And The Song…Oops,Scam Remains The Same
Here’s a really interesting article (especially for Brits) on the latest scam, and priceless tips and resources on how to avoid it.
As many as 25,000 BT and 5,000 customers of other ISPs will be receiving shock letters demanding big payments during the coming weeks. Lawyers in the UK have been granted more court orders which force ISPs to hand over the details of individuals who they say have been monitored sharing hardcore pornography.
…
This fresh news can hardly come as a surprise. The supposed anti-piracy scheme originally pioneered in the UK in conjunction with lawyers Davenport Lyons rolls on, but now in the hands of ACS:Law and their partners DigiProtect.Although there is an insistence that the project is aimed at reducing piracy, in reality piracy is the scheme’s lifeblood, providing healthy profits for all concerned, except the original rights-holders that is.
On November 19th at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, ACS:Law made NPO (Norwich Pharmacal Order) applications in order to force ISPs to hand over the names and addresses of subscribers the company claims infringed their client’s rights.
The NPO’s related to approximately 25,000 IP addresses harvested from UK ISP BT’s subscriber base and a further 5,000 from var
…
After CMW expressed interest in what happens to an accused infringer after the court order is granted and a letter sent, Crossley said that his company was not suggesting that the recipient is definitely guilty in all cases, but the Internet account holder who receives the letter could perhaps help them to identify the person who had actually carried out the infringement.It is worth noting that ISP account holders are not liable for copyright infringement carried out on his/her connection if a) they did not carry it out themselves or b) did not authorize any infringement. If they did neither they can simply write back to ACS:Law explaining that the accusation against them has been made in error.
And most importantly:
Furthermore, if the account holder does not know who did carry out the infringement, they should state in their reply that is the case. It is then up to ACS:Law to find the real infringer based on their evidence they hold. This is impossible for them without the account holder pointing the finger.
In justifying his application for the court order, Crossley said that they do it because “businesses are failing, jobs are being lost,” while citing dubious IFPI statistics (95% of all music is pirated) to justify his case.
CMW asked Crossley how long the scheme would continue for, who replied “…for as long as P2P file-sharing continues Master.”
(Emphasis added by eZee)
Read the rest of the article as well as commentary on TF.
Related posts:
- Second Win Today! (Lithuania)
- 3 Strikes Not Working In France. No Surprise. (UPDATED)
- In The Ring Today: Draconian Copyright Vs. Ridiculous Copyright
- A Quick Hash Up of Articles of the Mash That Makes The Digital Economy Bill
- Anti-P2P Laws Working?? Not Really.
- Looking At ACTA..
- The Real Pirates Are The Anti-Pirate Organizations!
