Illegal Downloading.

DCodd

Equaliser123 wrote: »

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.

Not exactly true.

Such a defence would hold little water as the person installing the network, be they a home user or a business, has ultimate responsibility for any criminal activity that takes place on that network, whether it be launching a hack attack or downloading illegal pornography. Despite this, businesses and residential users continue to fail to take that responsibility seriously by securing their networks, said Mr Cracknell.

Your IP address on a home system will be Dynamic (changes each time you reboot or switch on your router) unless you have asked for a static IP so your IP address will vary. Your PC's MAC can not be seen by your ISP. So it is near impossible to trace which computer did any downloading unless they have physical access to your PC or Router.

Equaliser123

DCodd wrote: »

Not exactly true.




Your IP address on a home system will be Dynamic (changes each time you reboot or switch on your router) unless you have asked for a static IP so your IP address will vary. Your PC's MAC can not be seen by your ISP. So it is near impossible to trace which computer did any downloading unless they have physical access to your PC or Router.

Yes, but it isn't a criminal matter but a civil claim.

bingo_bango

DCodd wrote: »

Not exactly true.

So who is Mr Cracknell and why should we listen to him?

I do wish people would back up their arguments with identifiable sources. It really would make reading these posts much easier for us all.

Lewie

Beast wrote: »

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.

So if your car was stolen and the thief got flashed by a speed camera you think you would be liable to pay the fine??

I agree, if the account holder knows who has done the downloading then they have to 'identify the culprit or take the hit'
In this case there is no evidence either way.
I find it very strange that a law firm should send out accusations to individuals without solid evidence.

Lewie

Such a defence would hold little water as the person installing the network, be they a home user or a business, has ultimate responsibility for any criminal activity that takes place on that network, whether it be launching a hack attack or downloading illegal pornography. Despite this, businesses and residential users continue to fail to take that responsibility seriously by securing their networks, said Mr Cracknell.

I'll tell you something, if Mr Cracknell or anyone else knows how to secure a wireless network and guarantee that it is impossible to hack it........ this time next year they'll be millionaires Rodney!!
MON DEUX!!

dacouch

bingo_bango wrote: »

So who is Mr Cracknell and why should we listen to him?

I do wish people would back up their arguments with identifiable sources. It really would make reading these posts much easier for us all.

The quote is not really in context unless you read the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm

fwor

Quite a few of the responses in this thread say "Ignore it", but from what I've seen from a bit of research (purely academic - I've not received one of the letters) the consensus seems to be ~do not~ ignore it.

The reasoning for this is that ~if~ the solicitors do decide to take their claims in front of a court, they are much more likely to win a claim against someone who has made no response, and therefore did not contest the allegations.

Admittedly, they seem at the moment simply to be aiming for the easy targets - those people who pay up on receiving the first or second letter - but it's not possible to predict if/when they will start to go after the slightly harder ones.

It's quite easy to find pro-forma Letters of Denial just by Googling for the solicitor's name + LOD, and it should only take a small amount of time to complete and send back to them.

If you want you could embellish it a bit by saying that any further communication from them will be reported to the police as harassment, or that you will counter-claim against them £50 for each subsequent letter that you have to write if they write to you again - though I doubt either would be anything more than an idle threat in reality.

woody01

Equaliser123 wrote: »

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.

Completely incorrect.

Lewie

Originally Posted by Equaliser123
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.

woody01 wrote: »

Completely incorrect.

Why is it incorrect??
I used to have my internet provided by a isp that used a wireless network supplying households in the village before the exchange was upgraded.
They left the connection open with limited speed for pensioners and the such like to use for browsing.
I'm sure that they wouldn't have done this if there was a law saying your wireless network MUST be secure.
Perhaps one has been introduced since??
What about people that have family and frinds coming round for the day/weekend with their laptops and mobiles??
Do you think anyone will say 'oh no, I can't tell you the wep key I might get done??
Most people have no clue about all this illegal downloading stuff.
The industry needs to accept that they have little chance of controling it.
Even the BPI is against this scare mongering tactic.

Equaliser123

woody01 wrote: »

Completely incorrect.

Come on then - enlighten us?

To me, if someone has hacked the broadband, then it is an intervening act which will lead to a tortious action for copyright infringement to fail.