Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2008
- Posts
- 2,580
- Location
- Bristol
I think I may have seen that one, is it the one that ends like this:
That's the one! Epic reply.
Scammer lawyler gets owned
- Thread starter radar19
- Start date
That's the one! Epic reply.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 20,802
- Location
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I would have loved to have seen the face of the person working at ACS law while they read that out.
Game over time for ACS:LAW then
ISPs are now coming forwards and saying they will refuse to co-operate with them, and they've been called to the Solicitors Tribunal over the number of complaints they've received about him.
I wouldn't mind if the method of obtaining a list of people who have downloaded wasn't so unreliable.
thing is she's probably telling the truth
There are thousands of cases like this where peoples IP addresses have been obtained and they haven't actually downloaded the file in question.
Last edited:
The fact that you connect to a site using a technology is not illegal - whether it's a direct IP connection or via a peer-to-peer protocol. FACT (pun intended).
If they cannot demonstrate that a file has been transferred of copyrighted content then it's a non-starter.
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,537
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
I hope someone hsa noticed that and tested them 
From the Register article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/28/acs_ico/
'Having a spot of bother at work'
First post reads: "I think I might have made a mistake at work, trying to get this fancy webby-thingy working again. See I put all these files up first, so the pages could talk to the files, but then its all gone a bit pear shaped since then. Help?"
'injurylawyers4u' replies: "Too complicated by half for me sonny, stick to the Legal books, thats what I say! I'm no good with this new-fangled technology stuffs."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/28/acs_ico/
Somewhere, on an obscure legal forum somewhere, poster 'iluvcopyrite' posts a thread titled:
'Having a spot of bother at work'
First post reads: "I think I might have made a mistake at work, trying to get this fancy webby-thingy working again. See I put all these files up first, so the pages could talk to the files, but then its all gone a bit pear shaped since then. Help?"
'injurylawyers4u' replies: "Too complicated by half for me sonny, stick to the Legal books, thats what I say! I'm no good with this new-fangled technology stuffs."
i'm not 100 % on how they get the IP addresses
Some have said that they only pull off a list of people who seed the files, but i think thats just some peoples way of explaining why only some get targetted and some dont. The actual answer is obvious in this article -only certain files are tracked and only certain ISPs are co-operating. They do seem to be finding a way of getting peoples IP address that are "downloading" rather than sharing the file.
Can only assume the cases where people have never even been near file sharing website (somebodys father in their 70s who uses his computer purely for a bit of e-mail) must be due to others spoofing themselves as his IP address ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11430299
Well, if her other half *was* downloading "Chubby Chasers", she'd better get eating some pies to keep his libido going.
Well, if her other half *was* downloading "Chubby Chasers", she'd better get eating some pies to keep his libido going.
Surely all you have to do is deny it.
Let them take you to court and PROVE beyond doubt that YOU did it and that your IP wasnt spoofed ( i bet this in near impossible to prove beyond doubt ) and that it was in fact the file in question and not a raw data file of garbage that was named the same.
All rather hard to prove i suspect.
Lets face facts, if it was so easy to prove all this in court they would be doing so at the drop of a hat. They dont seem to doing this so that speaks volumes for their trust in the "evidence".
Let them take you to court and PROVE beyond doubt that YOU did it and that your IP wasnt spoofed ( i bet this in near impossible to prove beyond doubt ) and that it was in fact the file in question and not a raw data file of garbage that was named the same.
All rather hard to prove i suspect.
Lets face facts, if it was so easy to prove all this in court they would be doing so at the drop of a hat. They dont seem to doing this so that speaks volumes for their trust in the "evidence".
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
That's what gets me - SO many people accepting responsibility, or making these huge convoluted excuses (not to mention the "I'm on benefits" crowd), when all they have to give is a flat denial.
A site was set up to help people targetted, they have a good template and advice for writing a letter of denial.
http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/
According to the above site, they aparently have never yet taken anyone to court (so far).
http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/
According to the above site, they aparently have never yet taken anyone to court (so far).
They have. It's even in the hacked emails. However, all the people they took to court they won on default for no defence being lodged so they have yet to prove their case.
Don't know if everyone saw that even more has been leaked?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11425789
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11425789
a tracker has the IP in so they only need to download the tracker to see who has been downloading the file
they will then (correctly) assume that person has also been uploading at least parts of this file to others however
if the time stamps are slighty out its possible the IP changed for what ever reason so the info is not correct.
also I think some trackers get random IP added to them (i remember reading it i think..)