Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: BritBrat on January 25, 2011, 07:48:32 AM
-
Despite telling the court that ACS Law’s anti-piracy days were over, Crossley’s own barrister later argued against Judge Birss’ proposed ban on letter sending, saying he had no idea what the absent solicitor planned to do in the future and suggested the judge didn’t have jurisdiction.
“If you’re not going to do it anyway, it shouldn’t be any detriment to your client [to be put under such a ban]," Judge Birss argued
pcpro.co.uk (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/364621/file-sharing-lawyers-face-warning-letter-ban)
Further reading:
slyck.com (http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=44092&sid=5c53cff1c987cd91a8279f03158c18b9&start=15000)
hellmail.co.uk (http://www.hellmail.co.uk/postalnews/templates/communications_regulation_news.asp?articleid=2728&zoneid=19)
-
This whole affair seems to be based on a false premise, namely that the loss incurred by the media companies equals the face value of the illegal downloads. A moment's thought would reveal that this obviously isn't the case, but the media companies aren't going to admit this of course.
-
One of the points that came up on this case is that the claimants may not have had any rights to the intellectual property in the first place.
It's a bit like me joining a torrent getting some UK IP and applying for a NPO and sending out threating letters in the hope some will send me money.
But would any decent person do that?
Even ISP's have not come out of this very well:
Apparently said by the judge of the ISP's "no interest the legal issues ... and are not concerned with the underlying case"
-
They should be banned.They cant prove who actually downloads a film/music etc anyway.There was an article on Watchdog about a year ago about
a poor sod getting chased for £3k about downloading something he hadnt.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12253746
-
The problem is as the law stands, you not only have to prove that you are not the person the did the illegal downloading (or uploading) from the IP address which they have tracked the download from (which in my opinion is usually planted there to attract people to begin with which I would also call enticement) now the main problem is that according to the powers that be (your IP), the person who's name the address is registered to is responsible for the usage of that line, so saying someone accessed it when you did not have a password on the wireless connection is that you did not make every attempt to secure the connection, therefore, guilty as indicated.
But back to the original problem, and that is that far too many of these money grabbing so-called lawyers have been sending out demands for money supposedly on behalf of a client to all and-sundry, even to people who have never used let alone owned a PC in there life.