Illegal Downloading.

Gavin78

Well I know that you have to have all measures in place to stop someone from doing that....if they get passed all that then you have taken all action to prevent someone from hacking and are not accountable.....as for these letters might want to check its 100% accurate because I know there are a lot of firms abroad ripping poeple off with this sort of scam because they can't prove you have actually downloaded anything.

fluffnutter

You get a letter out of the blue that states you have done something illegal (whatever that might be) and suggests you pay them money to settle the matter. I don't care if it's from Crumble, Spratt and Anusface Solicitors or your mad Aunt Gladioli but in this country, under these laws, a person cannot 'fine' a person. Nor can you just demand money on a spurious and unproven charge. If you have committed the crime, and it can be proved, then let them do so via the proper means - a court. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused.

DCodd

bingo bango - appologies I thought I had posted the link.

Lewie wrote: »

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!!

You can not which is why a wired network is more secure but the account holder is responsible for anything that happens on their network which is why your ISP will send you the warnings, unless you can prove your network has been hacked it will be your responsibility.

dacouch wrote: »

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

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

How is that not in context? It is talking about illegal downloads on a network and trying to avoid responsibilty.

DCodd

fluffnutter wrote: »

You get a letter out of the blue that states you have done something illegal (whatever that might be) and suggests you pay them money to settle the matter. I don't care if it's from Crumble, Spratt and Anusface Solicitors or your mad Aunt Gladioli but in this country, under these laws, a person cannot 'fine' a person. Nor can you just demand money on a spurious and unproven charge. If you have committed the crime, and it can be proved, then let them do so via the proper means - a court. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused.

Of course they can - PRS and PPL do it all the time. It is legal, it has been challenged and apparently they have the right to make the claim and it is up to the individual to defend themselves at their own cost.

fluffnutter

DCodd wrote: »

Of course they can - PRS and PPL do it all the time. It is legal, it has been challenged and apparently they have the right to make the claim and it is up to the individual to defend themselves at their own cost.

I'm missing a trick! Next time I get a takeaway menu through my letterbox I'm going to send a letter to the shop (regardless of who actually sticks the letter through), tell them in officialease that they've 'contravened' the 'rules', damaged my property and that payment is required to settle the matter. My second letter will threaten them with possible court proceedings, debt collectors, possible adverse credit ratings, etc.

Equaliser123

Lewie wrote: »

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.

I don't think Woody01 will be responding as he is now been banned. Presumably due to some of his enormously offensive comments on other threads.

Good riddance.

dacouch

DCodd wrote: »

How is that not in context? It is talking about illegal downloads on a network and trying to avoid responsibilty.

Sorry I disagree, the actually quote is in relation to !!!!!philes who had deliberately left their wireless connections unsecured so they could use this as a defence if they were caught.

If you had included a link to the source it would have helped other people read it in context.

Devo

We actually received one of these very letters through the post today!

I'm currently composing a response to them along the lines of "I have no idea what you're talking about".

My girlfriend and I certainly DO NOT download anything illegally from the internet.

I'll post back with an update in due course - grrrrrr

Lewie

Hi Devo.
Was it from the same firm i've got the grief with, Gallant Macmillan??

Devo

Lewie wrote: »

Hi Devo.
Was it from the same firm i've got the grief with, Gallant Macmillan??

The very same.... I've only just seen the letter now I've got home (my girlfriend called me earlier in a state and told me it had arrived). I must say that they are very threatening and I can see why people would just 'pay up' to settle the matter.

I'm just deciding whether to even bother acknowledging it with a reply or simply bin it