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

[mr.ton]

We are far too preoccupied with the thought of who will win X Factor for example, to even bother worrying about things like this.

That is the way the government/authorities in this country hope it remains.

[cashins]

We are far too preoccupied with the thought of who will win X Factor for example, to even bother worrying about things like this.

That is the way the government/authorities in this country hope it remains.

 

You're right about that!

 

We are sleepwalking all the way to sh*t city and few seem to know or care for that matter.

 

David

[halfords]

Petition to: abandon Lord Mandelson's plans to ban individuals from the internet based on their use of 'peer to peer' file sharing. | Number10.gov.uk

 

worth signing anyone know any more?

[halfords]

Petition to: abandon Lord Mandelson's plans to ban individuals from the internet based on their use of 'peer to peer' file sharing. | Number10.gov.uk

 

worth signing anyone know any more?

 

 

or anyone want to start one? The law really does need a shake up

[cerberusalert]

Yeh, I'd start a petition against Meddlesome, an unelected member of the government who takes it upon himself to create Statute Law.

[penumbra]

or anyone want to start one? The law really does need a shake up

 

Frankly you'd be better off replying to the consultation which closes on monday. See my earlier posts here and on slyck for details.

[mr.ton]

Ive been reading comments on the Slyck site that many people could now actually sue ACS law.

If enough people who have received threatening letters did this, then Mr Crossley wouldnt know what hit him

[Drexl Spivey]

If they are accusing you of having the ip number that downloaded these files, but they are not accusing you of storing it on your hard drive : ie :

"“We do not claim that your computer was used to commit the infringing act (although we do not exclude this possibility), nor do we claim that you downloaded our client’s work. Our claim is that your Internet connection was used to make our client’s work available via one or more P2P networks. The file may not, therefore, be on your computer.”

 

How can they accuse you of making this file available for download to others.

"or the purpose of making it available via P2P" .

Surely the claim stops in some ether region of the file existing somewhere along your broadband line , and thus not in a storage area that would be required to make it available for sharing ?

 

Or indeed, not in a format to even be used to for your own convenience.

[cerberusalert]

According to that logic the 'infringement' is being a member of a P2P site because you have access to the file, not that you've downloaded or passed it on? If that's the case they might as well sue everyone with an internet connection because the file is in the public domain.

[Drexl Spivey]

I just do not see how they can claim you are using this file personally or sharing it, if the claim only extends to the file being on a internet connection for a period of time . How can you share a file that is on your telephone line somewhere? That is the extent to what you are being accused of , having the connection, not the storage. Would that then make any claim that requires storage of the information redundant , as the claim only extends to the bytes on the telephone line , which is as far as they can prove ?

 

To suggest you are using it/ sharing it , is some kind of subtle backward inference of something that goes beyond what they are claiming or can prove, ie that it is on your computer hard drive . They should have to prove how these bytes of info on your telephone line can be shared with others without the use of assumption of guilt of any items not within their claim, ie your computer hard drive.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Drexl Spivey

[mr.ton]

This whole [problem] has been ill thought out by Crossley quite frankly.

The only thing they have on their side at the moment is threats & fear, so that someone will just pay up etc...

The sooner the whole population is not fearful anymore, then people like Crossley will be defeated.

[car2403]

If I play Devil's advocate, I believe they are claiming you are allowing a potential breach of copyright by being negligent in your use of your internet connection, by potentially allowing the file to be downloaded via your IP. Further, they are claiming that such behaviour is damaging to their clients rights, as you are, potentially, an accomplice to a copyright infringment.

 

Of course, putting that particular hat to one side, for a moment, the statement that I've just made (which I'm yet to see as a particulars of claim against someone, BTW) has far to many "potentially" type words to actually hold any water.

 

If I'm right in my assumptions, I actually think that they **may** have a case against those that **have** downloaded this file and negligently, or otherwise, allowed it to be shared via their IP. Of course, proving it is another matter - and, further, proving that it was you that did it is neigh on impossible.

 

Again, if I'm right, (and I recall my law correctly from when I studied negligence) they can only prove negligence by an act - in other words, I don't think you can be negligent by omission. (by not doing an act - securing your IP address, in this instance)

 

Bearing in mind that they aren't, apparently, coming after people for breaching copyright. They claim that their clients have suffered financial loss as a result of a breach of copyright, laying it at your door, and that you should pay them damages as a result. Of course, as with any damages that are that specific, they need to prove the path of "causation", which is a legal term showing that your behaviour, (or, presumably, non-behaviour in their terms - back to omissions again) resulted and caused the damage. IMHO, even if they can successfully bring a claim, deal with the technical aspects of unsecured IP addresses and convince a Judge that you are the party that should pay, they will not be able to establish sufficient causation to actually be allowed to recover sufficient damages to make this worth their while.

 

This post is probably very confusing to the majority of you reading it, but this is my understanding of the legal situation that they intend to bring about by these threats of complaints. TBH, parts of their claim are very confusing to me, even with the (very limited) legal understanding that I have.

 

Perhaps I have just uncovered their MO, though. They don't, it seems, have a legal leg to stand one, so are, again, hoping that people will pay up without a fight, meaning none of these challenges have to be surmounted. Oh, then there's those that ignore the claim and have Judgment by Default entered. The result will probably be the same.

 

The only way to deal with this, then, is to deny all allegations that are unfounded and include some detail about the legal reasoning I've provided here about the technical issues and the lack of causation resulting in damages in a defence, should a claim come your way.

[Drexl Spivey]

That all is still an inference of guilt beyond what they are claiming for . They are not claiming it was on your hard drive , how can they thus proceed to claim you have listened to it, shared it , copied it . It all ends on the telephone line , nothing is claimed beyond that, save by inference. Why cannot it be defended where their claim is , the connection . Why are computers involved at all, unless they want to try and prove it is your computer that saved the data.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Drexl Spivey

[car2403]

 

It must be on your PC if you downloaded it - that's the only way you could have shared it, which is their claim

 

[Drexl Spivey]

"“We do not claim that your computer was used to commit the infringing act (although we do not exclude this possibility), nor do we claim that you downloaded our client’s work. Our claim is that your Internet connection was used to make our client’s work available via one or more P2P networks. The file may not, therefore, be on your computer.”

 

They are making a leap between what they are claiming for , the internet connection , and all these other subsequent accusations that require a medium that they are not claiming for , there is a fallacy there , no ?

[car2403]

"“We do not claim that your computer was used to commit the infringing act (although we do not exclude this possibility), nor do we claim that you downloaded our client’s work. Our claim is that your Internet connection was used to make our client’s work available via one or more P2P networks. The file may not, therefore, be on your computer.”

 

Yes, but the key words being highlighted here - they can't prove that your computer did it, but they claim they can prove a computer did and that your IP address was used.

 

We're saying the same thing, just in different ways.

 

You're saying you didn't download it to your computer.

 

I (and they) are saying that a computer did, but not necessarily yours.

 

This just proves they don't know what you did/didn't do, so how can they claim against you? (See my earlier posts for relevant points to highlight if they do)

[Drexl Spivey]

Is that part of their claim thou that it 'may' have been your computer, or is their claim that your internet connection was used ?

[car2403]

It's that your connection was used and it may have been your PC or another one

[Drexl Spivey]

OK. So they would submit a 'may have' as their case , to be judged as a likely probability to then further determine the 'may have' of having shared the data' , as another likely probability to find the party guilty . Sorry , I did not realize 'may have's' were what courts worked on with claims, only bona fide assertions and they decided the likely probability of it's authenticity. Learn something new everyday. Didn't realize the question of probability could arise from the claimant before the court had a chance to decide.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Drexl Spivey

[car2403]

No, I think you're on the right track, there, DS.

 

They think they have a case, but only a Judge can decide if they actually have.

 

FWIW, I don't think they do. For the reasons you've outlined, there.

 

It all seems a very clever play on words and threats, hopefully that most won't fall for, IMHO.

[Drexl Spivey]

So , the 'may have ' just brings us back to spurious claims , and only the outstanding proof of connection remains . And that proves nothing . So why allow them to forage into the spurious , let them make their case on the actual points they have proof of .

Edited September 27, 2009 by Drexl Spivey

[cashins]

So , the 'may have ' just brings us back to spurious claims , and only the outstanding proof of connection remains . And that proves nothing . So why allow them to forage into the spurious , let them make their case on the actual points they have proof of .

 

So IF the information they have is accurate, (and there is some doubt in this), they could 'prove' your IP was used and that's it.

 

Which then comes back to possible:

 

Unauthorised use of your connection either physically or hijacking your wireless connection.

 

ID spoofing which is not, (so I am told difficult) and appears relatively commonplace.

 

David

[Yorky2008]

It seems that Digiprotect lost a case in Germany, this is form the SLyck website

 

Google Translate

[Yorky2008]

In addition, from here

 

Updated: Anti-Piracy Outfit and Lawyers May Operate Illegally | TorrentFreak

 

“No one working for DigiProtect has a fixed salary. If we make money, everybody makes money. If we don’t, nobody does. This means the lawyers, sales people and customers. It’s all about how much money can be recouped and then sharing it,” he added, crucially.

And here lies the problem. According to lawyer Christian Solmecke of Wilde & Beuger law firm in Germany, the law requires such an operation to have an RVG agreement, which is part of the mechanism to regulate attorney’s fees. Since no-one can say how much the lawyers get paid, this causes difficulty.

[andydd]

 

It must be on your PC if you downloaded it - that's the only way you could have shared it, which is their claim

 

 

Well..no..it may actually be stored on another PC in your home or in fact another PC that you have access too. (i.e your work PC, a remote storage site, etc), the list is endless, thats why they are just saying that you have at some point shared the file via a P2P program, of course this doesnt take into account that the Logistep IP snooping program is faulty, that the IP info from your ISP is incorrect, that someone hi-jacked your connection, that someone used IP spoofing software or that someone using your connection was responsible (family member, flatmate, friend, etc). Proving it was you would be nigh on impossible.

 

Andy