illegal download letter

gurj_k

at the moment they seem to be hesitant diclosing much info...better to fight a bit more and see a conclusion on the horizon the take direction i think...how did you find the url albertross? im greatful for that

Jon_C

I think it's highly unlikely that this would even get to court, even if the letter is genuine, which I doubt.

It could be a case of scammers piggybacking on the fact that this law firm is bringing these cases.

I would look up the contact details of this firm in the phone book and see if they match with the ones on the letter. I'd wager they that won't.

(In that case, the guy will be able to ring the real legal company and let them know someone's using their name fraudulently. He'd also be able to pass on the details of the scammers' address and phone number to the real legal firm. Revenge is sweet!)

If the guy genuinely hasn't downloaded the software, he's done nothing wrong and therefore doesn't need to prove his innocence.

If he is in the wrong and just won't admit it, then tough luck. He'll have to take his chances and I can't/won't offer any advice on how to cheat justice if that's the case. I'm not making any assumptions here and that includes assuming that the details on this thread are accurate either. No offence is meant if your 'friend' (ahem?) and you are telling the truth.

albertross_2

I visited the FAST website...

This may also be of use:

http://www.bpi.co.uk/

gurj_k

lol only a matter of time before someone said that comment ^^well either way regardless if it was me or not, im sure i wouldv just said it was me as i would of been "allegedly" caught out anyway by the firm?and anyway it is for a friend....

Jon_C

Of course. Just reinforcing the point by which you and your friend should already abide - just because it's in print, doesn't make it true (or should I say FACT?). Therefore check out the contact details before corresponding further with this letter writer.

Likewise, if your friend has done nothing wrong, he should tell the people sending him letters that he will not be sending anyone any money, nor entering into further correspondence. Perhaps he should use the phrase 'see you in court'.

gurj_k

well hes got a reciept for a anitivirus package he took out when he bought his comp year ago...maybe that can be shown...also he has no knowledge of using kazaa which is the main thing of worry, and its only his own house with his wife., hes accepting the fact if they prove it was his comp as hes got a unsecured wirless and he reasons that its his responsibilty for its use....

albertross_2

Well scam or no scam, it highlights the dangers of file sharing using p2p software. If the case against the 150 is successful, there will be more to come.

It's a few years since they since they went after the 13 year old music sharer in America. Age and ignorance is apparently no defence..

If it is legit, £300 is very reasonable, when you compare it to the 1000's being asked for in the "US of litigation".

The low fine could indicate that it is a scam, is it worth their effort for £300?

Fran

gurj_k wrote:

well hes got a reciept for a anitivirus package he took out when he bought his comp year ago...maybe that can be shown...also he has no knowledge of using kazaa which is the main thing of worry, and its only his own house with his wife., hes accepting the fact if they prove it was his comp as hes got a unsecured wirless and he reasons that its his responsibilty for its use....

If he looks at the Wireless Sticky at the top of this board he can find out how to make his wireless secure. He could also look on his router's (if he has one) website for info. Regardless or not whether his wireless is secure, if he hasn't downloaded anything illegal to his computer then he isn't guilty of anything.

gurj_k

i thought that too...a big law firm...after taking there costs out mcafee would not be getting much? he has no knowldge if kazaa or software d.l and his music is d.l off itunes legally

redux

I wouldn't disclose the information about the wireless network yet

And I don't quite see why people earlier were suggesting to secure-delete software and other evidence that isn't there. In the limit, a forensic test at the moment could probably show that the software in question has never been installed. The trouble is that these costs may not be recoverable even when acquitted, especially if most of the other defendants are found guilty.