered in the Courts of this land in recent years. The Court of Appeal have upheld that simply having unlawful digital data on a computer hard drive does not in itself constitute an offence, such data must be there with knowledge and must be retrievabe. Even then if such data is deleted promptly it is a defence in law to any accusation of possession.

I hereby serve you notice that to my knowledge the file you claim to have been on my computer hard drive on **/**/2008 is not there now and to the best of my knowledge has never been on my hard drive. In the absence of forensic examination it is I believe going to be very difficult for you to prove otherwise, obviously I refuse you permission at all times to have access to my computer or any other computer which might connect to my network.

A copyright breach is a civil matter and there are a number of defences to such allegations of copyright to which you allude. I cannot see a civil judge choosing to overrule the findings of The Court of Appeal Judges on the legalities of what constitutes possession. I suggest you take some time and read what the Courts findings are on this matter. There exist several instances of case law in which the legalities of what constitutes possession of digital data on a computer hard drive are upheld, Regina Vs Porter in The Court of Appeal R v Porter [2006] EWCA Crim 560 is a good starting place for you.

 

 

I suggest that in the absence of any proof such data exists on any hard drive of any computer owned by myself that you confirm in writing your discontinuance of this scurrillous claim against myself immediately.

[Guest DJMadMax]

>>Toulose LeDebt

 

 

some of that is a good ider but in the letters it gives you a time and date of this file the name and a ID + track number it give so much info on this some called file that it make you think you may of done it i think it's a 7 or 8 page Doc with a last page asking you to sing it and send it back even if it was a kid under the age or 13... thats only so the IP address holder will still have to pay and by sending this back your holding your hands up and saying it's all dont to you and you'll pay up and if you do sing it they will hold you to it so no matter what DO NOT SING IT EVEN IF YOU WAS DOWNLOADING there is not 1 thing on you over then your IP address all a IP address is, is a number plate on a car any one can make one or copy it just to pass off as a diff user...

Edited July 1, 2009 by DJMadMax

[the_shadow]

that dont work the only way of any files being rid of off your HD for ever is not to bin them or format then but a KILLDISC softwere or go to the western digital web site and get any Data Lifeguard Tools and there is kill disk softwere on that the softwere works be reseting the disk to defult and writes all 0's on the to the disk this softwere will work on on hard disk drive BUT by doing this you will have a total loss of all files so if there is any thing you want to keep back it up

 

Trust me... you do the defrag regularly and it does random the filespace as it overwrites gaps when it moves data.

 

S.

[andydd]

My dad got one of these letters about 5 days ago and I have been looking through the forum with much interest. My dad uses the main PC and I use my laptop. He/I/we have allegedly d/l Scooter aswell.

Now I have d/l somethings online before but ceased to when I knew all the problems with it.

Reading through the forum (first 11 and last 5 pages to be exact) it does seem there is something not quite right. Many have been mentioned such as the link with Davenport Lyons etc, and with Terrence Tsang (on that note if anyone checked the acs flaw blog it shows an "alleged" picture of him, and a "alleged" twitter address. Looking at his friends who he is following seems to have a link with a p2p website. Don't know if I'm reading too much into it but seemed a bit weird).

 

When looking at the letter I also noticed that it said scooter released the album in the UK in October 2008 and the alleged download was in May. However, checking amazon.co.uk it came out before the alleged download! Plus the download name had year 2007 in it

 

I cannot confirm if I did or didnt d/l this. I can't remember, and I dont have Ipod I used back then, and if so I have not had use of laptop since June 08 when it stopped working.

 

 

 

PS, can someone remind me how i can find what my ip address to see if any pcs match the one on letter

 

Try whatismyipaddress com, bear in mind that it has probbly changed (not many ISP provide static ones) since the alleged download so may not be useful, but your ISP has already released information to court claiming that that is IP address 'you' were using at the time of the alleged download, wether this information is 100% correct is questionable.

 

Andy

[andydd]

I've not had one of these letters but this is what I'd send them.

 

Sir.

 

I recently received a claim in the amount of £***:** from yourselves in respect of an allegation that a computer user on my network had downloaded a copyrighted work on **/**/2008.

 

I refute your claim and put you to strict proof that I am culpable.

 

Please supply me with the following:

1) Proof that the file existed and was retrievable on a computer on my network at the time and date alleged.

2) Proof of the identity of the computer on my network on which this alleged infringement occured. I require in the very least the MAC address of the computer network card and motherboard in order that I might identify the computer as being one that I own or which uses my network.

3) Proof of the identity of the user at the time of the alleged offence. I will not accept the ip address as proof of identity, the ip address simply relates to the router/modem, individuals on my home network are identified by a local ip address and subnet mask and computer name. I require all three pieces of information in order to accurately determine which user of my network your claim is made against.

4) A copy of the information provided yourselves by my ISP proving that the ip address you cite was indeed in use by my router/modem at the time of the alleged incident. Please include the times and dates of any other ip addresses my modem leased from the isp in the preceding 7 days in order that I may establish the frequency with which my ip address changed. I also require more information on the ip address in question specifically the time and date on which it was assigned to me, and the time and date on which it was both leased to the previous leaseholder and released by that leaseholder. This is pertinent relevant information to request because there is one rather large and easily provable flaw in your user identification procedure:

 

If I reset my modem and release and then renew the ip address I receive a new ip address from my isp.

By enabling my pc as the default DMZ target and using logging software I can see that for a period of several hours the modem is receiving TCP/UDP traffic on unusual ports. This traffic is addressed to my current ip address but the port numbers and reverse ip lookups suggest that this is persistent data on bittorrent protocols. My modem is and has been receiving for some hours bittorrent packets and yet I have no bittorrent clients installed or running. This traffic has been generated by the previous leaseholder of my current ip address and yet if this traffic contained copyrighted files which your system tracked it is not the person who generated the request who is shown to be currently receiving them but myself who is wholly innocent of any such behaviour.

I therefore also require you to prove that any data packets received via TCP or UDP containing the material you allege was downloaded were firstly requested and then secondly received and compiled by a computer on my network and not by the previous leaseholder of the ip address in question. I suggest that if at the time and date in question my modem was receiving data packets containing the copyrighted files it was entirely without my knowledge and since my computer would not have the requisite software needed to compile these data packets into usable data these packets would have been dropped or refused by my modem without my knowledge.

Failure to provide all information requested within 14 days from the date of this letter will lead me to conclude that your claim against me is as I allege wholly unfounded and I shall discontinue communication with you. Should you persist in harrassing me for monies for an alleged infringement of copyright without reasonable proof that such an offence has been committed by a particular user of my network I may resort to litigation against yourselves through the County Courts and/or complain about your conduct to any regulatory bodies by whose standards you must abide.

 

I shoud also like to point out that the subject of what constitutes possession of digital data on a computer hard drive has been well covered in the Courts of this land in recent years. The Court of Appeal have upheld that simply having unlawful digital data on a computer hard drive does not in itself constitute an offence, such data must be there with knowledge and must be retrievabe. Even then if such data is deleted promptly it is a defence in law to any accusation of possession.

I hereby serve you notice that to my knowledge the file you claim to have been on my computer hard drive on **/**/2008 is not there now and to the best of my knowledge has never been on my hard drive. In the absence of forensic examination it is I believe going to be very difficult for you to prove otherwise, obviously I refuse you permission at all times to have access to my computer or any other computer which might connect to my network.

A copyright breach is a civil matter and there are a number of defences to such allegations of copyright to which you allude. I cannot see a civil judge choosing to overrule the findings of The Court of Appeal Judges on the legalities of what constitutes possession. I suggest you take some time and read what the Courts findings are on this matter. There exist several instances of case law in which the legalities of what constitutes possession of digital data on a computer hard drive are upheld, Regina Vs Porter in The Court of Appeal R v Porter [2006] EWCA Crim 560 is a good starting place for you.

 

 

I suggest that in the absence of any proof such data exists on any hard drive of any computer owned by myself that you confirm in writing your discontinuance of this scurrillous claim against myself immediately.

 

Nice one ..Some good points, although perhaps a bit too much info at an early stage, perhaps just a LOD initially and save the rest for possible court action, this could then be used in conjuction with some CPR requests perhaps ?

 

Andy

[pridewat]

I have just received reply from my MP that he has written to the relevant minister of state (With a copy of letter of claim i have received) and will get in touch with me when he receive a reply.

[spartathisis]

TLD not seen your posts for a while, nice letter and will be keeping a copy if I receive anything from them.

 

I would be interested on your thoughts on my thread here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/206827-getting-your-money-back.html

 

cheers