Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS? - Page 12

Kymmy · 06-10-2008, 16:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by photodude

Thank you.

Everyone....... Including you....

photodude · 06-10-2008, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Everyone....... Including you....

As if I didn't know that

Anyway, just been looking on a few sites, and it seems many are working on the fact that they have to prove it was the person in the claim who breached the copyrights. So unless you are a single occupancy household, with wired connection and no visitors, they would have great difficulty proving that.

Section 16(2) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Quote:

Copyright in a work is infringed 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

Without proving the above, the case fails

shawty · 06-10-2008, 17:09

People know they have the game illgeally (downloaded when they didnt even own the original copy) In basic terms, thats theft, but they aint man enough to own up to it and try to wriggle out of it. It will be the same people who try to wriggle out of speeding fines, parking fines, litter fines.

photodude · 06-10-2008, 17:29

Problem is, there are MANY respondents who didn't knowingly download it, or have no knowledge of it. There are also those who downloaded it, and did not upload it/use it. They have done nothing to breach the copyrights, and are therefore being falsely accused

Example:
A household of 2 adults and 2 kids have got the letter. It's the VM account holder who is the respondent (details given by VM), but he/she has no knowledge of the download (or what ever). Maybe it was one of the kids who downloaded it, but that does not make a case against the VM account holder.
Yes they are responsible for the use of their VM account (that is not in question). But they did not "authorise another" to breach the copyrights of a third party, so the case fails on section 16(2) of the CDPA.

shawty · 06-10-2008, 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by photodude

Problem is, there are MANY respondents who didn't knowingly download it, or have no knowledge of it. There are also those who downloaded it, and did not upload it/use it. They have done nothing to breach the copyrights, and are therefore being falsely accused

Example:
A household of 2 adults and 2 kids have got the letter. It's the VM account holder who is the respondent (details given by VM), but he/she has no knowledge of the download (or what ever). Maybe it was one of the kids who downloaded it, but that does not make a case against the VM account holder.
Yes they are responsible for the use of their VM account (that is not in question). But they did not "authorise another" to breach the copyrights of a third party, so the case fails on section 16(2) of the CDPA.

How would the case fail, the game was still downloaded by a person living in that household, be it the Virgin Media account holder or not.

And are you trying to say I can download anything legally aslong as I dont upload it? That cant be true.

Noob91 · 06-10-2008, 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Yes they are.

Source? Unless you're talking about a trip to the British Library.

Kymmy · 06-10-2008, 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by photodude

Problem is, there are MANY respondents who didn't knowingly download it,

Says who?? please provide proof of someone who downloaded it but didn;t know they did??

Any P2P software will only download software which you select... even if it's renamed the HASH which people like Davenport Lyons realy on stays the same, selecting the details/properties of the post will give you every single filename it's known as..

In the end there is no straight defence, though there is people who will eventually find a loophole...

shawty · 06-10-2008, 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Says who?? please provide proof of someone who downloaded it but didn;t know they did??

Any P2P software will only download software which you select... even if it's renamed the HASH which people like Davenport Lyons realy on stays the same, selecting the details/properties of the post will give you every single filename it's known as..

In the end there is no straight defence, though there is people who will eventually find a loophole...

And thats what I dont like. Like I said, it will be the same people who try their hardest to get off from speeding/parking/litter fines. Not man enought to admit they did wrong.

photodude · 06-10-2008, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by shawty

How would the case fail, the game was still downloaded by a person living in that household, be it the Virgin Media account holder or not.

And are you trying to saying I can download anything legally aslong as I dont upload it? That cant be true.

Case would fail because the respondent was not the down-loader, or authorising another to download. They authorised a third party to use their connection to the net, not to breach copyrights. You can not be punished, fined, charged or found guilty for the actions of a third party. Even if they knew/asked them to do it, the only charge/offence would be solicitation

Downloading is a gray area. The act of downloading is not a breach of copyrights, unless you distribute. However, by downloading, you are allowing another to breach copyrights. In the case of p2p networks, you both download and share at the same time, thus breaching copyrights in the share aspect of your action.

Kymmy, it's this simple. The respondent is the person named by VM to Davenport Lyons, and the person named in the claim. If their kids (or who ever) downloaded it without their knowledge, they can claim no knowledge of the download. Remote trojan access downloading the file is another one, and it's one that is already being put to Davenport Lyons

These may be of interest too:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/03/28/uk_share_hunt/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Briti...ls-92488.shtml
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/12...file_sharers/1

shawty · 06-10-2008, 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by photodude

Case would fail because the respondent was not the down-loader, or authorising another to download. They authorised a third party to use their connection to the net, not to breach copyrights. You can not be punished, fined, charged or found guilty for the actions of a third party. Even if they knew/asked them to do it, the only charge/offence would be solicitation

Downloading is a gray area. The act of downloading is not a breach of copyrights, unless you distribute. However, by downloading, you are allowing another to breach copyrights. In the case of p2p networks, you both download and share at the same time, thus breaching copyrights in the share aspect of your action.

Kymmy, it's this simple. The respondent is the person named by VM to Davenport Lyons, and the person named in the claim. If their kids (or who ever) downloaded it without their knowledge, they can claim no knowledge of the download. Remote trojan access downloading the file is another one, and it's one that is already being put to Davenport Lyons

These may be of interest too:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/03/28/uk_share_hunt/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Briti...ls-92488.shtml
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/12...file_sharers/1

Downloading IS in breach of copyright if what you are downloading has a copyright on it, it is as simple as that. You would be downloading something you do not own the rights to and have not paid for. Downloading in this manner is theft, whatever way you look at it. Theft from who is is irrelvant.

photodude · 06-10-2008, 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by shawty

Downloading IS in breach of copyright if what you are downloading has a copyright on it, it is as simple as that. You would be downloading something you do not own the rights to and have not paid for. Downloading in this manner is theft, whatever way you look at it. Theft from who is is irrelvant.

No it's not. You, yourself have just downloaded to your PC copyright protected text, images and logos by viewing this page, yet you are not breaching copyrights?????????????
Read what is in the 2nd link I posted. Even the Lawyers are saying it's not a breach under UK laws.

Quote:

However are the defendants infringing the copyright of the rights holder? According to the laws of copyright, copyright in a work is infringed 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."

Kymmy · 06-10-2008, 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by photodude

If their kids (or who ever) downloaded it without their knowledge,

So what you;re telling me is the parent should NOT be responsible for thier childrens actions?????

---------- Post added at 19:15 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

Sounds to me like there's two camps here...

Those who think that if you or anyone on your connection downloads copyrighted data should have to face up to thier own consequences....

OR....

Those who download and think that they have a gods given right to bypass anyones intellectual rights to software/music/performing arts copyright....

need I say more???

shawty · 06-10-2008, 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by photodude

No it's not. You, yourself have just downloaded to your PC copyright protected text, images and logos by viewing this page, yet you are not breaching copyrights?????????????
Read what is in the 2nd link I posted. Even the Lawyers are saying it's not a breach under UK laws.

Erm, what would be the point of having a forum website when everything is copyrighted and whoever came onto the website was in breach of copyright. What you said is simply not true. Downloading something you dont own and dont have the rights to is theft. You may aswel walk into a shop and steal it.

photodude · 06-10-2008, 19:26

What I'm saying is the person legally named in the claim, may not have knowledge of the download. They can therefore not be held accountable for the actions of a third party. That's not that hard to work out, or see as a reason for them defending against the claim.

Quote:

You will acknowledge and accept that all content posted on this site becomes the property of the site owners, you acknowledge that You are the author of each message posted and CF are the publishers

Those are the terms of CF, and they own the copyrights to their graphics and published material. Fact is you download copyrights protected material every day when on the net. It's what you then do with it, that creates a breach of copyrights.

**Maggy** · 06-10-2008, 19:30

Topic?

Is there anyone else who has had a letter?What are you going to be doing about it?