Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

ACS Law Part 3 or 4



Collar Feeler

No longer feeling collars
Jul 26, 2003
1,322
Can't really see how this firm aim to prove who infringed the copyright by downloading stuff (be it porn or music). I'm assuming they are basing it on the IP addresses which is fatally flawed since you can't actually prove who downloaded it onto what computer simply based on an IP address.

For instance, one of my neighbours is still rather foolishly using an unsecured broadband wireless router. If I was so inclined I could simply piggyback and use this connection to download anything at my leisure. The first my neighbours might know of this is a letter from ACS Law accusing them of illegal downloads etc. So it is flawed and I expect ACS Law just base their efforts on a percentage of people being horrified and scared of the letter and paying up £400 thinking they are avoiding court action etc. I may be wrong though, perhaps some of our more computer savvy NSC experts can shed some light on this?

This story on the BBC website did give me a chuckle though, she has clearly never heard of P2P torrent programs that can be left on overnight whilst the downloads complete!! I think her other half might like the old tubbies! Of course it might have been one of her neighbours!

Claire is a Sky Broadband customer from Shropshire whose name has appeared on one of the lists leaked onto the internet.

She received a letter three weeks ago accusing her of illegally sharing a pornographic film.

The 25-year-old told Newsbeat she's never file-shared pornography in her life.

What exactly did the letter say?

"The film was called Chubby Chasers, which is just awful, and the letter [said] I owed them £495 or they would be taking me to court in a civil law case.

"I burst into tears because I didn't recognise the name of the film, I've never uploaded or downloaded pornography in my life.

"I was distraught, really really upset."

How can you prove that you didn't do it?

"The time that I was accused of downloading the film I was in bed. It was very early morning - on a Tuesday.

"My alarm wouldn't have even gone off yet.

"My partner had been made redundant and I know damn well that he was in bed and hadn't got up and started download pornography.

"I know we didn't do it. There was no way we could have done it."
 




Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
24,785
GOSBTS
Can't really see how this firm aim to prove who infringed the copyright by downloading stuff (be it porn or music). I'm assuming they are basing it on the IP addresses which is fatally flawed since you can't actually prove who downloaded it onto what computer simply based on an IP address.

For instance, one of my neighbours is still rather foolishly using an unsecured broadband wireless router. If I was so inclined I could simply piggyback and use this connection to download anything at my leisure. The first my neighbours might know of this is a letter from ACS Law accusing them of illegal downloads etc. So it is flawed and I expect ACS Law just base their efforts on a percentage of people being horrified and scared of the letter and paying up £400 thinking they are avoiding court action etc. I may be wrong though, perhaps some of our more computer savvy NSC experts can shed some light on this?

Correct. It is just hoping that a percentage pay up. A lot of correspondance (internal and external) was leaked too. A lot of it very amusing
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,031
Coller Feeler, you raise a point that has been discussed literally the world over, but somehow they still continue. whats really worrying is the last government pushed through legislation which would make the account holder liable or facing their internet access cut/reduced. its still not on the statue books (legislation provided a timeframe for consultation on the details), but when the issue come again everyone needs a pay attention and complain, not let it go past.
 




clippedgull

Hotdogs, extra onions
Aug 11, 2003
20,789
Near Ducks, Geese, and Seagulls
SKY News First for Breaking news.

Zero mention of this on their website :lolol:

I wonder if Uncle Rupert will be sending cheques out to all his customers that have been named? Or will he risk any lawsuits?

If this was the US he would be soon shelling out hundreds of millions of pounds in damages.
 




Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
24,785
GOSBTS
SKY News First for Breaking news.

Zero mention of this on their website :lolol:

I wonder if Uncle Rupert will be sending cheques out to all his customers that have been named? Or will he risk any lawsuits?

If this was the US he would be soon shelling out hundreds of millions of pounds in damages.

Technically it is ACS's problem for not securing the data. Although there is some debate over whether ISP's should be handing out these details anyway. But on the flipside they get to charge for this information.
 




Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
24,785
GOSBTS
I don't think the ISP's had a choice as ACS had a court order in their favour against Sky and BT

Just made an enquiry about this with a contact at TalkTalk legal. Apparently TalkTalk and Virgin both contested the court orders and ACS immediately backed down without a fight. Meaning if Sky, BT, whoever had of done this, the same would have happened.
 




clippedgull

Hotdogs, extra onions
Aug 11, 2003
20,789
Near Ducks, Geese, and Seagulls
Technically it is ACS's problem for not securing the data. Although there is some debate over whether ISP's should be handing out these details anyway. But on the flipside they get to charge for this information.

True, but SKY sent the data over unencrypted to ACS which breaks the courts order.

It will be interesting to see how much teeth the Data Protection Office has in this situation.
 


Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
24,785
GOSBTS
I did not think Sky sent it un-encrypted? BT/Plusnet did.
 


surrey jim

Not in Surrey
Aug 2, 2005
18,163
Bevendean
True, but SKY sent the data over unencrypted to ACS which breaks the courts order.

It will be interesting to see how much teeth the Data Protection Office has in this situation.
BT sent the customers data unencrypted nothing to suggest Sky have done anything wrong.
 








Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patron
Oct 27, 2003
21,530
The arse end of Hangleton
Correct. It is just hoping that a percentage pay up. A lot of correspondance (internal and external) was leaked too. A lot of it very amusing

Very much like the stupid "parking fines" from private parking enforcement companies. Overall best ignored if you get a demand.
 






strings

Moving further North...
Feb 19, 2006
9,969
Barnsley
Not that I have used illegal downloading in a long time. But what would be the correct respose to one of these letters? A polite letter refusing to pay until the allegation is proved?
 


Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
24,785
GOSBTS
Not that I have used illegal downloading in a long time. But what would be the correct respose to one of these letters? A polite letter refusing to pay until the allegation is proved?

Ignore it.

Or if you REALLY must reply, send a response denying the allegation and ask any further correspondance will levy a £150 charge, per incident / item.
 


deletebeepbeepbeep

Well-known member
May 12, 2009
21,820
I wouldn't ignore it but send them a letter denying everything, you'll probably find draft letters as such on the Internet.
 




phoenix

Well-known member
May 18, 2009
2,871
Make sure you send it recorded delivery.So you can prove you have sent it.If you ask them for all the evidence they have on this matter.Very likely you will never hear from them again. :thumbsup:
 


happypig

Staring at the rude boys
May 23, 2009
8,183
Eastbourne
How can you prove that you didn't do it?

Fortunately, under british law, you don't have to prove you didn't do something; the other party has to prove that you did (the burden of proof differs in civil and criminal cases but it's still down to ACS:law to prove that I downloaded "goat shaggers". To simply say that it must be me because it's my internet connection is not proof enough.
However, ignoring them *could* be construed as accepting thier case so I would always write back and simply say "This internet connection is paid for by me. I did not download the file(s) referred to"
I would not ask them for any proof or to back up thier case, the time for that is when it comes to court (which it never will).
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here