View RSS Feed

narse1979

A reason why downloading Torrents is Bad - You have been WARNED

Rate this Entry
by , 08-03-2010 at 04:58 AM (19225 Views)
Just take a read of this letter and make you own mind.

This is a letter that landed on a friends door step recently.

It's not for a wii game and im not going to go into the politics of the whole thing but it does make you think.

These people are demanding £375 from each person. You can Buy the CDs for £9.99


Submit "A reason why downloading Torrents is Bad - You have been WARNED" to Digg Submit "A reason why downloading Torrents is Bad - You have been WARNED" to del.icio.us Submit "A reason why downloading Torrents is Bad - You have been WARNED" to StumbleUpon Submit "A reason why downloading Torrents is Bad - You have been WARNED" to Google

Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
  1. narse1979's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    I was trying to warn against Piracy we dont support it here - This could happen to you one day.
  2. mcpish's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    just stick with the newsgroups. Much safer!
  3. narse1979's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    This is a letter that was sent back to someone that sent a letter of denial

    Dear xxxx,

    We refer to your letter of xx xxxx xxxx.

    We note that your letter takes the form of a standard template response obtained from the internet. You do not attempt to respond to the specific allegations made against you.

    Moreover, contrary to what your response says, our letter of claim makes it very clear that our client does consider that you have personally infringed its copyright(or have authorised
    someone else to do so). This claim is evidenced by (a) the software that identified the IP address responsible for making the work available on the P2P network on the date and time set out in our earlier letter;
    and (b) your having been identified by your ISP as the subscriber associated with that IP address.

    The fact that you are the individual who was, at the relevant time, in control of the internet connection used to infringe our client's copyright raises an inference that you(or someone authorised by you) carried out that infringement.

    The court's rules require that parties co-operate with each other before proceedings. They have to exchange information in writing to understand each others position and to make informed decisions about settlement and how to proceed.
    You will find more information about the practice direction relating to pre-action conduct in this link:

    Page not found - Ministry of Justice

    Your letter merely makes a series of unsupported denials, including:

    1. Denying any liability under the CDPA 1988;and

    2. denying possessing a copy of the work, distributing it or authorising anyone else to distribute it using your internet connection.

    Mere denials are incompatible with the practice direction. In the absence of a proper explanation as to why you are not liable, the inference of wrong doing remains.
    The same comment applies to your unsubstantiated conclusion that you have been a victim of foul play.

    Our client has no desire to pursue individuals who have done nothing wrong. They are however entitled to identify and pursue infringer s. The practice direction obliges you to give a full response to
    the allegations that we have made but you can be rest assured, if that response shows, on proper consideration, that you are not responsible for the infringement, our client will take no further action.

    If, for example, there were other users of your computer, or other individuals in your home sharing your internet connection at the time the infringement took place, you should identify those individuals
    so that our client may approach them. It is certainly unnecessary to involve a forensic expert at this stage.

    In summary, therefore, we have advised our client that, as matters stand, an inference has been raised that you are responsible for the infringement alleged in our letter of claim and the nature of your response
    to date has failed to rebut that inference.

    We would again recommend that seek independent legal advice.

    We would ask for your response to this letter within the next 14 days and shall reconsider the position in light of any further information you then provide.

    Yours faithfully




    Gallant Macmillan LLP
    These people are criminals, check this video out ACS LAW: Lord Lucas

    They refer to ACS but these boys are on the same band wagon
  4. Arboles's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Even without watching that movie, if you think, you'll conclude that it's impossible to build a solid case in court solely based on such evidence. Copywrite infringement via piracy download is a very sensitive subject, as the border between what's illegal and what isn't in this case is very thin. Due to the lack of sources at the moment I can't backup my reasoning, so you'll have to take my word for it, which you don't have to.

    In many constitutions, sharing/distributing copywrite protected products is illegal, however downloading isn't. However, as a consumer, whenever you find out you acquired such material for free, you are to delete it post haste. There is no law against downloading copywritten material. You can, however, be prosecuted for owning that material without paying for its value. Why does this never happen? The only way for a company to verify that you indeed own the product illegally is to access your PC in any way, be it directly or externally. Such action is only legal via previous court authorisation, which requires a very solid ground, which never happens. If a company, even without any scamming intentions, discovers your transgression they will also be in serious trouble for invasion of privacy.

    In conclusion, the only actual barrier for stopping illegal downloads is either by entirely disable the sharing network (quite the arduous task) or via moral persuasion, that is, convince users that illegally downloading is wrong. The problem with the latter is that companies tend to substitute the word "wrong" with "crime" when it really isn't. Only sharing is.
  5. Krafter's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Quote Originally Posted by wiiLike2Hacks
    Someone sue Gallant Macmillan :P
    LOL, I noticed the similarity between the two logos too.
  6. narse1979's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Quote Originally Posted by Arboles
    Even without watching that movie, if you think, you'll conclude that it's impossible to build a solid case in court solely based on such evidence. Copywrite infringement via piracy download is a very sensitive subject, as the border between what's illegal and what isn't in this case is very thin. Due to the lack of sources at the moment I can't backup my reasoning, so you'll have to take my word for it, which you don't have to.

    In many constitutions, sharing/distributing copywrite protected products is illegal, however downloading isn't. However, as a consumer, whenever you find out you acquired such material for free, you are to delete it post haste. There is no law against downloading copywritten material. You can, however, be prosecuted for owning that material without paying for its value. Why does this never happen? The only way for a company to verify that you indeed own the product illegally is to access your PC in any way, be it directly or externally. Such action is only legal via previous court authorisation, which requires a very solid ground, which never happens. If a company, even without any scamming intentions, discovers your transgression they will also be in serious trouble for invasion of privacy.

    In conclusion, the only actual barrier for stopping illegal downloads is either by entirely disable the sharing network (quite the arduous task) or via moral persuasion, that is, convince users that illegally downloading is wrong. The problem with the latter is that companies tend to substitute the word "wrong" with "crime" when it really isn't. Only sharing is.
    The video says it all - If you actually watch the video it tell you what part of this scam is lucrative and its not the part about taking someone to court. Its the part where they put the frighteners on people so they pay up £375. If you read my post before you will see the
    amount of money they would rake in if just 2000 people paid up and that figure is £750,000.

    Closing down the offending networks isn't going to be very lucrative because that will end up going to court and cost a lot of money so they target everyday people with scare mongering.
  7. Arboles's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    I did watch the movie and found it interesting. The point of my post was that even if there weren't any scamming intentions, people needen't be scared because cases such as these would never hold on court. The evidence would have to be attained via court order which needs a pretty strong justification on its own.

    I'd find it funny if a bill against this type of scamming were to pass because by deffending the consumer, it also defends those who have illegal ownership.
  8. narse1979's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Sorry I had only just woken up and read your post as it would be possible but after re reading it I see it say impossible.
    What gets me to is peer to peer is worldwide yes?
    So what happens when this material enters a different country - I bet they don't chase the infringement.
    Would the company be making a loss from the people in different country's to?
  9. Arboles's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    I really don't understand your last question. You are subjected to your currently residing country's laws, so the companies could still "chase" you if it's illegal where you currently live. If not, they have to make an appeal in court of some sort, but really, where I live (Portugal) there's too many things going around for anyone to care about piracy regardless of what it may seem. This pretty much reflects towards every other country. Only the United States seem to care enough about this, and even so it's pretty hard to advance with anything as of yet.

    Even if you are able to prosecute, there is no way to stop piracy unless you start running on dictator pills. I read somewhere that there was an idea for the internet to work the same way television service does, which means, you buy certain packs of sites for a fee and are only able to access those. This allows a much stricter control as it's highly doubtful any pack would contain a P2P sharing site due to the problem in question. I highly doubt this will happen any time soon and it would be a dark day on the internet.
  10. jeffr's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    i think i'm pretty safe. i use a private site with private trackers. i also use peer block and the best part is i use the neighbor's wireless. i have no ip and i treat the network like a public connection in my settings. in order to catch me, they would have a time.
  11. narse1979's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    @jeffr - Shame on you - Thats why some people are getting these demands, when it is someone else using there network - Is this fair?
  12. NightX's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    I have never heard so much BS in my life. It's illegal to mod your wii, its illegal to make backups of games, even if you own it. It says it right in the service agreement. And 99% of the people on here or doing it. "I got 500 games on my hard drive." Yeah your really rich. And jeffr I do think your wrong, steal from the rich not the poor.
  13. Arboles's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Without taking any party, your argument is instantly flawed. A crime is a crime, no matter the target. There is no such thing as positive discrimination, or at least there shouldn't be. No matter what anyone else does, what you're doing is actually illegal. Even if it wasn't, it's very morally incorrect. Anyone with the least bit of maturity shouldn't post such replies. Common sense is your best friend! Also, regarding how defensive your reply was, I assume you have issues. No offense!
  14. NightX's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Quote Originally Posted by Arboles
    Without taking any party, your argument is instantly flawed. A crime is a crime, no matter the target. There is no such thing as positive discrimination, or at least there shouldn't be. No matter what anyone else does, what you're doing is actually illegal. Even if it wasn't, it's very morally incorrect. Anyone with the least bit of maturity shouldn't post such replies. Common sense is your best friend! Also, regarding how defensive your reply was, I assume you have issues. No offense!
    Are you talking about the steal from the rich give to poor. And yeah I do got issues.
  15. narse1979's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Quote Originally Posted by NightX
    Are you talking about the steal from the rich give to poor. And yeah I do got issues.
    NightX its not illegal to mod your wii - It what you plan to do on your wii that may be illegal. Backing up games that you have bought retail onto an external hdd to save your original games getting scratched isnt illegal.

    Stealing someones else internet connection to download stuff isnt right in my eyes as your next door neighbour is the one that get the blame not you.
  16. narse1979's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    correct me if im wrong anybody - Night X not even sure who you are referring to anyway.
  17. Arboles's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Quote Originally Posted by NightX
    Are you talking about the steal from the rich give to poor. And yeah I do got issues.
    I meant self-esteem issues actually. Overly defensive people usually have a social trauma of some sort. I wonder what are your criteria for being in the poor department. I mean, you do seem to own a computer and that hardly seems a necessity for living... If you really believe in helping people, go do some volunteer work. It's what I do.

    I have no idea wether moding the wii is illegal or not seeing I'm completely new to this, but I really don't think so. There is no invasion of copywrite whatsoever and it's your entire responsability. Also, regarding the previous reply, it's what he says. You may legally have ONE backup copy of a game you own and it must be made from your own original copy. Downloading a backup of a game you already have, for instance is illegal, but making it isn't.
  18. narse1979's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    There is always one that nearly makes the thread/blog turn for the worse lmfao
  19. emuhack's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    yeah i have gotton many of these in the recent months.... but mine have been for movies and they claim to be from NBC Universal.... so idk.... the tracker that they listed that i was using is no longer a tracker that i use... and tada no more letters....

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12