I think I'm being sued...

[uv]

Oooohh, they've even included the OcUK logo...what a way to give themselves an enema.
That surely implies that OcUK is involved in some way in this whole affair?

well, that's incredibly more stupid than downloading games.. I can prove *right now* that they are using the logo (IP of ocuk) without consent..

lol, Id laugh if they get sued for IP theft / libel* or something

*yeah, my law knowledge is the sucks

 

[frosty03]

With all the fake and spoofed files flying about, not to mention intentional interference, unless the copyright holder actually downloads the WHOLE file and is then sure you were sharing HIS file, there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you were guilty isnt it?

After all, companies like websheriff etc already "poison" torrents with bad pieces etc. What is to say that the file you were allegedly "sharing" wasnt an actual file, but with a similar name? I aint no lawyer, but unless you downloaded the WHOLE file/game from one person, you cant "prove" that person actually shared it. The OP in all likelihood only uploaded pieces of the alleged file, which in itself is not the complete work in question.

 

[Raymond Lin]

With all the fake and spoofed files flying about, not to mention intentional interference, unless the copyright holder actually downloads the WHOLE file and is then sure you were sharing HIS file, there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you were guilty isnt it?

Reasonable Doubt applies to Criminal prosecution, this is a Civil suit and its on the balance of probability. Which is easier to prove.

 

[Rebelius]

are the company breaking any laws by torrenting their own stuff?

did the games company torrent it or did the lawyers?

 

[gillywibble]

Actually that isn't accurate.

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.

That's not accurate.

Information can be obtained under section 29(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998 which relates to the detection and prevention of crime. It is not necessary for there to be a criminal prosecution in force to comply with this section of the Act, nor does the request have to come from the police. Any company involved in crime prevention can use this section of the Act.

However, there is no legal obligation to disclose any information, it is purely voluntary.

 

[whitecrook]

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.

But if you eat a burger out of macdonalds and don't pay they are a burger down. If you copy (download) a game/movie whatever they 'games company' isn't a game down.

If you could go into macdonalds and whip out your personal bigmac-o-replicator(tm) and magically produce your own identical copy of a (physical) big mac you would then be talking apples to apples.

 

[Raymond Lin]

But if you eat a burger out of macdonalds and don't pay they are a burger down. If you copy (download) a game/movie whatever they 'games company' isn't a game down.

If you could go into macdonalds and whip out your personal bigmac-o-replicator(tm) and magically produce your own identical copy of a (physical) big mac you would then be talking apples to apples.

intellectual copyright is not identical to taking an hamburger........

 

[BloodyL]

One is full of air and the other...no, wait...

nevermind.

 

[Dist]

If people want to stick with the food comparison, then wouldnt it be better if you compare it to a recipe? If a recipe for a big mac is a secret and not given out by mcdonalds, and you somehow get a copy of that recipe, then if you use that recipe to make big macs, even for self only use, mcdonalds is loosing out on potential income that could have gone to them if you had not had the recipe.

 

[Stellios]

If people want to stick with the food comparison, then wouldnt it be better if you compare it to a recipe? If a recipe for a big mac is a secret and not given out by mcdonalds, and you somehow get a copy of that recipe, then if you use that recipe to make big macs, even for self only use, mcdonalds is loosing out on potential income that could have gone to them if you had not had the recipe.

Why would I intentionally make a big mac, they are minging from mcdonalds, never mind my feeble attempt

 

[fini]

If people want to stick with the food comparison, then wouldnt it be better if you compare it to a recipe? If a recipe for a big mac is a secret and not given out by mcdonalds, and you somehow get a copy of that recipe, then if you use that recipe to make big macs, even for self only use, mcdonalds is loosing out on potential income that could have gone to them if you had not had the recipe.

This is a really poor example because legally it could go either way. If you get a copy of a recipe you can't be done for making a cake from that recipe - believe it or not there's actually a case on this very point. However, you can be sued for unauthorised duplication of the recipe itself. Equally, if it was the big mac recipe, you could be sued for breach of confidence or even under trade secrets legislation. The analogy of a recipe is thus particularly poor because it's would likely turn on the individual facts of the case.

 

[[TW]Fox]

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

Really? Which law covers this and where in the statute can I find this reference?

 

[Cupra]

pay for what you download, maybe if everyone did this us that pay for things would get them cheaper

 

[snowdog]

1: Ignore em, you never got any letters.
2: Get a trusted ISP that refuses to give out user data. Some ISP's here refused to give out details about the servers for various p2p sites, and even went to court to fight the anti piracy guys. Such isp's deserve your monthly money, not some one that gives it up and just gives out details.
3: Use Peerguardian 2 in the future ( I know it doesn't offer that much protection, at a guess it only blocks about 50%-75% of the anti p2p *****, but also blocks other evil people like known gov. ip's, leechers ( even 'legal' torrents have em), or if possible a proxy server.
4: Get into a private community for ''stuff'', public is too much exposed.
5: Never admit to anything, even on the forums.
6: Someone else did it on your connection.
7: Always enable encryption where possible.



In the worst case: Show then ''random pic of game box'' + ''random receipt of game'' from internet and ask them ( if ignoring them fails and they keep on whining) why you would download a game while you own it. Or when it comes to showing them in person, buy the game, scratch the disc as someone said above, and show em that you're entitled to play what you payed for.

 

[nyzrox]

pay for what you download, maybe if everyone did this us that pay for things would get them cheaper

or prices would stay high because if everyone are buying then there would be no reason to lower prices to entice people to buy them instead of downloading. company's only want high profits / keep shareholders happy.

 

[krisboats]

When you buy a game are you buying the legal rights to play the data thats on the disc, so paying for the rights for access to the data. Or for the discs worth of data, so once your data is gone its gone?

If your paying for the right to use the data does that means if your disc breaks your entitiled to a new one from the manufacturer?

 

[frosty03]

2: Get a trusted ISP that refuses to give out user data. Some ISP's here refused to give out details about the servers for various p2p sites, and even went to court to fight the anti piracy guys. Such isp's deserve your monthly money, not some one that gives it up and just gives out details.

Any recommendations/suggestions?

 

[Jokester]

Really? Which law covers this and where in the statute can I find this reference?

From the point of view of ilegal software downloads, the Software Directive does. There are no excemptions for someone claiming to be an ISP as Fini claims. The only way someone can make a legal copy of that software without the rightholder's permission is as a backup of a legally acquired copy.

 

[semi-pro waster]

The only way someone can make a legal copy of that software without the rightholder's permission is as a backup of a legally acquired copy.

And you aren't allowed to circumvent technological protection methods or reverse-engineer to do so either as far as I recall although I'd have to check my notes to be sure.

The UK could probably do with a bit of an overhaul on our dealings with IP and more of a fair use policy to adequately deal with peoples natural inclination to backup (provide a form of insurance) for their valuable possessions.

 

[fini]

From the point of view of ilegal software downloads, the Software Directive does. There are no excemptions for someone claiming to be an ISP as Fini claims. The only way someone can make a legal copy of that software without the rightholder's permission is as a backup of a legally acquired copy.

From my notes

The Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002 introduced three exemptions from liability for network operators:
• Mere conduit where
o Didn’t initiate transmission
o Didn’t select the receiver
o Didn’t select or modify the data
• Caching
o Where it is left unmodified with restrictions kept and is removed as soon as removed at source
• Hosting
o Without actual knowledge of unlawful activity (as defined s97A CDPA)

This came in from the Information Society Directive (sorry not the Software Directive (been spending too much time reading through it recently)).

Article 5

Exceptions and limitations

1. Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental [and] an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable:

(a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or

(b) a lawful use

of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.

Now would you like to tell me where I'm wrong?