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

[wittzend]

Apparently it has been adjourned until January 2011.

 

What a joke!

[lou22]

Had to laugh as I read the indignation from Sky at ACS:Laws lax security. Being a Sky customer and after receiving a letter from Crossely I was intrigued by their comments that cloning and piggy-backing were impossible in P2P and that their experts disregarded these results, bit of a contradiction to start with. Anyway it turns out that accessing another Sky router is easy, there is a web site dedicated to generating your unique Sky password and its been active since 2008. Obviously I will not give details of the site but sky do know about it, when I questioned them about it they had no comment to make, what a surprise!

This seems like a ideal defence to these unfounded allegations if you are innocent and are not a computer expert because after all Sky sell there system on the basis that “The Sky Broadband wireless router has been designed to use secure encryption technology and we pre-configure the wireless security with a default password when you first install your Broadband router. By default our routers` wireless security is on – which is not standard practice from most Broadband providers. We do this because your Broadband security is very important to us.” In there response to Ofcoms consultation on the DEA in July Sky say" Draft clause 7.12.3 provides subscribers with grounds for appeal if they can show that they took “reasonable steps” to prevent other persons infringing copyright by means of the ISP service. However, it is unclear what constitutes “reasonable steps” and Ofcom should provide some clarity. For example Sky has the encryption key printed on the bottom of the router. If Sky subscribers follow our instructions i.e. encrypt the network, (a) would these be reasonable steps? And (b) is it an acceptable defence to argue that that another person in the household was able to use the pc connect “securely” to that router using that same encryption key?" They do not mention the fact that their routers can so easily be compromised. It seems to me that the fact that you as a sky customer you used a Sky router, that you are obliged to use under your contract, and you used a Sky recommended password in your security, you cannot be held responsible if your system is compromised and used to illegally file share.

Something else I came across in my research was the possibility that the routers supplied by Sky, Netgear models, are originally supplied with a system that can be configured to block P2P file sharing, when Sky flash there own system on to the router this ability is removed. Obviously Sky as a copyright owner need to talk to Sky as an ISP.

 

Could some one please direct me to this web site,as im on the list and i want as much evidence as possble so that i can tell sky where to go.

[WhatToDo1]

Actually I keep expecting to read newflash.."Lawyer found hanging in Hanover square park"

 

Andy

 

Your not the only one expecting that. Since the leaks i have been expecting to hear in the news that he's commit suicide or something.

[cerberusalert]

BT seeks moratorium on internet piracy cases http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11467347

 

 

BT said that it wanted a temporary halt on all new and existing applications until a "test case" could be heard.

 

It was originally to be heard today but was adjourned until 11 January 2011 following a hearing at London's High Court.

 

"This will be a test case for ISPs," a legal representative of BT told BBC News.

 

The case involves lawyers from law firm Gallant Macmillan, who are seeking a court order to obtain the names and addresses of a "large number" of broadband users from PlusNet, BSkyB and Be Internet suspected of illegally downloading and sharing music from the nightclub and record label Ministry of Sound

 

BSKyB were not represented at today's hearing.

[wittzend]

BT seeks moratorium on internet piracy cases http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11467347

Typical Sky. You would of thought of all the ISPs they would have had the loudest voice.

[STC12]

So GM "fully intend to litigate" if granted this court order. Ermm Could CMW ask why they have not done so with the previous batch of names and claims ? I think he should !

[floppydog]

Why were Sky not there...............they already bent over and gave names to GM. I know, soneone close to me already got a letter saying that they had downloaded some crap from Ministry of Sound and wanted £ 375.00 ( if paid, you could keep your alleged download and everything would be Hunky Dory.......AS IF !!!!! )

Edited October 4, 2010 by floppydog

[floppydog]

This is floating around on Slyck and Torrentfreak, it's well worth watching. I have no idea who to thank for this so " THANK YOU !!!"

Enjoy:rockon:

 

 

 

************************************************

edit by BankFodder 5th October 2010:-

 

Link above removed and replaced HERE

 

I can confirm that this is a hilarious video and big thanks to FloppyDog for noticing it and for telling us all about it.

Edited October 4, 2010 by floppydog
Spolling errer

[Shaggy123]

What a joke!

 

Why is it?

[izzitme101]

information passed on that should shut down all these idiots that try this in one go

Not going into detail yet tho

[Huff&Puff]

Some of you may find this article interesting:

 

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/10/the-legal-blackmail-business/all/1

[piglette]

It seems that the GM/MoS/ Plusnet case is being postponed until 11 January 2011, as BT are saying that they want a "test" case and will try and fight GM's Norwich Pharmacal Order. Hopefully they will try and prove that it is the wrong precedent to use in these cases.

[acslaw-no-pay]

Huff&Puff - very good read

[andydd]

That insect scares me

 

Andy

[STC12]

Has anybody reading this had a recent letter from ACS or GM? Either a 1st letter or 2nd? If you're reading this but not yet joined the forum, it would be good to hear from you.

Edited October 5, 2010 by STC12
tryping error

[wittzend]

Why is it?

 

This farce could have been finished yesterday if the ISPs had put up a better fight.So much for all the letters to CMW,nothing questioned about the validity the gathering evidence. British justice going the same way as British Industry:sad:

[piglette]

This farce could have been finished yesterday if the ISPs had put up a better fight.So much for all the letters to CMW,nothing questioned about the validity the gathering evidence. British justice going the same way as British Industry:sad:

This is why BT asked for an adjournment, so they can contest the order when it is heard in January. So fingers crossed, they might put up a good fight.

[wittzend]

This is why BT asked for an adjournment, so they can contest the order when it is heard in January. So fingers crossed, they might put up a good fight.

I'm not holding my breath

[Bloody-Angry]

Looks like ACS are now getting desperate to collect as much revenue as possible before they are closed down permanently.

 

I recieved a phone call on my mobile from Jonathan Miller last week just after the 'email leaks' appeared in the public domain, this weasel asked me if there was a problem with my 'payment' as nothing had been recieved by them from me in respect of my copyright infringement!!!

 

I (very respectfully) explained to the cretin that the reason they hadn't recieved anything from me was because I hadn't sent them anything and furthermore I wouldn't be sending any form of monetary payment.....Simples!!!

 

As it was pornography that I was accused of uploading (not downloading) this pathetic excuse for a human being went on to tell me that he had spoken to my neighbours and they had apparently told him that 'I was into that kind of thing'!!!! (F***ing Grannies!!! I think not)

 

They are now stooping lower and lower,if thats possible.

 

Just posting this to advise everyone to stand firm and dont pay these parasites a single penny, If nobody pays they dont have an income and its been said 100's of times on here but I will reiterate it.

 

THEY HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT INSTIGATE COURT PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT PROVE WHO DOWNLOADED THE CONTENT ALL THEY HAVE IS AN ISP ADDRESS,THIS WILL NEVER STAND UP IN COURT AND THEY CANNOT RISK LOSING 1 CASE BECAUSE IF THEY LOSE THE WHOLE [problem] COLLAPSES.

 

Stand firm.Stand together

Edited October 5, 2010 by Bloody-Angry
spelling mistakes

[WhatToDo1]

Looks like ACS are now getting desperate to collect as much revenue as possible before they are closed down permanently.

 

I recieved a phone call on my mobile from Jonathan Miller last week just after the 'email leaks' appeared in the public domain, this weasel asked me if there was a problem with my 'payment' as nothing had been recieved by them from me in respect of my copyright infringement!!!

 

I will look forward to getting a phonecall, i would very much like to tell them what I think of them. They SHOULD have received my LOD by now, i hope they ring to tell me they're not accepting it. I'd like to see them try and tell me they have talked to my neighbours, one neighbour knows i don't listen to dance music and despise it, the other neighbour, well I'd like to see them get information out of her, she's never in.

[piglette]

ACS:Law Boss: I Feel Defeated And Could Go Bankrupt.

 

Looks like AC is owing quite a lot of money. My heart bleeds.

http://torrentfreak.com/acslaw-boss-i-feel-defeated-and-could-go-bankrupt-101003/

[STC12]

Am I right to presume then that no new NPO's will be issued until after the hearing?

[wittzend]

Looks like ACS are now getting desperate to collect as much revenue as possible before they are closed down permanently.

 

I recieved a phone call on my mobile from Jonathan Miller last week just after the 'email leaks' appeared in the public domain, this weasel asked me if there was a problem with my 'payment' as nothing had been recieved by them from me in respect of my copyright infringement!!!

 

I (very respectfully) explained to the cretin that the reason they hadn't recieved anything from me was because I hadn't sent them anything and furthermore I wouldn't be sending any form of monetary payment.....Simples!!!

 

As it was pornography that I was accused of uploading (not downloading) this pathetic excuse for a human being went on to tell me that he had spoken to my neighbours and they had apparently told him that 'I was into that kind of thing'!!!! (F***ing Grannies!!! I think not)

 

They are now stooping lower and lower,if thats possible.

 

Just posting this to advise everyone to stand firm and dont pay these parasites a single penny, If nobody pays they dont have an income and its been said 100's of times on here but I will reiterate it.

 

THEY HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT INSTIGATE COURT PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT PROVE WHO DOWNLOADED THE CONTENT ALL THEY HAVE IS AN ISP ADDRESS,THIS WILL NEVER STAND UP IN COURT AND THEY CANNOT RISK LOSING 1 CASE BECAUSE IF THEY LOSE THE WHOLE [problem] COLLAPSES

 

Stand firm.Stand together

 

How did they get your mobile number:?:VERY suspicious

[Shaggy123]

I recieved a phone call on my mobile from Jonathan Miller last week just after the 'email leaks' appeared in the public domain, this weasel asked me if there was a problem with my 'payment' as nothing had been recieved by them from me in respect of my copyright infringement!!!

 

This begs the question, why have you given them your mobile number?

[WhatToDo1]

This begs the question, why have you given them your mobile number?

 

If its o2 like me, you get a discoount on broadband if you have your phone with them. So your phone number will be linked i'm guessing. So I am also taking a punt that o2 are possible giving all the info they have, not just name and address...which means they will also have mobile number. If I am right with this theory they will have my mobile to as I'm on o2.

 

I could be completely wrong on this theory, it's just a guess (I tend to over think things too!)