Disgusting !

Burnsy2023 said:
They probably didn't monitor it themselves, they most likely requested logs from the ISP.

Burnsy
Click to expand...
I thyink they would need something form of evidence to obtain an NPO to present to the ISP
hmm, thats a point I cant imagine UK courts granting NPOs on request if there has been no case brought as a result of them
 
LOL @ Dicehunter :D Either he is a really good actor, has a split personality or has a very young mental age.

Still great thread;)
 
Burnsy2023 said:
They probably didn't monitor it themselves, they most likely requested logs from the ISP.

Burnsy
Click to expand...

wouldn't this also require a warrant?

would be the same as me just ringing up BT and asking for either recordings or access to someone else's phone.
 
malfunkshun said:
make sure that the platters are heavily damaged when the drive fails then
Click to expand...

oh yes, they have a tendency to find them selves in several hundred pieces , then spontaneously burst into flames while coated in several gallons of petrol, before being finely ground in a blender.

It's a terrible problem :p
 
It blends then? :p You could upload a video of it, if only your computer was still working when your HD broke...
 
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.
 
Aod said:
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)
Click to expand...
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...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
malfunkshun said:
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.
Click to expand...
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) and so doesnt need a Hearing.



EDIT: Hope thats ok to post?!?

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
I don't really buy that he had no idea of 'alternative' ways to obtain games either. However, if he was using p2p (and therefore knowingly), then what would be the point of starting this thread? :confused:
 
ps3ud0 said:
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 :cool:
Click to expand...
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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom