o2 broadband help

eddie864

I received one of these letters too. I definitely didn't download their !!!!!! but a lot of people use my IP address for their laptops, tablets and phones. There is no way of knowing who has connected via wireless especially as the alleged download was over a year ago. Their monitoring software has been shown to be flawed, their so called expert (a Clem Volger) doesn't seem to be much of an expert at all. If any of their non payers get to court you can be sure the it will be made into a test case and experts will want to challenge everything. I guess if you have been downloading !!!!!! off torrent sites and you are honest enough to admit it, you should pay and be done with it. Otherwise, I don't think it's in GEILs best interests to let this get to court at all.

randalf72

I wouldn't even do that.

The amounts demanded are extortionate and in English law the sums must relate to the damages.

If the damages done to GEIL amount to one copy of a dodgy skin flick then the most you should be paying is one copy plus a small amount for admin/letter costs.

Punitive damages, which is what GEIL are after are primarily an American legal tool and in any event they are for the judge to decide upon not a !!!!!! monger.

wolf475

Does anyone have any knowledge or experience of people who have paid up? There is an outside probability that one of the titles was downloaded on our connection and before proceeding I'd like some information if possible from individuals in similar situations.

Thanks.

randalf72

wolf475 wrote: »

Does anyone have any knowledge or experience of people who have paid up? There is an outside probability that one of the titles was downloaded on our connection and before proceeding I'd like some information if possible from individuals in similar situations.

Thanks.

Some people paid up and there is anecdotal evidence that this was then used to justify further requests because if you downloaded one film illegally they take the view that there is more.

Judge Clarke commented in open court that the techniques used resulted in a situation where the prosecution 'did not have enough evidence to prosecute and they knew that they didn't have enough evidence'

Currently people who have received multiple demands despite offering evidence that they were innocent are building a case for harassment.

Proving that the accusers don't actually care if you are innocent or guilty, just that you pay up.