Illegal Downloading.

Lewie

!!!!!! wrote: »

It needs a court order for the ISP to release details. This is just a phishing expedition

They have the court order mug.

Equaliser123

Lewie wrote: »

Don't know what you mean there eq??
What is 'small claims' ?

It is a claim for less that £5k (the current small claims threshold). There are no costs awards in small claims proceedings.

Tell 'em to get stuffed and you won't be sued.

Lewie

Equaliser123 wrote: »

It is a claim for less that £5k (the current small claims threshold). There are no costs awards in small claims proceedings.

Tell 'em to get stuffed and you won't be sued.

The way it is worded is a 'Offer to settle'
Do you mean that if they wanted to chase this £350 'settlement' they could only do it through the small claims court?

Lewie

Hmmm.
More dilemma (or is it?)
The person who's name is on the Sky broadband subscription and so the 'accused' no longer lives at the address.
He moved out a fair few months ago and so was not at the address when the 'offence' took place.
Apparently Sky make a bit of a fuss to change names. You have to start all over so they just left it as it was as it is his mom and brother who are left in the house they saw no harm.
Now, is this a good thing or not?
He most definately wasn't at the property at the time of the alleged offence.

System

Lewie wrote: »

They have the court order mug.

Zen users have got these letters and Zen state that a) they have not released user info and b) they have not received a court order to release details.


As in this case, people are stating that they have not downloaded anything so I still believe that they have insufficient proof to succeed in court.

Lewie

!!!!!! wrote: »

Zen users have got these letters and Zen state that a) they have not released user info and b) they have not received a court order to release details.


As in this case, people are stating that they have not downloaded anything so I still believe that they have insufficient proof to succeed in court.

He has rang sky and they confirm that a court order was issued.
However, I agree that there is zero evidence of any individuals downloading or distributing copy righted material.
Reading through the letter once more I see that the named subscriber, who no longer lives at the address and didn't when the alleged offence took place, is the one being directly accused.
As he can prove he wasn't even there I would think that they would then have to decide to go after his mom or his brother, which sounds a bit complicated for £350.00!!

Beast

I'm not sure the fact that the account holder no longer lives there is going to wash given they still hold a broadband contract at the address - what's to stop them popping back to do some downloading? If my car gets caught speeding, regardless of who is driving it, it is down to me to either identify the driver or take the hit.

fluffnutter

Ignore. Whilst not scams, these types of 'fines' are certainly opportunistic and rely on fright tactics to get people to pay up. It's up to the accusers to prove that a crime has been committed. Let them take you to court if need be. And remember; someone can't just 'fine' someone else. Only courts and police can issue fines.

woody01

Lewie wrote: »

Hi all.
Don't know if there are any legal brains on here but i'm after a bit of advice.
My daughters boyfriend has received a letter form a solicitor saying that he has been downloading 'their clients music material'.
It wants £375.00 within 21 days which will halt any further action against him.
He swears he hasn't done the deed (the music mentioned is of no interest to him) and there is noone else in the house who could have done it.
We are now wondering if his wireless network could have been hacked and if so can it be proved??
The way the letter is written assumes guilt. It seems very strange that these people can just come up with a figure that some one must pay just because they believe you are guilty.
This is quite worrying, not just for him but all of us that have a wireless network as a expert hacker can break into your network.
I have looked at my own router and seen ip and mac addresses that did not match any of the three computers in our house.
Any one know the best way to tackle this or who to contact??
Cheers.

It makes absolutley no difference who downloaded the material. Hacked or the BF doing it is no defence.

The fact is, it seems it was the line the BF is responsible for, so he is also responsible for correctly protecting it and not using it for illegal activity.

Equaliser123

woody01 wrote: »

It makes absolutley no difference who downloaded the material. Hacked or the BF doing it is no defence.

The fact is, it seems it was the line the BF is responsible for, so he is also responsible for correctly protecting it and not using it for illegal activity.

If the broadband was hacked, then there can be no liability for the account holder.

There is also no obligation to secure a wireless connection.