Most would give you a refund to stop you making a scene and costing them even more business.
I think I'm being sued...
- Thread starter peanutismint
- Start date
Most would give you a refund to stop you making a scene and costing them even more business.
You cannot use the "somebody was using my connection" route.
This has been tested and failed.
Your internet connection is your responsability and if you don't lock it down then it is your own fault.
Unless you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that somebody had hijacked your secured wireless connection then the "It wasn't me defence" will not work.
Actually that isn't accurate.I also wanna know what the fee is
Also, no your ISP hasn't broken any laws by providing the information to the law firm IIRC as it was illegal they're allowed to.
The ISP isn't allowed to pass on any user data, unless asked to by the police in relation to a prosecution. As this case hasn't yet gone to court, the ISP has contravened certain acts of the Data Protection Act.
You can if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't you that was downloading. However, this obviously isn't the case here.
You're missing the point here; firstly, not liking a game means that you *don't* play it, not that you play it. Note, by 'play it', I mean repeatedly, more than a demo's worth. And besides, the bigger picture here is that we're not talking about physical Big Macs, we're talking about metaphysical bytes. If you heard a song and then hummed it yourself later on, but didn't pay for the privellege, should you be penalised?!
I think what you meant to say was actually....
"Having subsequently checked, it would appear that I made a mistake in the configuration of my wireless router, leaving it accessible to anyone with a wireless card, I can only imagine that someone accessed my broadband connection without my knowledge or consent to illegally download/share the copyright material mentioned in the letter. I have now reconfigured my router to secure my network, thank you for bringing this to my attention."
Didn't you?
Lol oh yes, how silly of me; that was exactly what I meant
Okay, so the general concensus is to ignore? I still have the letter but it's in about 40 pieces in the recycling!
So if anyone'd like to read it, it can be arranged. I would love to ring my ISP and threaten to leave due to them breaching my data protection rights, but I'm afraid then they'd tell the law company and they'd see that I was a 'live target'... Man I miss cable. Switching back to it in my new house soon after 2 years in a non-cable home, can't wait!! Is it just as easy for people to get your data from a cable ISP than an ADSL ISP? I know cable ISPs physically can't cap their bandwidth due to the way the network works and differs from ADSL, but does this mean they can't see what you're doing as well?
Also, I think it was Davenport Lyons, not Lyons Davidson or whatever...
Last edited:
Soldato
If you heard a song and then hummed it yourself later on, but didn't pay for the privellege, should you be penalised?!
Yes, yes you should. If that's you admitting you've done this you will now owe the respective music copyright agencies ~£10000000...
Or at least that's where we will be in 5 years.
Caporegime
From my vague memory of contract law 3 years ago, in a resturant the law of contract is slightly reversed, the invitation to treat comes not when you ordered the food, nor when they offer you the food on the table, nor when you finished eating it and when to pay (There is a legislation in the theft act iirc to precisely stop people who does a runner after eaten a meal).
It is when you have eaten 50% of the meal, that is why they come over and ask "is everything ok?" after they delivered the food to you. That is your chance to say "this is crap, i want another or etc".
Anyway, way off topic now.
Man of Honour
I disagree with what you've said, and I think you'll understand why.
When the customer orders something off the menu to the waiter, they are making an offer. If the item is available and the waiter takes the order, that is an acceptance and at that point you are obliged to pay.
There's no way the courts / parliament would make it so that you are only obliged to pay after 50% of the meal, or when the waiter comes to check on you - What is to stop a person from ordering a 3lb lobster and a £100 bottle of champagne, taking a bite before the waiter comes to check on them, and saying "this is crap, I want another one/i'm not eating this and taking my money elsewhere" - Your system screws the restaurant over.
The fact with piracy is that a CD or a game belongs to a company, and you get your copy under conditions - that you pay for it and that you don't distribute it. As much as you'd like to be able to pick and choose what conditions you want to follow, you can't, and you are breaking the law if you do.
No amount of "yeah but i might like it and pay for it" or "well I wouldn't have bought it anyway" changes that.
I'd love to know where you got this idea from - a link to BAILII you can supply me with perhaps?
It's very clear statute on this matter (s28A CDPA) and, if the courts were to defer from it to any reasonable amount it would be an easy appeal (and probably end up with a question to the ECJ).
Caporegime
You can disagree if you like, doesn't mean you are right, since that's not what the caselaw says.
Caporegime
When I get home from work i'll dig out my notes.
That is the principles I remember from that topic in resturants anyway, 50% is the magic number.
edit - why on earth are people comparing trying out games to ordering food ???
Last edited:
Soldato
law says you have to make a payment, but thats about it.if you are unhappy with the food, you can technically give them a pound and walk out. they cant do anything about it.
i only know this because my ex is a chef
Don
s28A does not apply to computer software.
Man of Honour
This thread is somewhat disturbing from a legal perspective but this part especially. If you were correct on this part (and here's a hint - you aren't) then there would be no intellectual property law and certainly no such thing as industrial espionage. I don't particularly want to get into the intricate details but if you are interested take a look for the difference between tangible and intagible property.
Now I've got that little issue out of the way, I'd say you probably needn't worry too much at the moment. It sounds rather like a fishing exercise to see who rolls over at the initial stage and to see who is worth pursuing for an out of court settlement, very little effort and risk for them makes for a good strategy for quick cash. If they are serious then they will take it further and at that point you will need to re-evaluate how you respond.
After seeing a few threads like this I'm getting scared about file sharing.
I've stopped sharing music because iTunes is a great service and now that xbox live video store is working in the uk, I use that for movies.
But like the OP said, I like to try games before I buy them and they don't always have a demo available. Anyone know a good place to rent games from?
I've stopped sharing music because iTunes is a great service and now that xbox live video store is working in the uk, I use that for movies.
But like the OP said, I like to try games before I buy them and they don't always have a demo available. Anyone know a good place to rent games from?
Yes and no. It states that it doesn't, along with databases, but this is only because it should be covered in each individual section (just because of the way the CDPA is formatted). I haven't checked the database section, but I do know it's not covered in the computer section. They've thus created a bit of a strange loophole.
The amendment was put in due to the (IIRC) Software Directive and the loophole in the CDPA is not within the Directive. I can only presume that someone let the work experience kid write the final draft of the amendment. Luckily IP law judges (since a specific judgement by either Jacob or Kitchin IIRC) now generally hold true to the principal that, if the Directive is put into legislation correctly the legislation will always have exactly the same meaning as the directive (unless the Directive states minimum figures in which case they could be increased). As such, they now first look to the Directive. As the Directive doesn't have the stupid glaring whole that the amendment does then the act will be read as if it didn't have the stupid glaring hole in it.
Last edited:
Lol oh yes, how silly of me; that was exactly what I meant
Okay, so the general concensus is to ignore? I still have the letter but it's in about 40 pieces in the recycling!
I would love to ring my ISP and threaten to leave due to them breaching my data protection rights, but I'm afraid then they'd tell the law company and they'd see that I was a 'live target'... Man I miss cable. Switching back to it in my new house soon after 2 years in a non-cable home, can't wait!! Is it just as easy for people to get your data from a cable ISP than an ADSL ISP? I know cable ISPs physically can't cap their bandwidth due to the way the network works and differs from ADSL, but does this mean they can't see what you're doing as well?
Also, I think it was Davenport Lyons, not Lyons Davidson or whatever...
Cable is probably worse in terms of tracking you
Anyone with my IP can tell I'm in Norwich straight away, and cable ISPs will operate in the same way as ADSL ISPs in terms of data protection - it'll vary from ISP to ISP I imagine, but just because it's cable doesn't make it different.
Also, they can cap their bandwidth very easily indeed, look at Virgin with their 'fair use' rules in the evenings. Download too much and you get capped at a lower speed
In terms of network monitoring they probably have the same, if not better, controls on what they can do with the network & data, though all in the boundaries of the law of course.