Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS?

No, because I haven't read the list, and you originally stated "dozens" (which was out of thousands of names).....

[lymmranger]

Hmmm...

seems there may be a new player!

at least on eposter on slyck claims to have recieved a letter from "goldeneye international"

....same business model - talk about getting on the train after its crashed

[joglynne]

I don't think this has been posted yet but if it has my apologies.

BT embroiled in ACS:Law list breach

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11434809

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by joglynne

I don't think this has been posted yet but if it has my apologies.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11434809

"Due to serious concerns about the integrity of the process that is being used by rights holders, we will resist efforts to share more customer details with rights holders and those acting on their behalf until we can be sure that alleged copyright infringements have some basis and customers are treated fairly," the spokesperson told BBC News.

when there is the type of money involved that these shysters are blackmailing people out of, You can expect them to use processes that have not been publicly shown to work 100% if it means they get there blood money even from those that they know are possibly Innocent. There are emails showing that ACS law had information that showed some of the users they were demanding money from might be innocent but they continued to press for there blood money. Its nice to see that at last they are being questioned by the isp's

[colin25]

To be clear..no letter

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Its nice to see that at last they are being questioned by the isp's

Which sorry to say won't do much... When ACS come knocking with a court order then the ISP's have to capitulate and provide the info when the fee for doing so has been paid..

It's the courts that need to take notice and ask for definitive proof before offering such a warrant

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Which sorry to say won't do much... When ACS come knocking with a court order then the ISP's have to capitulate and provide the info when the fee for doing so has been paid..

It's the courts that need to take notice and ask for definitive proof before offering such a warrant

Although if Sky & PlusNet now say that they will start challenging the NPO requests in court, ACS & co. may not even bother going after them... That's the case with TalkTalk, TalkTalk has said it will challenge any request for an NPO, & consequently it's always left out...(perhaps these law firms don't want their methods scrutinised )

[previously, ISPs have always capitulated when the law firms have gone to court for an NPO]

http://www.talktalkblog.co.uk/2010/0...ection-breach/

http://torrentfreak.com/judge-warns-...emands-100922/



------------------

EDIT:

This is interesting, regarding the "£16,000 damages" DL won in 2008

"High-Profile, High Damages File-Sharing ‘Conviction’ Was a Farce"

Originally Posted by TorrentFreak

In 2008, lawyers Davenport Lyons courted the mainstream media with the news that a court had found a woman guilty of sharing the game Dream Pinball 3D, an action which cost her around £16,000. Anyone with an understanding of these cases knew that something was wrong and now, thanks to yet more information from the leaked ACS:Law emails, we learn that this ‘conviction’ was built on foundations of sand.

(snip)

[TheDaddy]

How do we know? From the emails that ACS:Law accidentally published on their website last week, of course.

That's poor on soooo many levels...

[lymmranger]

...plenty of people attempted to verify tha "barwinska" case, even going to the trouble of attempting to obtain a transcript of the case, favours with court contacts were called in etc (all documented on various sites over last 3 years)
....eventually it was determined that it was an uncontested case, no transcript was ever typed up, and that the "damages" requested went through un-opposed.
I should also add that no such person has ever been traced on electoral rolls or indeed any other searchable database.
cynics have suggested that the whole case was "manufactured" and the leaked emails certainly at the very least call the case a "farce"
Given the "evidence" we have also seen in the leaked emails I would venture an educated guess that all the law firms involved in the business model, are well aware that court is the last place they want to be we suspected it (the evidence) was flimsy but they even told their monitoring service not to bother with indepth testing and that if an IP address appears for at least a second then that was good enough for them!!!)

[vanman]

A QUOTE FROM V.M

"To protect our customers we can and do oppose applications for disclosure. As such, we have not and do not intend to support requests from ACS:Law," a VM spokesman said.
He said the company would comply with court orders, but it would supply personal data only in an encrypted form as part of the company's standard data handling policy.
He said Virgin Media was committed to tackling online illegal activity but believed consumer education and legitimate services were the best way to fight illegal file-sharing.

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articl...ata-breach.htm

[lymmranger]

So far this whole business model has relied on NPO applications going un opposed by the various ISP`s. To be fair they had the wool pulled over their eyes somewhat by assurances that the evidence against "infringers" was impeachable (need a flying pig smylie here),

however,

Once you begin to understand how this whole thing has worked so far, opposing an NPO application is simple....

ACS have openly stated in emails that capturing any IP address connected for at least a second "is good enough for us".
They were not interested in a more thorough observation of said IP address.

So....

Virgin merely need to question the authenticity of the "capture" process and further question what "checks" were made. From what we have seen (and always suspected) ACS wont have an answer and the application will fail.

....Actually if virgin were to actually turn up in court, ACS would probrably withdraw the action anyway, for fear of any sort of question being asked.

From what I can see around the various boards, all ISP`s are currently coming under severe pressure (from their customers) to actually attend court and ask questions.

....maybe the "stone" has finally started to "roll down the hill"?

[Ytrewq]

I don't know too much about this but its been all over the news over the last couple of days. Wouldn't the DEA force isps to hand over the information regardless of how it was gathered isn't that the idea?

Not sure if this is a stupid question.

[lymmranger]

I think you are getting mixed up between the digital britain debacle and what we are discussing above, which is (in the main so far) "civil law" - or rather an "implied threat" of civil law.
The above "model" is relatively simple...
1/ plant and seed selected torrents
2/ observe and record all IP addressses connected
3/ go to court, apply for an NPO which forces ISP to hand over account holders details
4/ send very aggressive letters to account holder, threatening eternal damnation if "demanded" sum of money not paid
5/ repeat endlessly...

A very clever and simple money making scheme dressed up as "infringement"

I am sure I do not need to point out that with such a simple "plan" many many corners have been cut evidentially, but hey ho people pay up anyway..

...well maybe not for much longer

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by vanman

A QUOTE FROM V.M


http://www.computerweekly.com/Articl...ata-breach.htm

No ISP will give details without a court order and if they did then they are in breach of the DPA.. All of ACS's requests have been through a court order

[Ytrewq]

I've only been looking into this for a short time after finding this forum and looking through the threads so I might have gotten things mixed up. Great site by the way.

I thought that the digital economy act or digital britain act not sure if there is a difference would force isps to hand over this sort of information so that if a rights holder wants to go to court and get a order the isp would be forced to go along with it or face consequences like fines or something. I also couldn't see how an isp could support say someone like the bpi but then say no to someone else surely they would be able to argue that they were trying to protect their rights to and were not being allowed to do so. From what I've read people will get warnings first under the new laws but that rights holders don't have to do that.

From what I've read its all about the court orders being granted in the first place but it would be strange to me that you would have grounds to contest one in the case of acs but not contest another by the bpi. I can imagine the bpi process to be more robust but is there any controls being set up as guide lines for other companies and would they be forced to reveal there methods?

I suppose if it all about the money then they will go after the isps which don't put up a fight but as more and more isps might start to do this with acs and their clients they might have to to go up against one of the isps who refuse such as talk talk or virgin.