Soldato
uh-huh...
so the .nfos i have sitting in directorys labelled Crysis Razor 1911 and CoD4 Razor 1911 stating "Cracked by Razor 1911" are also wrong?
thats pretty silly trying to prove him wrong by admitting you have warez on this forum lol.
I thyink they would need something form of evidence to obtain an NPO to present to the ISPThey probably didn't monitor it themselves, they most likely requested logs from the ISP.
Burnsy
uh-huh...
so the .nfos i have sitting in directorys labelled Crysis Razor 1911 and CoD4 Razor 1911 stating "Cracked by Razor 1911" are also wrong?
Razor1911 is a warez group not a single one person.
Alans getting all paranoid now.
i fear nothing, my hdd is very old and susceptible to massive and permanent failure.
They probably didn't monitor it themselves, they most likely requested logs from the ISP.
Burnsy
make sure that the platters are heavily damaged when the drive fails then
Not really - effectively the OP is basically trying to say the same and thats on the inference he didnt get his 'demo' from legal sources...i guess, but i also bought the game, so that makes it slightly less bad? (i say game, because i didn't like the CoD4 demo enough to finish the download, so i didn't buy or play it)
From the documents raised for the Colin McRae Dirt issue, it seems that they derived the IP details from when the file was downloaded so they must have been monitoring the file themselves on the particular P2P network?What appears to be happpening is that either the copyright holder or Davenport Lyons is using Logistep to track who is sharing/up/downloading the files. Whoever is obtaining this data is then somehow getting the details from the ISP. Now, under the DPA, as I understand it, the ISP should not be providing this data unless they are presented with a court order (an NPO in this case, google norwich pharmacal order)or the ISP itself is commiting an offence under the DPA. Now, just how they could be obtaining so many court orders without any of the cases going to court is beyond me. But I am sure one of our more legally minded members will be better able to advise about this part.
You may well be right mate as I said, I am not and expert, but my limited understanding is that one of the requisites for an order to be issued was that there must be at least reasonable likelyhood of the case going to court, I would have thought, or would like to have thought, that the courts would not be happy to issue orders for the,apparently, sole purpose of obtaining money by intimidation (since I can find no mention of anyone going to court from one of these.....unless of course they were hit with a non-disclosure order as part of the proceedings).From the documents raised for the Colin McRae Dirt issue, it seems that they derived the IP details from when the file was downloaded so they must have been monitoring the file themselves on the particular P2P network?
From there they got a High Court Order to get the ISPs to name and shame those IP addresses they tracked. I presume you can get an Order relatively easily if it isnt contested by the other party (effectively the ISP).
ps3ud0
We seem to be the only ones appreciating itlol, just lol, excellent thread, too.
... you are a pirate!