Illegal Downloading.

DCodd

Tko wrote: »

It beggars belief the truths, half-truths, and the made up, being posted.


From Which?

UK consumers cannot be held legally responsible for any illicit online file sharing activity which occurs without their knowledge, or consent, on their unsecured wireless networks.
That’s the legal opinion of Roger Wyand QC, a barrister specialising in intellectual property law and joint head of Hogarth Chambers. His opinion will come as a relief to the thousands of people who maintain they have been wrongly accused of illegally downloading and sharing copyright protected material via the internet.
‘Where a third party does manage to use the internet connection of a subscriber without his or her knowledge or consent and infringes copyright, the subscriber will not be liable for copyright infringement,’ Wyand explained.
‘The subscriber could be liable if they knew that a third party intended to infringe copyright and consented to a third party using their equipment to carry out that intention. However, mere negligence in failing to take precautions to prevent such use is not actionable.’
He suggested that as a general rule, it would be sensible for consumers to put in some form of protection – such as password-protecting their wireless network - against unauthorised access

.

Tko, when was this published?

Copyright infringement is not really the issue here, the law firms are betting that the subscriber will not want to risk a fine, last year a UK pub was fined £8,000.00 for illegal downloading by third parties on their WiFi hotspot network despite all the legal opinion, prior to the case stating there was no case to answer.

Finally found link. http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security/353701/pub-fined-for-illegal-downloads-over-wi-fi

david39

Go to your local council offices, buy a copy of the electoral roll.
Get some fake letterheads printed and send the same letter to 1,000 people randomly selected from the roll, accusing them of illegal downloading. Ask them to send you £300 to clear the offence.

500 of the recipients will have never downloaded anything - (50 of them because they don't even have a computer). The other 500 may have done some downloading from time to time. Of that 500, 50 will be concerned about the letter. Of that 50, 20 will send the money because they are have sufficient wealth that £300 is a piddling amount and they don't want to see their social status eroded by possible court cases.

Money for old rope, really.

The figures are made up, but the principal is obvious. It's the same as the scam where you receive a call from a "computer expert" saying he can see into your computer online and it is infested with bugs - please give me £75 via your credit card and I'll remove them for you now.

Tko

Yes you are correct that is why they are sending the Invoice out, to try and scare you into paying it,

As for that court case all i can say is that the Judge must not be aware of copyright law or the landlord had been warned before,if that wasn't the case then it would spell the death of the WiFi Hotspot / Internet Cafe

whatajoke1

esuhl wrote: »

It looks like ACS:Law are being investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for their "bullying tactics". This could result in a disciplinary trial...
http://www.broadbandgenie.co.uk/blog/20100715-acslaw-still-sending-out-letters-alleging-file-sharing-sra-investigation-nears-conclusion

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2010/08/file-sharing-solicitor-to-face-disciplinary-body-225840

23 August 2010


The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is referring Andrew Crossley of ACS Law Solicitors (ACS Law) to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) after Which? complained that the firm sent ‘bullying’ letters to people it had accused of illegal file-sharing.


:rotfl:

moonrakerz

david39 wrote: »

Go to your local council offices, buy a copy of the electoral roll.
Get some fake letterheads printed and send the same letter to 1,000 people randomly selected from the roll, accusing them of illegal downloading. Ask them to send you £300 to clear the offence.

500 of the recipients will have never downloaded anything - (50 of them because they don't even have a computer). The other 500 may have done some downloading from time to time. Of that 500, 50 will be concerned about the letter. Of that 50, 20 will send the money because they are have sufficient wealth that £300 is a piddling amount and they don't want to see their social status eroded by possible court cases.

Money for old rope, really.

The figures are made up, but the principal is obvious. It's the same as the scam where you receive a call from a "computer expert" saying he can see into your computer online and it is infested with bugs - please give me £75 via your credit card and I'll remove them for you now.

Don't tell everyone ! I don't need more competition !!!

sarahgail

So everyone who ignored the letter, or sent a letter of denial - have you heard anything else from the company? or had any further letters?

Thanks

Lewie

Letter of denial sent over a month ago.
Nothing so far.