Plusnet sent me this emial your opinions for something I did not do?

sirmarcus

whatajoke2 wrote: »

And. Not being funny as they could have fought the court order, but if I was a company forced to supply data, I myself would try to recoup the costs from the 3rd party.

SKY and BT would not have just recovered costs. They would have ensured that they made a profit. I have seen am email from ACS that confirms.

whatajoke2 wrote: »

My advise would be not to use torrents, especially to download !!!!!!. Theres a lot of legal ways to download stuff that does not involve uploading. And if you are innocent, theres legal precedence regarding this, but I would just be boring you with that.

ACS Law have never taken anyone to court for downloading stuff. They know that they could never prove that anyone had actually downloaded anything (insecure WIFI, worm/viruses, starting a torrent download doesn't prove that you completed it, etc.) and they would never subtantiate their claim costs; so they never bothered. So you comment is irrelevant !:)

whatajoke2

sirmarcus wrote: »

SKY and BT would not have just recovered costs. They would have ensured that they made a profit. I have seen am email from ACS that confirms.
.............So you comment is irrelevant !:)

Quote email then, and make sure you know exactly how much sky and BT charge, and that they made a profit. If not your statement could be seen as libelous.

Comment is not irrelevant. Uploading is illegal in respect of these works. Whether or not ACS can prove the individual concerned would be down to the courts. IMO they would lose on any well defended case, but ultimately thats not my decision and is down to the judge on the day. Undefended cases have gone to court before, the point being no case has yet to be defended. Whether ACS business plan goes that far (beyond there 6 month period) has NOT be disclosed, even from within the hacked emails.

I would just be boring you (and wasting my time) with legal precedence regarding these matters.

dmg24

whatajoke2 wrote: »

Quote email then, and make sure you know exactly how much sky and BT charge, and that they made a profit. If not your statement could be seen as libelous.

Comment is not irrelevant. Uploading is illegal in respect of these works. Whether or not ACS can prove the individual concerned would be down to the courts. IMO they would lose on any well defended case, but ultimately thats not my decision and is down to the judge on the day. Undefended cases have gone to court before, the point being no case has yet to be defended. Whether ACS business plan goes that far (beyond there 6 month period) has NOT be disclosed, even from within the hacked emails.

I would just be boring you (and wasting my time) with legal precedence regarding these matters.

Hate to be pedantic, but it is precedent not precedence.

AdamBrunt

sirmarcus wrote: »

Both companies refused to supply the data to ACS due to their questionable practises.

As far as I am aware that is not true. Virgin have definitely sent details to ACS in the past.

sirmarcus wrote: »

If anyone wishes to stay with SKY or BT, good luck to them !:)

No problem with Sky Broadband here thanks. Never had a single problem with them in the best part of 2 years.

sirmarcus

whatajoke2 wrote: »

Quote email then, and make sure you know exactly how much sky and BT charge, and that they made a profit. If not your statement could be seen as libelous.

Comment is not irrelevant. Uploading is illegal in respect of these works. Whether or not ACS can prove the individual concerned would be down to the courts. IMO they would lose on any well defended case, but ultimately thats not my decision and is down to the judge on the day. Undefended cases have gone to court before, the point being no case has yet to be defended. Whether ACS business plan goes that far (beyond there 6 month period) has NOT be disclosed, even from within the hacked emails.

I would just be boring you (and wasting my time) with legal precedence regarding these matters.

How can my comment be libellous when I am using an anonymous forum to make my comment ?

With regards SKY charges, they are asking approximately £1 per IP address as detailed at :
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1736800/isps-admit-taking-money-handing-subscribers

and at http://i.imgur.com/MJac1.jpg.

Are you really that naive in thinking that SKY are only recovering costs and not making a profit ? I have seen an email from Andrew Crossley. ACS Law CEO demanding his staff to recover costs from alleged downloaders so that he can ensure that his awful company can pay ISPs for their quotes to provide the info. The ISPs are only runnning a program or a database enquiry tool to provide the info to ACS; so it would cost them virtually zero to produce ! Please also refer to http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/amounts-to-blackmail-inside-a-p2p-settlement-letter-factory.ars/3, where it states that one of the firms providing Andrew Crossley, ACS CEO, with data on infringers then began to get balky, wanting more money than Crossley wanted to pay before turning over its information. "This guy is stupid," Crossley noted in an email to a colleague. "And he MUST release ALL data to us. It is ours. We have a deal. I will go to court this afternoon if he does not give it to us."


A virtual email server of the ACS downloaded emails is at :

http://ueof.co.uk/acslaw/

If you want to, you can have a look for these emails (as referenced above) but I have neither the inclination or desire to find them for you.

Your comments regards a court decision is debateable. As an IT expert, I strongly doubt whether a court would uphold any decision in ACS's favour and this is why they have never gone to court. If you look at their emails, you will see that they always advise thier ultimate intention to go to court but have never bothered. A good summation of the hacked emails is at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/amounts-to-blackmail-inside-a-p2p-settlement-letter-factory.ars, which support my argument and which I have referenced above.

PhylPho

sirmarcus: I wouldn't worry too much about a poster whose legal expertise doesn't even extend to spelling 'precedents' correctly.

All the points you made are accurate and valid.

As for Plusnet: it wouldn't be in this situation now if it hadn't meekly rolled over to ACS:Law.

Talk Talk customers were protected by their ISP because it told ACS:Law it would appeal any Court order and get ACS:Law into open court to prove that the basis for its allegations was credible.

As the last thing Crossley ever wanted to do was risk his "proof" being aired by experts, he kept well clear of Talk Talk.

PlusNet knows very well that no Court order is immune to legal challenge; it didn't challenge ACS:Law because really, it couldn't be bothered.

That PlusNet didn't follow Talk Talk's lead in customer protection is shameful: no ISP should go along with anything which -- to quote TalkTalk -- "risks exposing customers to unjustified harassment".

Fortunately, I'm not a PlusNet customer but if I was, I'd be saying goodbye now -- and then seeking to establish if PlusNet complied with data protection legislation should it have handed over my personal details to a third party specialising in pay-up-or-else mass mail-outs based on an evidential mechanism it took great care never to risk being examined in open Court.

sirmarcus

PhylPho wrote: »

sirmarcus: I wouldn't worry too much about a poster whose legal expertise doesn't even extend to spelling 'precedents' correctly.

All the points you made are accurate and valid.

Hi PhylPho,

Thanks for your response and for info, I am not bothered about the poster who can't spell 'precedents' correctly. For info, you will probably find that he/she works for ACS Law and his/her MSE username is very appropriate !

Lets hope that ACS goes under as a result of all of this.:):)

whatajoke2

sirmarcus wrote: »

Hi PhylPho,

Thanks for your response and for info, I am not bothered about the poster who can't spell 'precedents' correctly.

I don't worry, as I don't use P2P. If the basis of your arguement is now the fact I mistyped, then your really are a sad ****,

sirmarcus wrote: »

With regards SKY charges, they are asking approximately £1 per IP address as detailed at :
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1736800/isps-admit-taking-money-handing-subscribers

Misquoting "facts" seems to be a favourite of yours. The ACTUAL quote from that article says

We have heard on the grapevine that the costs are close to £1 per IP address for the volume of data that Sky was asked to fork over.

Note the different words "COSTS" and "ASKING"

sirmarcus wrote: »

How can my comment be libellous when I am using an anonymous forum to make my comment ?

sirmarcus wrote: »

As an IT expert

Those sentences shows where your ignorance starts. As everyone knows, these forums are not anonymous.

sirmarcus

whatajoke2 wrote: »

That sentence shows where your ignorance starts on these matters.

Not even worthy of a response.:rotfl:

whatajoke2

sirmarcus wrote: »

Not even worthy of a response.:rotfl:

Tell me, is ignorance bliss as you never seem to be able to back up your statements with any sort of facts

sirmarcus wrote: »

Your comments regards a court decision is debateable.

You beleive this statement is debatable

whatajoke2 wrote: »

Uploading is illegal in respect of these works. Whether or not ACS can prove the individual concerned would be down to the courts.

Wheres the debate? Are you debating that the uploading is not illegal, or are you debating its not down to the courts to decide, please state which one it is.