The Big DebateIf you feel the need to get your teeth stuck right into a heavy debate on a subject you feel really passionate about, then this is the place to do so. Post about religion, politics, laws and all things juicy like that here.
yeah i agree, peerguardian2 might protect you now to some extent, but its like a war and for every such counter measure theres a counter counter measure ... I cant see a sensible solution hapening anytime soon one way or another.
all they (DL) have as evidence is an ip address, and they can be cloned or a wireless network can be hacked, and as we cant be held responsible for any other trafic that goes on our network then they have nothing to stand on.
all they (DL) have as evidence is an ip address, and they can be cloned or a wireless network can be hacked, and as we cant be held responsible for any other trafic that goes on our network then they have nothing to stand on.
Im not sure thats entirely true anymore, they were trying to pass something saying that unless rediculous circumstances, people were held responsible for their internet connection. Not sure if that happened, but regardless they have managed to prosecute people in a similar circumstance.
Its more and more a lottery now and peer guardian afaik only blocks connections from ip ranges owned by a list of corporations/government etc. Theres nothing really to stop the authorities getting online from a regular popular ISP like BT/Virgin to get lists of IP addresses.
In the link Ixpah posted some woman ignored the fine and got taken to court costing her £16k, so id be a little worried about it myself. Dont count too much on people understanding the technicalities that are supposed to loophole the law, like that you share tiny proportions of the media which is potentially unrecognisable or that you dont know what it is when you download and share it, or that your ip/connection could be used by other people.
Im not sure thats entirely true anymore, they were trying to pass something saying that unless rediculous circumstances, people were held responsible for their internet connection. Not sure if that happened, but regardless they have managed to prosecute people in a similar circumstance.
I thought that myself to be honest. I'm fairly certain that there is a clause in your ip terms and conditions saying you have to protect your ip address and stop unsolicited traffic from using it, but I'm not 100% as I generally just scan t&c.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma roids
but she didnt attend court, therefore she lost by default
had she been there it could have been a whole different scenario.
also, if DL knew they will win in court how come me and the 1000`s of other `aledged` file sharers have not been given summons yet??
I can't see where is says she didn't turn up. As far as I can see this was a properly heard court proceeding not just a default one where the defendant didn't turn up. This was a test case to see if the laws surrounding these sorts of cases were fair and to make sure that the evidence was properly understood.There are loads of news reports about this case and others that didn't make the headlines. You can bet you'll see this woman selling her story to pay the fine as she only has 25 days to pay the fine.
If I was you baldy, I would stop posting on the net about it as I've seen at least 3 separate forums with your name on it. I'd contact the solicitors and pay the fine. This was a test case, but you can bet they will be going after more and more money. The sad thing is, it is generally families that can't afford to buy games that are lured to downloading them.
"This is a proper Intellectual Property (IP) court that has made this judgement," said independent IP barrister David Harris. "The previous ones were default judgements where defendants never turned up."
They haven't gone after everyone as they've probably picked a few representative cases to use as a "test case". Now the judgement is in they'll no doubt start chasing the rest of the people they have on their list.
Its certainly generated a lot of press, its was on Channel 4 news and on some talk show this morning as well.
Back in the Kazaa days, I set out the following rules for my kids:
1) Never be a peer-to-peer host. There is no defense when they come calling.
2) If you download illegally to "try it" that's fine. But if you play it or listen to it more than once or twice, buy a legit copy. The authors or musicians have earned your money.
3) Exceptions can be made for MicroSoft products, for all the time and money they've stolen from everyone.
That was pretty much my outlook when I used to use torrents. Try before I buy. But that was more with films, software always semed to come with a cocktail of viruses.
It's easy to put too much faith in something like Peerguardian. I mean it's good and all but only as strong as it's lists are. You are never 100% covered but it's a dam sight better than nothing.
but she didnt attend court, therefore she lost by default
had she been there it could have been a whole different scenario.
also, if DL knew they will win in court how come me and the 1000`s of other `aledged` file sharers have not been given summons yet??
As Ixpah said, this was the first loss where someone had attended court, might have read that via another article though.
Presumably theres no real yardstick for the case, so they probably picked the cases where they think they can win to take first and may or may not follow through to try to screw everyone else once the precident is set. Or they may be happy just winning a few for the media coverage, depends why theyre doing it i guess. Is really just speculation.
Im not sure what youre planning should you get called, but lying in court may get you in lots more trouble, i dunno.
If I was you baldy, I would stop posting on the net about it as I've seen at least 3 separate forums with your name on it. I'd contact the solicitors and pay the fine. This was a test case, but you can bet they will be going after more and more money. The sad thing is, it is generally families that can't afford to buy games that are lured to downloading them.
I concur.
The more money they get in from court success, the more hungry they will be to take on more and more people who illegally downloaded their products and the more chance they will have of being successful now that the test cast has happened...
Playing hard with this, in my opinion, is seriously not using common sense. If it gets to court, it'd cost a damn sight more and could result in a criminal record.
As it goes, I also like the try before you buy principle, but no media giant anywhere is ever going to agree to such a scheme, because they know full well a hell of a lot of what they churn out is seriously crap and to make sure everything they produce met a high standard, they'd end up losing a fortune as they'd have to scrap so much of their planned releases, game, music or movie wise.
If I was you baldy, I would stop posting on the net about it as I've seen at least 3 separate forums with your name on it.
not been funny missus but i dont use my name on any forum, and certainly dont admit to anything, even if i had admited anything im sure that cant be used as evidence.
`oh yes mlud the defendant using a forum name baggypants admited downloading stuff`
I know you don't use your real name only your handle (lol) but you never know what depths they may sink to in order to get cash out of you. Talking about it lots over several sites may even be seen as an admission on guilt. I know paying the fine could be seen as that too but it's the lesser of two evils imo, and you have your lil ones and the missus to think of too. What your better half think you should do?
I think everyone has downloaded something over the net at some time, me included, but it's sods law that they will make an example of someone who really cannot afford to pay the fine or even the £300 to stop them from taking court action. I sincerely hope it isn't you hun.
I know you don't use your real name only your handle (lol) but you never know what depths they may sink to in order to get cash out of you. Talking about it lots over several sites may even be seen as an admission on guilt. I know paying the fine could be seen as that too but it's the lesser of two evils imo, and you have your lil ones and the missus to think of too. What your better half think you should do?
I think everyone has downloaded something over the net at some time, me included, but it's sods law that they will make an example of someone who really cannot afford to pay the fine or even the £300 to stop them from taking court action. I sincerely hope it isn't you hun.
appreciated chuck
shes not getting involved (best way tbh)
if i do end up in court and lose i dont think any judge will make me pay the fine in full, meaning i have to sell up and lose everything and be out on the street.
so at worse i would have to make token payments a month and been on a tight budget and a debt management plan they can have a fiver a month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game-makers to sue 25,000 downloaders
The computer games industry is threatening to sue 25,000 illegal UK downloaders unless they immediatly pay £300, it emerged today.
Five of the world's top games manufacturers has issued the unprecedented threat in an attempt to warn off the millions of other downloaders. The companies involved - Atari, Topware Interactive, Reality Pump, Techland and Codemasters - Makers of some of the most popular games, including The Lord of the Rings and Operation Flashpoint.
It is estimated as many as 6 million people in Britain share games illegally over the internet.
The action marks a dramatic change in the approach to copyright and the internet. The British music industry, hit hard by illegal file sharing, has taken action against just 150 people in 10 years.
But this week, Isabela Barwinska became the first person in the UK to be ordered to pay damages to a manufacturer.
She must pay more than £16,000 to Topware after downloading Dream Pinball 3D via a file sharing site.
Roger Billens, a partner at Davenport Lyons, the law firm representing the games manufacturers, said "our clients were incensed by the level of illegal downloading.
"in the first 14 days since [the release of] Dream Pinball 3D, it sold 800 legitimate copies but was illegaly downloaded 12,000 times. Hopefully, people will think twice if they risk being taken to court."
In the Times today it had advice for people who had received these letters and a statement from DL saying that they would not knowingly prosecute students or unemployed people. So if you have either of those types of people in your household, get them to take the rap first of all.
Secondly and more intriguingly, it said to take the file down from the 'filesharing website' whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, and write them a letter of apology. This would suggest to me that they are only catching people using some weird old-fashioned type of sharing. EmmaRoids may be able to shed some light on that.
Also it said not to pay the £300 if you hadn't distributed enough copies of the game to reach a value of £300. Multiply the price of the game by the amount of people you shared it with and offer them that.
The whole thing looks like they aren't really interested in people who have downloaded the game, they are out to get the people who are uploading it to multiple others. And who the hell does that anymore? Original (unencrypted) seeds on BT? People trapped in a WinMx/Kazaa/Limewire style time-warp?
I know you aren't a pussy EmmaRoids, don't bend over and lick these assholes' balls. Ignore them, and if it ever does come to anything then I've just given you a couple of outs, say your underage/student/unemployed son/daughter is sorry, say you're poor, if that fails offer them £40 even though it 'wasn't you'.
In the Times today it had advice for people who had received these letters and a statement from DL saying that they would not knowingly prosecute students or unemployed people. So if you have either of those types of people in your household, get them to take the rap first of all.
Secondly and more intriguingly, it said to take the file down from the 'filesharing website' whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, and write them a letter of apology. This would suggest to me that they are only catching people using some weird old-fashioned type of sharing. EmmaRoids may be able to shed some light on that.
Also it said not to pay the £300 if you hadn't distributed enough copies of the game to reach a value of £300. Multiply the price of the game by the amount of people you shared it with and offer them that.
The whole thing looks like they aren't really interested in people who have downloaded the game, they are out to get the people who are uploading it to multiple others. And who the hell does that anymore? Original (unencrypted) seeds on BT? People trapped in a WinMx/Kazaa/Limewire style time-warp?
I know you aren't a pussy EmmaRoids, don't bend over and lick these assholes' balls. Ignore them, and if it ever does come to anything then I've just given you a couple of outs, say your underage/student/unemployed son/daughter is sorry, say you're poor, if that fails offer them £40 even though it 'wasn't you'.
good advice mate
im not gonna `bend over` but i cant help been a little worried over this
Quote:
Originally Posted by teflon
Secondly and more intriguingly, it said to take the file down from the 'filesharing website' whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, and write them a letter of apology. This would suggest to me that they are only catching people using some weird old-fashioned type of sharing. EmmaRoids may be able to shed some light on that.
only your handle (lol) but you never know what depths they may sink to in order to get cash out of you. Talking about it lots over several sites may even be seen as an admission on guilt. I know paying the fine could be seen as that too but it's the lesser of two evils imo, and you have your lil ones and the missus to think of too. What your better half think you should do?
Linear Mode
