What would you advise to use as an alternative, should someone want to download files?
Friend "going to be sued" for downloading?
- Thread starter Kristoph
- Start date
What would you advise to use as an alternative, should someone want to download files?
they have A ip, it may not be YOUR IP though. Its possible to connect to a tracker and send some1 elses ip to it, someone who may not even be using torrents. Its for this reason that an IP connecting to a tracker is not proof of copyright infringment, because its possible to send false IPs to the tracker. Its the same as email spoofing, if someone scams you with a @paypal.com address, you cant take paypal to court over it because it wasnt actully paypal, it was just someone compleatly unrelated to paypal spoofing the address.
In which case your IP is still known by someone else, the usenet provider. And should the usenet provider keep logs, if the usenet provider is ever forced to give up those logs to law enforcement, your IP will be on it. So even usnet is not safe for filesharers.
Which is why there are Usenet providers who don't keep logs.
Caporegime
I bet that if usenet was as popular as torrents for piracy then the RIAA and such would proberly force through some sort of legislation forcing usenet providers to keep logs. Only reason its not as popular is due to it not being free, if i remember right it costs something like £15 p/m to get decent usenet access.
Ummm - all the people who are saying "Just say it was an unsecured wireless point and you'll get off".
Now, are you using your vast years of experience as a lawyer saying this or, as is far more likely, are you either "pub lawyers" or quoting from the Ladybird book of English law?
I only ask because after speaking with somebody who is actually "in the law game" (and doesn't quote things learnt in the pub over a pint) this defence probably will not save your bacon.
Now, are you using your vast years of experience as a lawyer saying this or, as is far more likely, are you either "pub lawyers" or quoting from the Ladybird book of English law?
I only ask because after speaking with somebody who is actually "in the law game" (and doesn't quote things learnt in the pub over a pint) this defence probably will not save your bacon.
Yep - there are plenty.
The people who use them are usually pedo's trading in their vile pornography as it makes them incredibly difficult to trace.
But of course that's all right isn't it - everyone should have the right to privacy if they are downloading music, games, films or CP.
You are required to prove it wasn't you that was downloading though, not the prosecution. And if you were to say you allow people to use your wifi you would be expected to police it properly.
thought that was only in America and we still had the proof on the prosecution?
they got 220k form a woman for 18 songs not long ago.
Hmm, I'm pretty sure it was this country as well.
Its the same reason luggage bags, carrier bags, etc are all not made of transparent material. Of course some might use them to carry drugs, but for the vast majority of us we simply dont want the whole world seeing what we're carrying or just bought from the supermarket, no matter how innocent they may be.
So yes, i agree that everybody is ENTITLED to privacy, and the fact some may commit heinous acts in private doesnt mean we should take it away from all of us.
Last edited:
Associate
Yes Davenport Lyon have took someone to court in November.....for downloading the pinball 3d game. It was a no service default judgement....which basically means you completely ignored the letters....ignored the court summons and did not deny it....hence the default judgement of losing. I think the Judge has yet to pass the cost/fine/compo bill.
Ok, so what did you lawyer friend advise as a suitable defence? Tell the truth and get hammered with fines, in the Courts?
Well I have a law degree, am studying for a masters in Intellectual Property Law, my dissertation is on the subject of online piracy, I had the statute book open when I wrote my reply and I've previously confirmed what I wrote with a lecturer, who's a practising barrister - but I could always be wrong if you 'know someone'...
@platypus - you're not required to prove that it wasn't you downloading to the extent that you claim - I'll get to that at the end of the post though.
Information Society Directive said:
The CDPA itself states the same under s28A, although it excludes programs and databases - though only because each says the same in their own section of the CDPA.
S28A has never been tested at trial (just went and double checked westlaw and lexisnexis in case anything new had come out since I last checked), but that's not a reason to believe that it wont hold strong.
As to the issue of burden raised by platypus it'll depend on whether you're being charged with a criminal offence under the CDPA or sued under a civil provision. As in this case we're looking at a civil offence then the standard civil burden will apply - you'll thus have to prove a 51% likelyhood that it was transmitted to a third party. This is something very very simple to prove given how anyone could access the network and there was thus a potentially unlimited number of people accessing the network. Having said that, if I was mooting the case, the first thing I'd do is challenge the burden status, trying to get it to be set as an evidential burden; that is a burden just to make the issue active. I say this because firstly it's just a presumption I'm making that the courts wouldn't by default see it as a purely evidential burden and, secondly, you'd have to demonstrate the possibility of something existing where no proof is normally present, which, in circumstances like that, is normally only pegged as an evidential burden.
Last edited:
Maybe so, but the defence is not a strong one - and (to my albeit limited knowledge) there have been no cases of this, and certainly none in the higher courts. Furthermore, when it does reach the higher courts, the law is liable to change. The mere conduit provisions were never meant to deal with individual liability. There are too many ifs, buts and weak arguments. As much as I'd like to see a test case, the most sensible action is to pay it off and avoid going to court with the chance of ending up with a criminal record for copyright infringement.
Haha, do you write for the daily mail?!
I use giganews which does not keep logs. I done think any of the paid for services keep logs. I use it with newzbin for tv and movies because I can't be doing with with all the virii and slow speeds of torrents.