I think I'm being sued...

[RobH]

I'd ignore it. I got a letter from some law firm the other week saying that I owed 1&1 Internet Ltd about £5 for a 2 year rental of a .co.uk domain. I had paid for 2 years up front (like 99% of of domain companies make you do) and had been using it, after the 2 years were up I didn't do anything and it went offline (I think they tried to take payment for another 2 years but it failed). The letter from this law firm states that I should not make contact with 1&1 Internet Limited and only contect them to resolve this debt, they wanted to charge me £30 on top of the money I 'owed'. There was no way I was going to pay that for a service that I didn't recieve so the letter went straight into the shredder. I googled it and a lot of other people had the same sort of letters, I think they are trying to use legal scaremongering as part of their business model (which some people probably fall for).

 

[Things change I've changed]

"Sorry Officer, someone must've been sitting outside and wirelessly stealing my bandwidth!"

On a serious note would that work ?

 

[Azagoth]

On a serious note would that work ?

I really couldn't say, but isn't the onus on them to prove you're lying as in innocent until proven guilty?

 

[peanutismint]

I really couldn't say, but isn't the onus on them to prove you're lying as in innocent until proven guilty?

Hmm on other posts on this subject, it seemed to be that the 'wireless internet hijack clause' wouldn't stand up in court, as everyone's supposed to be responsible for their own connection, so in this case apparently it's guilty until proven innocent.... I'd still try it, thought I'm hoping it won't go that far....

Also, they have MY IP address, so surely it would be connected to my machine, rather than somebody else's? Or does the identifiable IP address stop at my router?

 

[RobH]

On a serious note would that work ?

You do have plausable deniability, who's responsable for securing the wireless? the ISP? The router manufacturer? you?

 

[Things change I've changed]

edit - please delete.

 

[Dist]

How can they prove it was you on bit torrent? Its possible to send an IP to a tracker, as if that IP is trying to download it, meaning if all they are basing this on is an IP listed on a tracker, then i could connect to a tracker and send the IP of some random person to the tracker and make it look like he is connected to it, even though he isnt.

Also, for a similar idea to the unsecured wireless thing, would it stand up in court if you say you use your computer as a TOR exit node. You could say you support peoples rights to privacy and ran TOR to help provide others with privacy online, and someone abused that TOR node to download illegal stuff through it, without your knowledge of the act being illegal.

 

[Rebelius]

Look at it this way: If you download a game and it's good, you buy it. The company gets your money. If you download a game and it's bad, you don't buy it. The company doesn't get your money. Either way, you're playing the company's game, and surely the best outcome for them 'they played the game and loved it and bought it' is better than the worst outcome 'they didn't play the game and didn't buy it'. YOU should be the one who decides if it's worth showing your appreciation by giving the creators money. The business model would be VERY different from the one we know today, but if you've ever felt cheated after buying a lousy game, then there's something VERY wrong with the current system.

Err.. shut up?

If you're out and about, and you're looking for something to eat, and there's a McDonalds and a Fancy Restaurant, you can't just go into McDonalds, buy a big mac, say "this is rubbish and not healthy, I'm not paying" and then walk into the restaurant, have a decent meal then decide you're gonna pay for it because it was good.

Someone's made the game, and spent time and money on making the game, just because it's rubbish or you don't like it, doesn't mean you should get to play it for free.

 

[MajorMaccas]

Also, they have MY IP address, so surely it would be connected to my machine, rather than somebody else's? Or does the identifiable IP address stop at my router?

A router routes between networks, so the traceability stops when it reaches yout external IP on your router, unless they seize your router, you're untouchable

 

[yak.h'cir]

Err.. shut up?

If you're out and about, and you're looking for something to eat, and there's a McDonalds and a Fancy Restaurant, you can't just go into McDonalds, buy a big mac, say "this is rubbish and not healthy, I'm not paying" and then walk into the restaurant, have a decent meal then decide you're gonna pay for it because it was good.

Someone's made the game, and spent time and money on making the game, just because it's rubbish or you don't like it, doesn't mean you should get to play it for free.

I think you're example is flawed. If I go and buy some food, but after a bite or 2 I find it awful, I would expect a refund. The huge majority of restaurants/fast food places will give this. So you try it, it's not good, you don't pay for it.

 

[Jokester]

You are legally responsible for your internet connection, so the "it was someone else" won't wash in court.

As said nothing will probably happen from it, though ISPs are supposedly starting to cut people off if they get complaints about file sharing.

 

[fini]

You are legally responsible for your internet connection, so the "it was someone else" won't wash in court.

Wrong - what you're really claiming by saying that your wifi was being used by someone else is that you were acting as an ISP and making use of the 'mere conduit' provisions within the CDPA. The only bad thing that can happen out of that is that your ISP would probably chuck you off because you'd probably be in breach of your contract with them - but then just go find another ISP.

 

[Wicksta]

Also, what if you've only got WEP encryption and someone hacks it?

 

[Von Luck]

..

 

[Selekt0r]

I really couldn't say, but isn't the onus on them to prove you're lying as in innocent until proven guilty?

True, however on the basis that suing is a civil rather than criminal matter then the burden of proof is less. All they have to prove is that the OP is guilty 'on balance of probability' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

As rightly pointed out already though, the OP is unlikely to have this taken any further unless he is silly enough to respond to the initial letter.

 

[Tefal]

Ring your isp, and then tell them you are wanting to cancel your service because they have given personal details out about you, tbh you should get a new one

And ignore the letter.

 

[Raymond Lin]

How does the letter end?

Does it say something like.

"You have 14 days to offer settlement to our claim, If you fail to acknowledge our letter we will issue proceedings against you." ?

Or is it just saying on the lines of they want their settlement and that's it?

Lyons Davidson is a real law firm that does more than this kind of stuff, I deal with them at work on other matters in civil lit now and again.

 

[shauncr91]

Just to change tack here slightly for a second... I'm wondering if anybody else would care to share their views on 'file sharing'. Is it indefensably wrong? Or always okay? Or only okay if you don't make money off it and are taking games for a 'test drive'?

What do people think?

You wouldnt buy a car before taking it for a test drive, would you?

 

[Raymond Lin]

The problem with all these moral argument and metaphors is that if presented before a district judge (which is what will happen if you are taken to Court), these argument will hold no water whatsoever with the judge.

 

[jojothemonkey69]

If the letter wasn't sent recorded delivery then they have no prove of you receiving it. It similar to the TV licence letters we got last year in uni halls.