Davenport Lyons - Watchdog Report
The Todal
noticed that Watchdog did a report in December dealing with DL's aggressive
demands for money. Here's the link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2008/12/davenport_lyons_threatening_le.html
"The letter asked Alan for £500 compensation because he'd allowed the games'
copyright to be breached. He was also warned that he'd face much higher
costs if Davenport Lyons had to take the case further. Alan's partner Heidi
was so worried by the content of letter, she thought they ought to pay it,
but Alan decided to fight it all the way. "I'm up for it - let them take me
to court. I didn't do it, so bring it on - that's what I say." Watchdog had
Alan and Heidi's computer checked out, too. And again there was no sign of
the game.
It's one thing being accused of uploading computer games when you haven't,
but some of the accusations coming from Davenport Lyons are a bit more hard
core. It has also been sending letters to people accusing them of breaching
the copyright of a gay porn film. The film is so X-rated, we can't even tell
you its title, but it certainly surprised the people, including a married
couple in their 70s, who Davenport Lyons wrote to about it....[snip]
Atari says: "The costs and lost revenue caused by the widespread illegal
copying of games causes much damage to our industry, directly affecting the
many talented creative people developing the games, and also our customers.
Taking action to defend our rights is necessary, but it is very important to
us that any action taken is fair and appropriate. We believed that Davenport
Lyons' methods were totally reliable and accurate. We were shocked and
extremely disappointed when we found that they had incorrectly accused one
household of illegal copying. As a direct result we told Davenport Lyons to
take no further action on our behalf."".
Stephen Wolstenholme
wrote:
>Apologies if others have mentioned this already, but I have only just
>noticed that Watchdog did a report in December dealing with DL's aggressive
>demands for money. Here's the link:
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2008/12/davenport_lyons_threatening_le.html
>
The bit about tracking uploads from the IP address is nonsense. I
think someone is conning DL into paying for a service that would not
work unless every Internet user was on a static address.
Steve
Stephen Wolstenholme
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:48:40 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme
><st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The bit about tracking uploads from the IP address is nonsense. I
>> think someone is conning DL into paying for a service that would not
>> work unless every Internet user was on a static address.
>
>It works when done in conjunction with information from the ISP on which
>subscriber had the lease to that IP address on that date and at that time.
>
Yes, but it would be a bit of a challenge getting access to that data.
It's not available to anyone who asks and I don't think records of
prior leases have to be kept for long, if at all.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd http://www.NPSL1.com
Brown Cat
> Yes, but it would be a bit of a challenge getting access to that data.
It would require a court order.
> It's not available to anyone who asks and I don't think records of prior
> leases have to be kept for long, if at all.
Err, yes they do. If someone commits a crime using the Internet it's how
they identify that person. How do you think they caught the person that
hacked into US government computers?
Stephen Wolstenholme
I don't think it's a legal requirement to keep that information. No
doubt some ISP's will retain he data in their logs but not forever. I
worked on TCP/IP implementation and testing a while ago but not
directly on leasing. I know the man who did the DHCP design. I'll ask
him.
Colin Wilson
> subscriber had the lease to that IP address on that date and at that time.
It is regularly incorrect though, which lead, in one instance, to an
innocent kid in the US being held on terror charges (threats about a
bomb IIRC).
His ISP failed to take into account the 1 hour timeshift for summer.
Mike Ross
Because the cracker didn't use a proxy, or an 'anonymous' ISP.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
nimbu...@yahoo.co.uk
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:48:40 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme
>
> <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > think someone is conning DL into paying for a service that would not
> > work unless every Internet user was on a static address.
>
> subscriber had the lease to that IP address on that date and at that time.
>
This assumes that you have got a competant ISP who actually can
process that information Queue rant about Pipex were so disorganised
that they kept on threatening to disconnect me long after I was with
O2 if I did not pay for the service which I no longer had.
The imbeceles could not even understand my suggestion that they look
for the marker on the line to see that I was telling the truth
HTH Phil
Vernon
"Brown Cat" <br...@eye.invalid> wrote in message
news:Y_1fl.104891$626....@newsfe09.ams2...
Perhaps those government computers record the details and immediately do a
lookup, as opposed to being a manually initiated thing, it might be
automatic?
Mike Harrison
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:48:40 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme
><st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The bit about tracking uploads from the IP address is nonsense. I
>> think someone is conning DL into paying for a service that would not
>> work unless every Internet user was on a static address.
>
>It works when done in conjunction with information from the ISP on which
>subscriber had the lease to that IP address on that date and at that time.
>
>Tony
As long as someone hasn't cloned their cable modem MAC.
Or used an open wireless connection.
steve robinson
or used an ip scrambling programme or infected the machine with a virus the
list is endless
DL are just relying on the fact people will roll over and pay because they may
have visited other sites that they may not want others to know about
DL have not won any case yet that has been defended in the uk
They also forget that in many homes thier are several computers and 'toys' that
can connect to the net through a router , the isp ip will only log the modem it
will not log the computers attached
Mike
wrote:
>
>This assumes that you have got a competant ISP who actually can
>process that information Queue rant about Pipex were so disorganised
>that they kept on threatening to disconnect me long after I was with
>O2 if I did not pay for the service which I no longer had.
>The imbeceles could not even understand my suggestion that they look
>for the marker on the line to see that I was telling the truth
An ISPA complaint soon gets things like this sorted.
It's won't mean that you'll end up with a competent ISP though - these
things simply don't exist in the real world, that they can be relied
upon to provide credible evidence is quite frankly ridiculous!
--
Norman Wells
>
> DL have not won any case yet that has been defended in the uk
That depends on what you mean by 'defended', and I suspect you are using
that term in a rather restrictive way that suits your purposes rather than
in the usual sense. See for example:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4564439.ece
which went to trial, and therefore seems to have been defended at least in
the conventional sense of the expression.
Anyway, it settles nothing to say that DL have not won any case yet that has
been defended in the UK. It will only be a matter of time. On the other
hand, it would support your position if you could refer to any cases that DL
have actually lost. But I don't think you can because there haven't been
any, have there?
> They also forget that in many homes thier are several computers and
> 'toys' that can connect to the net through a router , the isp ip will
> only log the modem it will not log the computers attached
So what? It could well be decided in future that the owner of the router is
performing the illegal download and is therefore liable even if the process
is initiated by some other individual attached to his network. That would
be a great result because then it would place responsibility for what is
downloaded where it properly lies, and owners of networks might then be a
little bit more circumspect about who they allow to use them, and what for.
The civil burden of proof is only 'on the balance of probabilities' anyway.
Various cases, including:
http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/15246/parking-penalty-just-judge-rulesThat.
have decided that it's not necessary to identify the individual perpetrating
the illegal act absolutely definitely. All a judge has to decide is whether
the respondant, whoever he is, is more likely than not to have done what he
is accused of, whether or not there is absolute knowledge that it was he who
did it. The same principle applies to downloads as it does to illegal
parking.
So, whistle in the dark by all means if it keeps your spirits up, but the
net is closing.
Pod
> steve robinson wrote:
>>
>> DL have not won any case yet that has been defended in the uk
>
> That depends on what you mean by 'defended', and I suspect you are
> using that term in a rather restrictive way that suits your purposes
> rather than in the usual sense. See for example:
>
> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4564439.ece
>
> which went to trial, and therefore seems to have been defended at
> least in the conventional sense of the expression.
The defendant never showed up for the hearing.
_
have ceased actions after being 'outed' by Watchdog and reported to
their governing body?
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> So, whistle in the dark by all means if it keeps your spirits up, but
>> the net is closing.
>>
> LOL are you STILL banging this drum, Norm? Even though your pals at DL
> have ceased actions after being 'outed' by Watchdog and reported to
> their governing body?
It wouldn't be unusual or unexpected for some mistakes to be made in a novel
operation of the size DL have undertaken, nor would it be unusual or
unexpected for any reputable firm to cease actions that prove to be
unfounded. So, I dare say DL will indeed have withdrawn _some_ actions, and
I fully expect those to be or include the ones that the simpleton Watchdog
programme highlighted.
You imply, however, that they have withdrawn all their actions which, as far
as I am aware, is very far from the case. Do you have a reference to the
contrary, or are you just pouting and posturing as usual?
_
> _ wrote:
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>> So, whistle in the dark by all means if it keeps your spirits up, but
>>> the net is closing.
>>>
>> LOL are you STILL banging this drum, Norm? Even though your pals at DL
>> have ceased actions after being 'outed' by Watchdog and reported to
>> their governing body?
>
> It wouldn't be unusual or unexpected for some mistakes to be made in a
> novel operation of the size DL have undertaken, nor would it be unusual
> or unexpected for any reputable firm to cease actions that prove to be
> unfounded. So, I dare say DL will indeed have withdrawn _some_ actions,
> and I fully expect those to be or include the ones that the simpleton
> Watchdog programme highlighted.
>
Which thats the most widely respected and longest standing consumer
organisation in the country?
http://www.itproportal.com/articles/2008/12/12/which-reports-davenport-lyons-legal-watchdog/
> You imply, however, that they have withdrawn all their actions which, as
> far as I am aware, is very far from the case. Do you have a reference
> to the contrary, or are you just pouting and posturing as usual?
>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/27/atari_davenport_lyons/
Now, would YOU like to come up with some references that DL are
continuing any actions as we speak? No, thought not. You're demented,
Norm, get yourself some help.
Mike Ross
<snips>
>Anyway, it settles nothing to say that DL have not won any case yet that has
>been defended in the UK. It will only be a matter of time. On the other
>hand, it would support your position if you could refer to any cases that DL
>have actually lost. But I don't think you can because there haven't been
>any, have there?
I'm not sure - I would imagine that, if they were half-competent, they would
drop any cases that are dubious or difficult before they reach court. So I agree
it settles nothing; the business model seems to be to go only after the
low-hanging fruit. A bit like those fake parking ticket/invoice outfits.
>So what? It could well be decided in future that the owner of the router is
>performing the illegal download and is therefore liable even if the process
>is initiated by some other individual attached to his network. That would
>be a great result because then it would place responsibility for what is
>downloaded where it properly lies, and owners of networks might then be a
>little bit more circumspect about who they allow to use them, and what for.
I'm not sure on what basis you come to the conclusion that it 'could well be
decided' - decided by whom, on what basis? And it certainly would NOT be a
'great result' certainly not for people such as me, who purposely keep an
unsecured wireless access point available as a public service. Several of my
neighbours do the same; something for which I've been thankful at times when my
own ISP has had some little 'technical difficulty'. What goes around comes
around.
Mike Ross
>_ wrote:
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>> So, whistle in the dark by all means if it keeps your spirits up, but
>>> the net is closing.
>>>
>> LOL are you STILL banging this drum, Norm? Even though your pals at DL
>> have ceased actions after being 'outed' by Watchdog and reported to
>> their governing body?
>
>It wouldn't be unusual or unexpected for some mistakes to be made in a novel
>operation of the size DL have undertaken, nor would it be unusual or
>unexpected for any reputable firm to cease actions that prove to be
>unfounded. So, I dare say DL will indeed have withdrawn _some_ actions, and
>I fully expect those to be or include the ones that the simpleton Watchdog
>programme highlighted.
I would be interested to know how these 'unfounded' actions came to be brought
in the first place.
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> _ wrote:
>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>>> So, whistle in the dark by all means if it keeps your spirits up,
>>>> but the net is closing.
>>>>
>>> LOL are you STILL banging this drum, Norm? Even though your pals at
>>> DL have ceased actions after being 'outed' by Watchdog and reported
>>> to their governing body?
>>
>> It wouldn't be unusual or unexpected for some mistakes to be made in
>> a novel operation of the size DL have undertaken, nor would it be
>> unusual or unexpected for any reputable firm to cease actions that
>> prove to be unfounded. So, I dare say DL will indeed have withdrawn
>> _some_ actions, and I fully expect those to be or include the ones
>> that the simpleton Watchdog programme highlighted.
>>
> Interesting. Do you think Which are "simpletons" too, you know, the
> Which thats the most widely respected and longest standing consumer
> organisation in the country?
> http://www.itproportal.com/articles/2008/12/12/which-reports-davenport-lyons-legal-watchdog/
I know all about Which? thank you very much. What they don't seem to
realise, however, is that DL as solicitors only act on behalf of their
clients and under their instructions. The cases are not theirs, but their
clients. Moreover, their actions are perfectly legal and fully in
accordance with the Law Society's Code of Professional Conduct. Their job
is to represent their clients' interests as strongly as possible in
accordance with both the law and that code. And that's exactly what they're
doing. Which?'s complaints seem to me to have no merit or any chance of
being upheld, so the fact that they may have complained is of no relevance.
So, some cases are brought wrongly. That's an occupational hazard in any
branch of the law, especially new ones. But whose fault is that? Is it
DL's? Are they to blame if the information provided to them is faulty for
example? Are they acting in bad faith if it is?
I think in all the cases they have brought they have had good prima facie
evidence of illegal downloading as provided by the ISPs. That means the
cases they have brought have been brought entirely properly.
>
>
>> You imply, however, that they have withdrawn all their actions
>> which, as far as I am aware, is very far from the case. Do you have
>> a reference to the contrary, or are you just pouting and posturing
>> as usual?
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/27/atari_davenport_lyons/
>
> Now, would YOU like to come up with some references that DL are
> continuing any actions as we speak? No, thought not. You're demented,
> Norm, get yourself some help.
A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. To quote from
the reference you provided:
"Lawdit is representing more than 300 people who have been targetted by
Davenport Lyons. Only about a dozen are accused of infringing Atari
copyright. The vast majority are under threat from another Davenport Lyons
anti-piracy client, Topware Interactive, also a videogames publisher".
DL have withdrawn their actions against illegal downloaders of Atari
products because Atari have for some (undisclosed) reason seen fit to change
their solicitors, as happens. Judging by the ratio in the sample in the
passage quoted above, that's just about 4% of the cases DL are handling.
The remaining 96% apparently continue.
So, the reference doesn't actually show what you want it to, and hardly
proves that I'm demented either. Rather, it proves me right, er, again.
Norman Wells
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:05:46 -0000, "Norman Wells"
> <no-...@myarl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snips>
>
>> Anyway, it settles nothing to say that DL have not won any case yet
>> that has been defended in the UK. It will only be a matter of time.
>> On the other hand, it would support your position if you could refer
>> to any cases that DL have actually lost. But I don't think you can
>> because there haven't been any, have there?
>
> I'm not sure - I would imagine that, if they were half-competent,
> they would drop any cases that are dubious or difficult before they
> reach court.
It's not a matter of competence, it's a matter of commercial expediency. If
the client thinks it's worthwhile to continue then the case will continue.
It's not within DL's power just to drop it. The decision rests with the
client.
> So I agree it settles nothing; the business model seems
> to be to go only after the low-hanging fruit. A bit like those fake
> parking ticket/invoice outfits.
Of course, if you're trying to establish new legal principles and you have a
choice, you do it in easy stages. That's just common sense. However, most
people are not arguing like you that they're only pursuing low hanging
fruit, ie the easy cases, but also much more difficult ones where they don't
seem to have much of a leg to stand on at all.
>
>> So what? It could well be decided in future that the owner of the
>> router is performing the illegal download and is therefore liable
>> even if the process is initiated by some other individual attached
>> to his network. That would be a great result because then it would
>> place responsibility for what is downloaded where it properly lies,
>> and owners of networks might then be a little bit more circumspect
>> about who they allow to use them, and what for.
>
> I'm not sure on what basis you come to the conclusion that it 'could
> well be decided' - decided by whom, on what basis?
By a judge in a case where the point is argued and has to be decided.
> And it certainly
> would NOT be a 'great result' certainly not for people such as me,
> who purposely keep an unsecured wireless access point available as a
> public service.
Most probably against your service provision agreement with your ISP.
> Several of my neighbours do the same
Most probably against their service agreements with their ISPs too.
>; something for
> which I've been thankful at times when my own ISP has had some little
> 'technical difficulty'. What goes around comes around.
We'd all like free internet access, but it doesn't justify making your ISP's
computers available to others.
steve robinson
> > The isps do not provide evidence of downloading only of connection to the
service , the fact that ip adresses can be spoofed by the computer literate
and the fact that isps can not track this very easily combined with the fact
that thier are hundreds if not thousands of cloned cable modems out there does
tend to throw a spanner in the works as does the fact the operator of the
computer connected can not be identified
_
> _ wrote:
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>> _ wrote:
>>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So, whistle in the dark by all means if it keeps your spirits up,
>>>>> but the net is closing.
>>>>>
>>>> LOL are you STILL banging this drum, Norm? Even though your pals at
>>>> DL have ceased actions after being 'outed' by Watchdog and reported
>>>> to their governing body?
>>>
>>> It wouldn't be unusual or unexpected for some mistakes to be made in
>>> a novel operation of the size DL have undertaken, nor would it be
>>> unusual or unexpected for any reputable firm to cease actions that
>>> prove to be unfounded. So, I dare say DL will indeed have withdrawn
>>> _some_ actions, and I fully expect those to be or include the ones
>>> that the simpleton Watchdog programme highlighted.
>>>
>> Interesting. Do you think Which are "simpletons" too, you know, the
>> Which thats the most widely respected and longest standing consumer
>> organisation in the country?
>> http://www.itproportal.com/articles/2008/12/12/which-reports-davenport-lyons-legal-watchdog/
>>
>
> I know all about Which? thank you very much. What they don't seem to
> realise, however, is that DL as solicitors only act on behalf of their
> clients and under their instructions. The cases are not theirs, but
> their clients.
Indeed so, but DL do have the choice of who they wish to work with, and
they've apparently chosen profit over ethics in more than one example.
> Moreover, their actions are perfectly legal and fully in
> accordance with the Law Society's Code of Professional Conduct.
Ummm not quite so clear cut, I'm afraid. The code permits an alleged
debtor to nominate a representative to deal with the matter on his/her
behalf, and DL are obliged to only communicate with that person
following such a request. Once an issue is 'deadlocked', as defined by
the alleged debtor, the code says that they must now either take the
matter to court or cease collection action. Unfortunately DL think both
those requirements are...errr....'optional'.
> Their
> job is to represent their clients' interests as strongly as possible in
> accordance with both the law and that code. And that's exactly what
> they're doing. Which?'s complaints seem to me to have no merit or any
> chance of being upheld, so the fact that they may have complained is of
> no relevance.
>
No again. Which are not fools and would not have initiated a formal
complaint without taking due care first. DL appear to think that, in
your words, "representing their clients interests as strongly as
possible" means "making groundless threats and intimidating people into
paying debts they probably dont owe".
> So, some cases are brought wrongly. That's an occupational hazard in
> any branch of the law, especially new ones. But whose fault is that?
> Is it DL's? Are they to blame if the information provided to them is
> faulty for example? Are they acting in bad faith if it is?
>
They're acting in bad faith *from the outset*, by chancing on utterly
tenuous and demonstrably flawed 'evidence' which they represent as fact,
while in full knowledge that the evidential process is suspect.
> I think in all the cases they have brought they have had good prima
> facie evidence of illegal downloading as provided by the ISPs. That
> means the cases they have brought have been brought entirely properly.
>
Depends on whether you think having the ethics of a gutter rat is acting
"entirely properly".
>>
Colin Wilson
> in the first place.
Quite easily - they pick an IP, perhaps a random IP, serve papers to
the ISP demanding to know who it was, then try to stitch the end-user
whether they had anything to do with it or not.
It's as accurate as picking on a class of kids - one of whom you
suspect of dropping a crisp packet (you can't be sure, it might blown
in on the wind) but putting a random one of them on suspension anyway.
Norman Wells
DL must have some basis for thinking that copyright material has been
illegally downloaded to or uploaded from a particular IP address, so the
selection of the IP addresses they target can hardly be described as random.
Moreover, as far as I am aware, they always specify a time, a date and the
file they allege was copied.or made available. Provided therefore that the
information they have received to that effect is accurate - which is
something they are obviously in no position to verify for themselves - then
they are perfectly justified in bringing legal action for copyright
infringement.
They seem to be taking the view that the owner of the internet connection is
the most likely guilty party, and that has some considerable merit. Not
only is it more likely than not to be true on a statistical basis, but it
may well also be held at some time in the future (it hasn't been yet because
it hasn't been tested in the courts) that the owner of the connection is
always responsible, regardless of who actually initiated the process, in
that it is his connection that enabled the illegal copying to occur and he
is responsible for that connection.
These things will all become clear in due course as more and more actions
are brought to trial. In the meantime, it is foolish to grasp at the straws
of cases that have failed because the original information on which they
were based turned out to be false or inaccurate. It won't always be so, and
I suspect in the vast majority of cases brought so far it hasn't been so
either. They've usually got the right man. It's just that they squeal like
stuck pigs when they're caught red-handed, just as they would when caught
parking on yellow lines outside a bank, and will clutch at anything that
seems to offer them even the remotest ray of hope.
Norman Wells
On information from the ISPs that turned out to be inaccurate.
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> I think in all the cases they have brought they have had good prima
>> facie evidence of illegal downloading as provided by the ISPs. That
>> means the cases they have brought have been brought entirely
>> properly.
>>
>>> The isps do not provide evidence of downloading only of connection
>>> to the
> service , the fact that ip adresses can be spoofed by the computer
> literate and the fact that isps can not track this very easily
> combined with the fact that thier are hundreds if not thousands of
> cloned cable modems out there does tend to throw a spanner in the
> works as does the fact the operator of the computer connected can not
> be identified
The fact that there _might_ be theoretical reasons why the person accused
did not do what he is accused of will not overturn a reasonable prima facie
case that he did. In the face of evidence that copyright material was
illegally downloaded or uploaded from his internet connection, the person
accused would have to show that those reasons actually did apply to him.
It's how 'the balance of probabilities' which is the criterion on which
civil cases are decided comes to be decided. There is no presumption of
innocence, nor any proof required beyond reasonable doubt. The sole
question is is he more likely to have done it than not.
steve robinson
As the clients legal representitive they can take whatever view they feel
appropriate , however it does not prove the case
Would you hold the householder responsible if one of the ocupants decided to
smash up the neighbours car or burgle the local store with tools he had
borrowed from the house
steve robinson
> steve robinson wrote:
> > Norman Wells wrote:
>
> > > I think in all the cases they have brought they have had good prima
> > > facie evidence of illegal downloading as provided by the ISPs. That
> > > means the cases they have brought have been brought entirely
> > > properly.
> > >
> > > > The isps do not provide evidence of downloading only of connection
> > > > to the
> > service , the fact that ip adresses can be spoofed by the computer
> > literate and the fact that isps can not track this very easily
> > combined with the fact that thier are hundreds if not thousands of
> > cloned cable modems out there does tend to throw a spanner in the
> > works as does the fact the operator of the computer connected can not
> > be identified
>
> The fact that there might be theoretical reasons why the person accused did
> not do what he is accused of will not overturn a reasonable prima facie case
> that he did. In the face of evidence that copyright material was illegally
> downloaded or uploaded from his internet connection, the person accused would
> have to show that those reasons actually did apply to him.
>
How do you know its his connection , can you prove it , does your forensic
evidence include tests to show if the address has been spoofed or manipulated ,
can you prove his machine was connected at the time and not just a router or
live connection , can you show that he was at his machine or was it a.another
who used the machine without permission , was the machine infected with a virus
or worm , which machine actually downloaded the file , many households have
several machines now , was his network hacked all very plausable reasons .
DL action usally starts several months after the alledged offence in that
timeframe the computer could well have been configured differently virus
scanned spyware scanned updated , hardware updated ,
If the files are not on the computer then DL are stuffed , you have provided
evidence that contradicts thiers
The couldnt even argue that you tampered with the machine because of the time
frames involved
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> They seem to be taking the view that the owner of the internet
>> connection is the most likely guilty party, and that has some
>> considerable merit. Not only is it more likely than not to be true
>> on a statistical basis, but it may well also be held at some time in
>> the future (it hasn't been yet because it hasn't been tested in the
>> courts) that the owner of the connection is always responsible,
>> regardless of who actually initiated the process, in that it is his
>> connection that enabled the illegal copying to occur and he is
>> responsible for that connection.
>
> As the clients legal representitive they can take whatever view they
> feel appropriate , however it does not prove the case
>
> Would you hold the householder responsible if one of the ocupants
> decided to smash up the neighbours car or burgle the local store with
> tools he had borrowed from the house
Maybe if it's a child of the householder for whom he is responsible and over
whom he is supposed to be exercising some control.
Maybe too if he 'borrowed' an unsecured firearm as one of the tools.
Otherwise, generally no because the two things are unrelated. It's all a
question of responsibility and control. If there is no possibility of
control, then there should be no responsibility and hence no liability.
However, with a personal internet connection there is the possibility of
control, so there is a degree of responsibility and hence potential
liability if things go wrong.
You may say there is no way you can control access to the internet through
your connection and monitor what goes on over it. However, given a court
decision or two saying that the owner of the connection is liable, I think
you'd suddenly find all sorts of ways of restricting or monitoring access.
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> The fact that there might be theoretical reasons why the person
>> accused did not do what he is accused of will not overturn a
>> reasonable prima facie case that he did. In the face of evidence
>> that copyright material was illegally downloaded or uploaded from
>> his internet connection, the person accused would have to show that
>> those reasons actually did apply to him.
>>
>
> How do you know its his connection ,
Presumably from the information gathered from the ISP.
> can you prove it
The information from the ISP will be sufficient to do that I think.
> does your
> forensic evidence include tests to show if the address has been
> spoofed or manipulated
Probably not.
> can you prove his machine was connected at
> the time and not just a router or live connection , can you show that
> he was at his machine or was it a.another who used the machine
> without permission
The copying is done via the router, and it's my argument that the owner of
the router's connection to the internet may well be liable even if the
actual person initiating the illegal copying operation is someone else. In
most cases, it is likely to be the owner of the connection anyway, so the
company sues him. They have a prima facie case that then needs to be
overturned by actual evidence to the contrary not just a list of theoretical
possibilities. If the owner of the connection just waffles endlessly about
how it could have been someone else without any actual evidence that it was,
he's likely to be found liable.
Your mistake is to assume that a case requires absolute proof or proof
beyond reasonable doubt or some such. A civil case, however, merely
requires the matter to be decided 'on the balance of probabilities'. That
means, in simple terms, that a judge must merely think it more likely than
not that the person accused of the illegal download did it.
> , was the machine infected with a virus or worm ,
> which machine actually downloaded the file , many households have
> several machines now , was his network hacked all very plausable
> reasons .
Maybe, but what are the facts?
> DL action usally starts several months after the alledged offence in
> that timeframe the computer could well have been configured
> differently virus scanned spyware scanned updated , hardware updated ,
>
> If the files are not on the computer then DL are stuffed , you have
> provided evidence that contradicts thiers
DL don't have to get hold of your computer to prove anything. All they have
to show is that the person they're accusing is more likely than not to have
done it, and they do that initially by providing the ISP's information.
It's then for the person accused to redress the balance by giving his side
of the story, not just endless theoretical possibilities about how it could
have been anyone.
steve robinson
Yes putting an axe hrough the cable , other than that any of my children are
well aware of how to unplug the router , and connect directly to the cable
modem , unless the box has an encrypted password or locable box supplied then
there would be no way unless i stood gaurd over it 24/7 .
I cant see the courts placeing a responsiblity on the person who rents the
connection to prevent unauthorised use it would have far reaching implications
on other areas of the law
Phil Stovell
> The copying is done via the router, and it's my argument that the owner of
> the router's connection to the internet may well be liable even if the
> actual person initiating the illegal copying operation is someone else.
> In most cases, it is likely to be the owner of the connection anyway, so
> the company sues him. They have a prima facie case that then needs to be
> overturned by actual evidence to the contrary not just a list of
> theoretical possibilities. If the owner of the connection just waffles
> endlessly about how it could have been someone else without any actual
> evidence that it was, he's likely to be found liable.
So DL accuses you of sharing "Army Fuckers" (which happened to an elderly
couple on the Watchdog item) and you have to prove you didn't do it (prove
a negative)?
Fred
"Norman Wells" <no-...@myarl.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6OCfl.68800$t64....@newsfe17.ams2...
>
> You may say there is no way you can control access to the internet through
> your connection and monitor what goes on over it. However, given a court
> decision or two saying that the owner of the connection is liable, I think
> you'd suddenly find all sorts of ways of restricting or monitoring access.
>
What decisions are you referring to? Surely an ISP has also a
responsibility and can't just sign it away. Otherwise I can get my child to
sign a piece of paper where he agrees not to download anything which is
illegal or subject to copyright.
As you intimate how much control can you exert over a child? You can only
do so much by wagging your finger!
M.I.5¾
"Mike Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:1qcsn4ln029kuq47j...@4ax.com...
Indeed! And it is interesting that DL's stance is that the Wireless
Connection's owner is responsible for any material downloaded by unknown
persons, because he has failed to secure the conection. The reality is that
the Wireless Connection's owner is under no legal obligation to secure the
connection whatsoever, nor for any consequences of not doing so (and DL as a
law firm should know this). He may be liable in copyright law if he
specifically and knowingly *allows* someone to download material from his
connection but has no liability or legal requirement to *prevent* anyone
else from doing so.
steve robinson
> steve robinson wrote:
> > Norman Wells wrote:
>
> > > The fact that there might be theoretical reasons why the person
> > > accused did not do what he is accused of will not overturn a
> > > reasonable prima facie case that he did. In the face of evidence
> > > that copyright material was illegally downloaded or uploaded from
> > > his internet connection, the person accused would have to show that
> > > those reasons actually did apply to him.
> > >
> >
> > How do you know its his connection ,
>
> Presumably from the information gathered from the ISP.
>
> > can you prove it
>
> The information from the ISP will be sufficient to do that I think.
The isp can only confirm that an ip address was registered to the user it can
not show what was downloaded or if the ip has been spoofed , bit like a car
numberplate easy to steal and easy to spoof
It would be down to DL to prove that that the defendant actually downloaded
the info and retransmitted it , if i was defending such a case i would want a
full and complete pathway trace server to server , ubr street box to end user
copnnection , router and final network path , not just an ip address of a
router or cable/dsl modem
>
> > does your
> > forensic evidence include tests to show if the address has been
> > spoofed or manipulated
>
> Probably not.
>
> > can you prove his machine was connected at
> > the time and not just a router or live connection , can you show that
> > he was at his machine or was it a.another who used the machine
> > without permission
>
> The copying is done via the router, and it's my argument that the owner of
> the router's connection to the internet may well be liable even if the actual
> person initiating the illegal copying operation is someone else. In most
> cases, it is likely to be the owner of the connection anyway, so the company
> sues him. They have a prima facie case that then needs to be overturned by
> actual evidence to the contrary not just a list of theoretical possibilities.
> If the owner of the connection just waffles endlessly about how it could have
> been someone else without any actual evidence that it was, he's likely to be
> found liable.
I disagree , i dont think the owner is liable , he/she has not ilegally
downloaded anything .
Even if DL could prove that the connection had been used for ilegal activity
they can not prove who actually conducted the activtity .
If i used my family as a comparision , i have two computers my eldest has one
my youngest has two machines , we all have other electronic tools that can be
used on the connection to up an download thats another 10 devices , so thats a
possiblty of at least 13 devices that can access the net , if DL decided to
take action against me they could only look at my equipment they would need to
take action against all four of us , even if they were successful against one
of us the costs incured and the subsequent law suites from the others would far
outweigh anything the client would make
(note we dont ilegally download)
>
> Your mistake is to assume that a case requires absolute proof or proof beyond
> reasonable doubt or some such. A civil case, however, merely requires the
> matter to be decided 'on the balance of probabilities'. That means, in
> simple terms, that a judge must merely think it more likely than not that the
> person accused of the illegal download did it.
All i would need to show is that i was not at my machine at the time mentioned
and provide a suitable witness or have my machine analised to show no such
files exist on my machine , this would blow there case out of the water
>
>
> > , was the machine infected with a virus or worm ,
> > which machine actually downloaded the file , many households have
> > several machines now , was his network hacked all very plausable
> > reasons .
>
> Maybe, but what are the facts?
>
> > DL action usally starts several months after the alledged offence in
> > that timeframe the computer could well have been configured
> > differently virus scanned spyware scanned updated , hardware updated ,
> >
> > If the files are not on the computer then DL are stuffed , you have
> > provided evidence that contradicts thiers
>
> DL don't have to get hold of your computer to prove anything. All they have
> to show is that the person they're accusing is more likely than not to have
> done it, and they do that initially by providing the ISP's information. It's
> then for the person accused to redress the balance by giving his side of the
> story, not just endless theoretical possibilities about how it could have
> been anyone.
An forensic analayis of the machine showing no such files which would be pretty
easy to do with a router
An expert witness to show how easy it is to spoof an ip and the fact that DL
experts haven't bothered to check the authenticity of the ip would certainly
cast enough doubt in most peoples minds and the fact at nearly 50 i dont play
atari or pin ball games on a pc
Big Les Wade
Just killfile Norman. He's an idiot who will argue anything. He once
posted to this newsgroup that you needed a special licence to buy sodium
chlorate weedkiller, available in Wilkinson's for £2.99.
--
Les
Conspiracy theorists believe that officials sometimes mislead the public to
conceal wrongdoing. Realists do not believe in conspiracy theories.
Mike Ross
They provided the wrong subscriber information for the IP address reported? How
is that possible? Do you know that for a fact? Or is it possible that the IP
address / subscriber information was correctly 'matched', but that the alleged
detection of a file being shared at that IP address was incorrect?
Until we get to the bottom of exactly how these 'errors' occur, there will be
definite doubt as to other, perhaps all, alleged instances of file sharing.
Perhaps these false allegation are the exception rather than the rule, but *any*
occurrence of false allegation in what should be a fairly straightforward matter
is of great concern - it shouldn't be tolerated without explanation, any more
than incorrect fingerprint identification wouldn't be tolerated at any level.
tim.....
> steve robinson wrote:
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>> The fact that there might be theoretical reasons why the person
>>> accused did not do what he is accused of will not overturn a
>>> reasonable prima facie case that he did. In the face of evidence
>>> that copyright material was illegally downloaded or uploaded from
>>> his internet connection, the person accused would have to show that
>>> those reasons actually did apply to him.
>>>
>>
>> How do you know its his connection ,
>
> Presumably from the information gathered from the ISP.
>
>> can you prove it
>
> The information from the ISP will be sufficient to do that I think.
>
>> does your
>> forensic evidence include tests to show if the address has been
>> spoofed or manipulated
>
> Probably not.
>
>> can you prove his machine was connected at
>> the time and not just a router or live connection , can you show that
>> he was at his machine or was it a.another who used the machine
>> without permission
>
> The copying is done via the router, and it's my argument that the owner of
> the router's connection to the internet may well be liable even if the
> actual person initiating the illegal copying operation is someone else.
Then apart from DL you are the only person in the universe who does think
so.
tim
tim.....
"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0g5nstz...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
Actually the equivalent in this case is "someone who knocked on the front
door once".
tim
steve robinson
> Phil Stovell <ph...@stovell.org.uk> posted
> > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:29:17 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
> >
> > > The copying is done via the router, and it's my argument that the owner of
> > > the router's connection to the internet may well be liable even if the
> > > actual person initiating the illegal copying operation is someone else.
> > > In most cases, it is likely to be the owner of the connection anyway, so
> > > the company sues him. They have a prima facie case that then needs to be
> > > overturned by actual evidence to the contrary not just a list of
> > > theoretical possibilities. If the owner of the connection just waffles
> > > endlessly about how it could have been someone else without any actual
> > > evidence that it was, he's likely to be found liable.
> >
> > So DL accuses you of sharing "Army Fuckers" (which happened to an elderly
> > couple on the Watchdog item) and you have to prove you didn't do it (prove
> > a negative)?
>
> Just killfile Norman. He's an idiot who will argue anything. He once posted
> to this newsgroup that you needed a special licence to buy sodium chlorate
> weedkiller, available in Wilkinson's for £2.99.
you do its called a marriage licence , once you have one you have to do the
gardening :)
_
having to come up with any useful evidence of their case, but denying
the respondent the same leeway in defending it. If its okay just to say
its probably that chap, why isn't it similarly okay to suggest that the
litigant made a mistake? How about someone making a statement under oath
that his connection WASNT used to make any such down/upload, and that
his logs are available for inspection?
Its hard to come up with a like for like idea that represents accurately
the same circumstances, maybe I'm just not that imaginative, but try
this one: I *think* I had two fivers in my wallet when I left it in my
locker, but now there's only one. Only one person other than me has
access, the attendant who has a key to all lockers. So, lets say I make
a civil claim against him for my fiver, showing a letter to the court
from the owner of the building that only the attendant has another key
to my locker, and stating that it must have been him unless he can show
evidence otherwise. Do you think this case would succeed? Do you think
it SHOULD succeed? Or if you dont like this example, can you come up
with one which describes the position better, so we can examine the
potential outcomes of that instead?
Norman Wells
> "Norman Wells" <no-...@myarl.co.uk> wrote in message
>> The copying is done via the router, and it's my argument that the
>> owner of the router's connection to the internet may well be liable
>> even if the actual person initiating the illegal copying operation
>> is someone else.
>
> Then apart from DL you are the only person in the universe who does
> think so.
Then we'll have to wait for cases to be decided on the point to see who's
right. But it certainly isn't unarguable.
Norman Wells
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:13:10 -0000, "Norman Wells"
> <no-...@myarl.co.uk> wrote:
>> Mike Ross wrote:
>>> I would be interested to know how these 'unfounded' actions came to
>>> be brought in the first place.
>>
>> On information from the ISPs that turned out to be inaccurate.
>
> They provided the wrong subscriber information for the IP address
> reported? How is that possible? Do you know that for a fact? Or is it
> possible that the IP address / subscriber information was correctly
> 'matched', but that the alleged detection of a file being shared at
> that IP address was incorrect?
I don't know any of that as a fact, but inaccurate information of some sort
is the only logical explanation of how unfounded actions could have been
brought.
> Until we get to the bottom of exactly how these 'errors' occur, there
> will be definite doubt as to other, perhaps all, alleged instances of
> file sharing. Perhaps these false allegation are the exception rather
> than the rule, but *any* occurrence of false allegation in what
> should be a fairly straightforward matter is of great concern - it
> shouldn't be tolerated without explanation, any more than incorrect
> fingerprint identification wouldn't be tolerated at any level.
I'm afraid your feelings on the matter are irrelevant. We are all at risk
of being sued for anything at all whether well-founded in law or the facts
or not, and there is nothing whatever we can do about it. All we can do is
defend any action that comes our way and claim costs if those bringing the
action are proved to be wrong. A solicitor owes no duty of care to anyone
except his client. That means, whether you like it or not, he can accuse
you of anything and take it as far as his clients want with no other
comeback except costs.
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> steve robinson wrote:
>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>>> The fact that there might be theoretical reasons why the person
>>>> accused did not do what he is accused of will not overturn a
>>>> reasonable prima facie case that he did. In the face of evidence
>>>> that copyright material was illegally downloaded or uploaded from
>>>> his internet connection, the person accused would have to show that
>>>> those reasons actually did apply to him.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How do you know its his connection ,
>>
>> Presumably from the information gathered from the ISP.
>>
>>> can you prove it
>>
>> The information from the ISP will be sufficient to do that I think.
>
> The isp can only confirm that an ip address was registered to the
> user it can not show what was downloaded or if the ip has been
> spoofed , bit like a car numberplate easy to steal and easy to spoof
>
> It would be down to DL to prove that that the defendant actually
> downloaded the info and retransmitted it , if i was defending such a
> case i would want a full and complete pathway trace server to server
> , ubr street box to end user copnnection , router and final network
> path , not just an ip address of a router or cable/dsl modem
And you think if they simply declined to provide all that information,
they'd be bound to lose, do you? Because I don't.
>>> does your
>>> forensic evidence include tests to show if the address has been
>>> spoofed or manipulated
>>
>> Probably not.
>>
>>> can you prove his machine was connected at
>>> the time and not just a router or live connection , can you show
>>> that he was at his machine or was it a.another who used the machine
>>> without permission
>>
>> The copying is done via the router, and it's my argument that the
>> owner of the router's connection to the internet may well be liable
>> even if the actual person initiating the illegal copying operation
>> is someone else. In most cases, it is likely to be the owner of the
>> connection anyway, so the company sues him. They have a prima facie
>> case that then needs to be overturned by actual evidence to the
>> contrary not just a list of theoretical possibilities. If the owner
>> of the connection just waffles endlessly about how it could have
>> been someone else without any actual evidence that it was, he's
>> likely to be found liable.
>
> I disagree , i dont think the owner is liable , he/she has not
> ilegally downloaded anything .
That's a matter of interpretation. I think the courts may well decide that
he has, simply on the basis that it has happened over his internet
connection and through his router, over both of which he should have
control, and therefore can be deemed to have responsibility. They may also
be persuaded, particularly if there is no positive evidence to the contrary,
that the person whose internet connection it is is more likely than not to
have done the downloading himself.
But these are questions that the courts have yet to rule on.
> Even if DL could prove that the connection had been used for ilegal
> activity they can not prove who actually conducted the activtity .
>
> If i used my family as a comparision , i have two computers my eldest
> has one my youngest has two machines , we all have other electronic
> tools that can be used on the connection to up an download thats
> another 10 devices , so thats a possiblty of at least 13 devices that
> can access the net , if DL decided to take action against me they
> could only look at my equipment they would need to take action
> against all four of us , even if they were successful against one of
> us the costs incured and the subsequent law suites from the others
> would far outweigh anything the client would make
I've said already they probably don't need to look at any equipment at all.
In fact I doubt if they have any legal right to do so without a court order.
All they will do is sue you as the owner of the internet connection and
allege that you have made illegal downloads, and that gives you the dilemma
of what you say in your defence. If it wasn't you, who was it?
> (note we dont ilegally download)
No, of course not. No-one ever does. Though how you can possibly know that
when you have a warren of streetwise kids in your house attaching even the
washing machine to the internet is quite beyond me.
>> Your mistake is to assume that a case requires absolute proof or
>> proof beyond reasonable doubt or some such. A civil case, however,
>> merely requires the matter to be decided 'on the balance of
>> probabilities'. That means, in simple terms, that a judge must
>> merely think it more likely than not that the person accused of the
>> illegal download did it.
>
> All i would need to show is that i was not at my machine at the time
> mentioned and provide a suitable witness or have my machine analised
> to show no such files exist on my machine , this would blow there
> case out of the water
If you can, yes of course. But it might still not get you off the hook of
owning the router and the internet connection and possibly being responsible
because you do.
>> DL don't have to get hold of your computer to prove anything. All
>> they have to show is that the person they're accusing is more likely
>> than not to have done it, and they do that initially by providing
>> the ISP's information. It's then for the person accused to redress
>> the balance by giving his side of the story, not just endless
>> theoretical possibilities about how it could have been anyone.
>
> An forensic analayis of the machine showing no such files which would
> be pretty easy to do with a router
>
> An expert witness to show how easy it is to spoof an ip and the fact
> that DL experts haven't bothered to check the authenticity of the ip
> would certainly cast enough doubt in most peoples minds
Though not in a judge's. He would say I'm not interested in hypothetical
possibilities, I wnat to know what actually happened, so what did?
> and the fact
> at nearly 50 i dont play atari or pin ball games on a pc
Age is no proof, though it may play a part in any defence.
Norman Wells
> Indeed! And it is interesting that DL's stance is that the Wireless
> Connection's owner is responsible for any material downloaded by
> unknown persons, because he has failed to secure the conection. The
> reality is that the Wireless Connection's owner is under no legal
> obligation to secure the connection whatsoever
It's probably against his internet service contract if he doesn't, however.
>, nor for any
> consequences of not doing so (and DL as a law firm should know this).
So you say. But merely stating it as a fact unfortunately doesn't make it
so. As far as I am aware it is a matter that the courts have never yet had
to rule on, and that makes it rather less than a fact.
> He may be liable in copyright law if he specifically and knowingly
> *allows* someone to download material from his connection but has no
> liability or legal requirement to *prevent* anyone else from doing so.
Whatever you want to believe, I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Norman Wells
> "Norman Wells" <no-...@myarl.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6OCfl.68800$t64....@newsfe17.ams2...
>>
>> You may say there is no way you can control access to the internet
>> through your connection and monitor what goes on over it. However,
>> given a court decision or two saying that the owner of the
>> connection is liable, I think you'd suddenly find all sorts of ways
>> of restricting or monitoring access.
>
> What decisions are you referring to? Surely an ISP has also a
> responsibility and can't just sign it away. Otherwise I can get my
> child to sign a piece of paper where he agrees not to download
> anything which is illegal or subject to copyright.
Good idea if he's over 18. Otherwise, totally pointless.
> As you intimate how much control can you exert over a child? You can
> only do so much by wagging your finger!
Then don't be so utterly wet. Threaten him with something he really won't
like, and you'll find your control increases significantly.
Norman Wells
> Just killfile Norman. He's an idiot who will argue anything. He once
> posted to this newsgroup that you needed a special licence to buy
> sodium chlorate weedkiller, available in Wilkinson's for £2.99.
That's funny, bacause I can't recall saying any such thing.
Norman Wells
Of course in cases like that the complete misfit between the demographics is
an indicator (no more than that) that the case may be unfounded. However,
without knowing the full facts, like whether their delinquent grandson was
in fact the main user of their computer, it's impossible to come to any
sensible conclusion. And of course Watchdog thrives on being pacey, ie
providing only the side of the story that supports their predetermined
prejudice, so we never get the full facts.
What we need to know is whether DL were right in their identification of the
internet connection owners and, if so, just what happened in fact. But we
never will through simplistic light entertainment programmes.
Norman Wells
Norman Wells
If it potentially impacted seriously on you, you'd find a way, even if you
found it unpleasant and distasteful.
Maybe you'd even resort to a little discipline.
> I cant see the courts placeing a responsiblity on the person who
> rents the connection to prevent unauthorised use it would have far
> reaching implications on other areas of the law
We'll see. It would certainly concentrate the minds of those who merely
brush it aside by saying it's impossible.
Anyway, why shouldn't a court say that it's incumbent on anyone to secure
their connection against unauthorised access? That would merely be in
accordance with most service provision contracts after all, and would
probably be a very good thing in general, particularly for domestic
subscribers.
Phil Stovell
software, which I've posted before.
Here's how I believe it is possible to get innocent parties to share
copyrighted software using P2P. I'm not suggesting any clients of DL have
done this, or that it has even occurred. In fact, it may not be possible
if I've missed something.
1. Files are shared by their hash - which is constructed from the actual
file contents - not the file name, as that can be changed or have
different content. Take a look on eg eMule - you will see the same file
having multiple names.
2. Offer for sharing the copyright software - for example,
UnsellablePinballGame.iso.
3. From another computer, download it.
4. Rename the file to something downloaders are likely to be actively
seeking - for example, BigTitSpecial.mpg.
5. Wait for people searching for BTS to start downloading it.
6. Attempt to download, from a 3rd computer, UnsellablePinballGame.iso.
Because this has the same hash as BTS, it could be downloaded from the BTS
downloader at the same time they are downloading it, so not only is the
mark unaware that he is actually downloading copyrighted software, he is
also uploading it at the same time (when it's finished downloading, the
mark will attempt to play the file, it won't work, so he'll (maybe) delete
it, all the time having been, unknowingly, sharing copyrighted software).
7. Using software you have written specifically to watch for these events,
get a court order to get the user's details of the IP that is sharing your
copyrighted software, and offer not to take them to court for £500.
8. After a few months, when the £500s stop rolling in, go to 1 with a
different piece of copyrighted software.
steve robinson
If they cant authenticate thier evidence then they are unlikely to have a case
,
They will have to prove that the infomation they are presenting is accurate ,
without a full trace then they cant
There is no legal requirement to secure your internet connection
>
> > Even if DL could prove that the connection had been used for ilegal
> > activity they can not prove who actually conducted the activtity .
> >
> > If i used my family as a comparision , i have two computers my eldest
> > has one my youngest has two machines , we all have other electronic
> > tools that can be used on the connection to up an download thats
> > another 10 devices , so thats a possiblty of at least 13 devices that
> > can access the net , if DL decided to take action against me they
> > could only look at my equipment they would need to take action
> > against all four of us , even if they were successful against one of
> > us the costs incured and the subsequent law suites from the others
> > would far outweigh anything the client would make
>
> I've said already they probably don't need to look at any equipment at all.
> In fact I doubt if they have any legal right to do so without a court order.
> All they will do is sue you as the owner of the internet connection and
> allege that you have made illegal downloads, and that gives you the dilemma
> of what you say in your defence. If it wasn't you, who was it?
Its not up to me to find the ilegal downloader , they can aledge anything they
like , without evidence they wont get very far , all i need to say in my
defence is its not me , and my computer does not hold any disputed files , hand
the court a print out of my file lists showing no such files and let them
contest it .
Its down to them then , at that point they are unlikely to proceed any further
as the evidence is then contradictory , they say i have i say look not on my
machine
>
> > (note we dont ilegally download)
>
> No, of course not. No-one ever does. Though how you can possibly know that
> when you have a warren of streetwise kids in your house attaching even the
> washing machine to the internet is quite beyond me.
Exactly the point in question how can we know who access our connections when
we are not around
>
>
> > > Your mistake is to assume that a case requires absolute proof or
> > > proof beyond reasonable doubt or some such. A civil case, however,
> > > merely requires the matter to be decided 'on the balance of
> > > probabilities'. That means, in simple terms, that a judge must
> > > merely think it more likely than not that the person accused of the
> > > illegal download did it.
> >
> > All i would need to show is that i was not at my machine at the time
> > mentioned and provide a suitable witness or have my machine analised
> > to show no such files exist on my machine , this would blow there
> > case out of the water
>
> If you can, yes of course. But it might still not get you off the hook of
> owning the router and the internet connection and possibly being responsible
> because you do.
i would never be on the hook , as i and others have said there is no legal
requirement for me to secure my network connection and as the law stands at
present unless i am complict in any ilegal actions i would not be found to be
liable
>
> > > DL don't have to get hold of your computer to prove anything. All
> > > they have to show is that the person they're accusing is more likely
> > > than not to have done it, and they do that initially by providing
> > > the ISP's information. It's then for the person accused to redress
> > > the balance by giving his side of the story, not just endless
> > > theoretical possibilities about how it could have been anyone.
> >
> > An forensic analayis of the machine showing no such files which would
> > be pretty easy to do with a router
> >
> > An expert witness to show how easy it is to spoof an ip and the fact
> > that DL experts haven't bothered to check the authenticity of the ip
> > would certainly cast enough doubt in most peoples minds
>
> Though not in a judge's. He would say I'm not interested in hypothetical
> possibilities, I wnat to know what actually happened, so what did?
Whoes talking hypothetical if the authenticity of the ip addressing infomation
can not be proven then the judge can rule only one way the plaintiff will have
not proven his/ her case as thier evidence has been shown to be refutable
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> DL don't have to get hold of your computer to prove anything. All
>> they have to show is that the person they're accusing is more likely
>> than not to have done it, and they do that initially by providing
>> the ISP's information. It's then for the person accused to redress
>> the balance by giving his side of the story, not just endless
>> theoretical possibilities about how it could have been anyone.
>>
> You're happy to give a huge amount of leeway to the litigant in not
> having to come up with any useful evidence of their case, but denying
> the respondent the same leeway in defending it. If its okay just to
> say its probably that chap, why isn't it similarly okay to suggest
> that the litigant made a mistake?
It's _not_ OK just to say it's probably that chap, you have to have
something to back it up, and that something is the ISP's identification of
the internet connection and the time and date of the alleged illegal
copying. That constitutes a prima facie case that the owner of that
connection more likely than not performed the act complained of.
> How about someone making a
> statement under oath that his connection WASNT used to make any such
> down/upload, and that his logs are available for inspection?
Of course. If those are the facts, then they will presumably show that the
case cannot be well-founded, and will shift the balance of probabilities his
way.
I don't understand the difficulty you have with this concept.
steve robinson
How secure would you like it norman , most domestic routers and security
systems are hackable by the average net user unless you have some of the latest
equipment ,
If they can hack the likes of the us defence system , monster and varous other
chain stores with the it proffesionals and commercial security systems domestic
users are extremly vulnerable
Phil Stovell
> It's _not_ OK just to say it's probably that chap, you have to have
> something to back it up, and that something is the ISP's identification
> of the internet connection and the time and date of the alleged illegal
> copying. That constitutes a prima facie case that the owner of that
> connection more likely than not performed the act complained of.
In the Watchdog programme, somebody received the bumf from DL including
the document from her ISP tying the IP address to her MAC. She wasn't at
home on the date and time DL claimed she'd shared the file and could prove
it (with some shop receipts from far away, iirc). That shows that ISP
records cannot be trusted as the DHCP lease logs were inaccurate.
Dave Baker
Why would she need to be at home for her computer to be on and downloading
something? Mine manages fine by itself when I'm out.
--
Dave Baker
Phil Stovell
Oh, never mind.
steve robinson
extremely easy to do and very prosperous results
They know the last thing most people want is thier computer trawled through and
many will just pay up
tim.....
> steve robinson wrote:
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>> You may say there is no way you can control access to the internet
>>> through your connection and monitor what goes on over it. However,
>>> given a court decision or two saying that the owner of the
>>> connection is liable, I think you'd suddenly find all sorts of ways
>>> of restricting or monitoring access.
>>
>> Yes putting an axe hrough the cable , other than that any of my
>> children are well aware of how to unplug the router , and connect
>> directly to the cable modem , unless the box has an encrypted
>> password or locable box supplied then there would be no way unless i
>> stood gaurd over it 24/7 .
>
> If it potentially impacted seriously on you, you'd find a way, even if you
> found it unpleasant and distasteful.
>
> Maybe you'd even resort to a little discipline.
>
>> I cant see the courts placeing a responsiblity on the person who
>> rents the connection to prevent unauthorised use it would have far
>> reaching implications on other areas of the law
>
> We'll see. It would certainly concentrate the minds of those who merely
> brush it aside by saying it's impossible.
>
> Anyway, why shouldn't a court say that it's incumbent on anyone to secure
> their connection against unauthorised access?
a) Because it's unreasonable to expect numpty man in the street to actually
know how to
b) because even if you do, the knowledgeable person can BREAK through that
protection.
tim
Mike Ross
>Mike Ross wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:13:10 -0000, "Norman Wells"
>> <no-...@myarl.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Mike Ross wrote:
>
>>>> I would be interested to know how these 'unfounded' actions came to
>>>> be brought in the first place.
>>>
>>> On information from the ISPs that turned out to be inaccurate.
>>
>> They provided the wrong subscriber information for the IP address
>> reported? How is that possible? Do you know that for a fact? Or is it
>> possible that the IP address / subscriber information was correctly
>> 'matched', but that the alleged detection of a file being shared at
>> that IP address was incorrect?
>
>I don't know any of that as a fact, but inaccurate information of some sort
>is the only logical explanation of how unfounded actions could have been
>brought.
Which was my point; until we know how the inaccurate information came to exist,
and came to be acted on, I have concerns about the process. I have suspicions a
shotgun has been used, where a sniper rifle would be more appropriate.
>> Until we get to the bottom of exactly how these 'errors' occur, there
>> will be definite doubt as to other, perhaps all, alleged instances of
>> file sharing. Perhaps these false allegation are the exception rather
>> than the rule, but *any* occurrence of false allegation in what
>> should be a fairly straightforward matter is of great concern - it
>> shouldn't be tolerated without explanation, any more than incorrect
>> fingerprint identification wouldn't be tolerated at any level.
>
>I'm afraid your feelings on the matter are irrelevant. We are all at risk
>of being sued for anything at all whether well-founded in law or the facts
>or not, and there is nothing whatever we can do about it. All we can do is
>defend any action that comes our way and claim costs if those bringing the
>action are proved to be wrong. A solicitor owes no duty of care to anyone
>except his client. That means, whether you like it or not, he can accuse
>you of anything and take it as far as his clients want with no other
>comeback except costs.
Are you sure? In the present case we've been seeing very threatening material
being served on people who no-one could reasonably believe to have been involved
in the matter. It does appear at time that a shotgun has been used, when a
sniper rifle was needed. Most people go through life believing, quite
reasonably, that they will never get sued for anything; they obey the law and
pay their debts.
The threat of being sued is something which would be profoundly worrying to many
entirely innocent people; it's a heavy club which needs to be swung with
considerable care. Your argument above - that "we are all at risk of being sued
for anything at all whether well-founded in law or the facts or not, and there
is nothing whatever we can do about it" - would imply that it would be legal for
someone to send legally-threatening letters out to strangers entirely at random,
and they wouldn't be guilty of any criminal offence or civil wrong. I don't
think you believe that, and I sure as hell don't - so it then becomes just a
matter of degree: how many false accusations can be brought before it becomes
something that can be prosecuted or litigated?
I've said before that there should be a criminal offence of 'reckless
prosecution', where the behaviour of the CPS falls as far below the standards
expected as a driver does in cases of reckless driving (as was). Perhaps there
should also be an offence of 'reckless litigation'...
Fred
OK - I threaten him with a slow death - he might not like that - and I get a
letter. Thanks a bunch!
Mike Ross
>It's _not_ OK just to say it's probably that chap, you have to have
>something to back it up, and that something is the ISP's identification of
>the internet connection and the time and date of the alleged illegal
>copying. That constitutes a prima facie case that the owner of that
>connection more likely than not performed the act complained of.
That's a big leap. If it's a single person household, you *might* have the
shreds of a very poor argument. Otherwise... I'm not buying, and neither will
the court, I'd wager: just for starters, I'd guess that most internet
connections are paid for by one or other parent, while their kids (or their kids
friends) are more likely to be file sharing than the parents...
Norman Wells
If that is the case, then the parents need to be taking a little more
interest in what their dear little offspring are up to. I would hold the
parents largely responsible if the kids were out thieving. Why shouldn't
they also be held responsible if what they're thieving is someone else's
copyright?
Maybe the parents being held liable would be just the kick up the arse they
need to impose some proper discipline and supervision. The kids need to
learn that the law cannot be ignored just because they don't like it or it
gets in the way of their social life. Wouldn't that be a good thing? And
wouldn't it be very appealing to a judge?
Norman Wells
You choose your own sanction as befits your family. Personally, I'd do
something different.
Norman Wells
>> I don't know any of that as a fact, but inaccurate information of
>> some sort is the only logical explanation of how unfounded actions
>> could have been brought.
>
> Which was my point; until we know how the inaccurate information came
> to exist, and came to be acted on, I have concerns about the process.
We all would. But the particular erroneous cases that have come to light do
not mean that the information is generally wrong or unreliable to such an
extent that it cannot usually be relied on. DL don't want to bring cases
that fall down, and they themselves would much rather have a 100% accuracy
rate. But that's the trouble when you try something new, sometimes it goes
wrong.
> I have suspicions a shotgun has been used, where a sniper rifle would
> be more appropriate.
Depends what you're shooting. Pigeons who try to get away are best shot at
with a shotgun.
>
>>> Until we get to the bottom of exactly how these 'errors' occur,
>>> there will be definite doubt as to other, perhaps all, alleged
>>> instances of file sharing. Perhaps these false allegation are the
>>> exception rather than the rule, but *any* occurrence of false
>>> allegation in what should be a fairly straightforward matter is of
>>> great concern - it shouldn't be tolerated without explanation, any
>>> more than incorrect fingerprint identification wouldn't be
>>> tolerated at any level.
>>
>> I'm afraid your feelings on the matter are irrelevant. We are all
>> at risk of being sued for anything at all whether well-founded in
>> law or the facts or not, and there is nothing whatever we can do
>> about it. All we can do is defend any action that comes our way and
>> claim costs if those bringing the action are proved to be wrong. A
>> solicitor owes no duty of care to anyone except his client. That
>> means, whether you like it or not, he can accuse you of anything and
>> take it as far as his clients want with no other comeback except
>> costs.
>
> Are you sure?
Yes.
> In the present case we've been seeing very threatening
> material being served on people who no-one could reasonably believe
> to have been involved in the matter. It does appear at time that a
> shotgun has been used, when a sniper rifle was needed. Most people go
> through life believing, quite reasonably, that they will never get
> sued for anything; they obey the law and pay their debts.
If they're lucky, they'll be right. On the other hand, they may not. You
cannot stop someone sueing you if they want, even if they have no grounds.
> The threat of being sued is something which would be profoundly
> worrying to many entirely innocent people; it's a heavy club which
> needs to be swung with considerable care. Your argument above - that
> "we are all at risk of being sued for anything at all whether
> well-founded in law or the facts or not, and there is nothing
> whatever we can do about it" - would imply that it would be legal for
> someone to send legally-threatening letters out to strangers entirely
> at random, and they wouldn't be guilty of any criminal offence or
> civil wrong. I don't think you believe that, and I sure as hell don't
Well, except in a few cases as prescribed by law, it's perfectly true. You
are at liberty to threaten anyone with taking them to court if you wish.
It's your prerogative. The courts will decide if you were right or wrong.
> - so it then becomes just a matter of degree: how many false
> accusations can be brought before it becomes something that can be
> prosecuted or litigated?
>
> I've said before that there should be a criminal offence of 'reckless
> prosecution', where the behaviour of the CPS falls as far below the
> standards expected as a driver does in cases of reckless driving (as
> was). Perhaps there should also be an offence of 'reckless
> litigation'...
You may be right on both counts, but there isn't.
Norman Wells
> "Norman Wells" <no-...@myarl.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:lTGfl.1086$oB4...@newsfe10.ams2...
>> Anyway, why shouldn't a court say that it's incumbent on anyone to
>> secure their connection against unauthorised access?
>
> a) Because it's unreasonable to expect numpty man in the street to
> actually know how to
If they can set up a router to work, they'll have followed the instructions
provided. Those same instructions will also explain how to set up security,
so I don't accept what you say.
> b) because even if you do, the knowledgeable person can BREAK through
> that protection.
It's like leaving a window open encourages the casual thief. Close it and
you'll cut down the number of robberies even though the window can easily be
broken. It's a very simple concept that I think anyone can grasp.
Norman Wells
Isolated examples do not make a general principle. Besides, as someone else
has pointed out, she did not necessarily need to be there at the time, just
have her computer turned on and connected to the internet. Her computer
could have been sharing a file she had, and she would have been none the
wiser. To download a file she would need to be there but, as I understand
P2P, uploading can happen automatically on demand whether she was there or
not. Maybe Watchdog, in its haste, overlooked this.
Norman Wells
Everything is hackable, so they say, but it clearly depends on the knowledge
of the hacker concerned. I do not for example believe that the average net
user would be able to hack a router that is properly password protected, and
that is what I would require as an absolute minimum.
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> I've said already they probably don't need to look at any equipment
>> at all. In fact I doubt if they have any legal right to do so
>> without a court order. All they will do is sue you as the owner of
>> the internet connection and allege that you have made illegal
>> downloads, and that gives you the dilemma of what you say in your
>> defence. If it wasn't you, who was it?
>
> Its not up to me to find the ilegal downloader , they can aledge
> anything they like , without evidence they wont get very far , all i
> need to say in my defence is its not me , and my computer does not
> hold any disputed files , hand the court a print out of my file lists
> showing no such files and let them contest it .
Fine. If you can show to the court's satisfaction that you do not have the
disputed files, and never had them, then that's of course a defence. But
just saying it wasn't you isn't any real evidence, and just providing a file
list of a directory from which you may have deleted the relevant files is no
real evidence either.
> Its down to them then , at that point they are unlikely to proceed
> any further as the evidence is then contradictory
... the point is whether it tips the balance of probabilities back in your
favour. If it doesn't you're still in trouble.
> they say i have i
> say look not on my machine
They'd love that and probably take you up on it, looking for all the
fragments that you left when deleting the questionable files and anything
else of passing interest.
>>> (note we dont ilegally download)
>>
>> No, of course not. No-one ever does. Though how you can possibly
>> know that when you have a warren of streetwise kids in your house
>> attaching even the washing machine to the internet is quite beyond
>> me.
>
> Exactly the point in question how can we know who access our
> connections when we are not around
If you were made responsible, I think you'd try a bit harder to do just
that.
>>
>> If you can, yes of course. But it might still not get you off the
>> hook of owning the router and the internet connection and possibly
>> being responsible because you do.
>
> i would never be on the hook , as i and others have said there is no
> legal requirement for me to secure my network connection and as the
> law stands at present unless i am complict in any ilegal actions i
> would not be found to be liable
So you believe. I've given you the reasons why your belief may be false.
Your choice what you do.
>> Though not in a judge's. He would say I'm not interested in
>> hypothetical possibilities, I wnat to know what actually happened,
>> so what did?
>
> Whoes talking hypothetical if the authenticity of the ip addressing
> infomation can not be proven then the judge can rule only one way the
> plaintiff will have not proven his/ her case as thier evidence has
> been shown to be refutable
You forget the standard of proof required is only balance of probabilities.
The judge only has to believe that you were slightly more likely than not to
have done it. You seem wrongly to be trying to set the bar higher.
judith
<no-...@myarl.co.uk> wrote:
>_ wrote:
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>> _ wrote:
>>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So, whistle in the dark by all means if it keeps your spirits up,
>>>>> but the net is closing.
>>>>>
>>>> LOL are you STILL banging this drum, Norm? Even though your pals at
>>>> DL have ceased actions after being 'outed' by Watchdog and reported
>>>> to their governing body?
>>>
>>> It wouldn't be unusual or unexpected for some mistakes to be made in
>>> a novel operation of the size DL have undertaken, nor would it be
>>> unusual or unexpected for any reputable firm to cease actions that
>>> prove to be unfounded. So, I dare say DL will indeed have withdrawn
>>> _some_ actions, and I fully expect those to be or include the ones
>>> that the simpleton Watchdog programme highlighted.
>>>
>> Interesting. Do you think Which are "simpletons" too, you know, the
>> Which thats the most widely respected and longest standing consumer
>> organisation in the country?
>> http://www.itproportal.com/articles/2008/12/12/which-reports-davenport-lyons-legal-watchdog/
>
>I know all about Which? thank you very much. What they don't seem to
>realise, however, is that DL as solicitors only act on behalf of their
>clients and under their instructions.
Perhaps the head of Which? legal services doesn't know as much about
the law as you do Norm.
I wonder, does a firm of solicitors have to work to certain s in their
work - or can they say - I was following my client's instructions?
What do you think Norm?
steve robinson
> Mike Ross wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:05:53 -0000, "Norman Wells"
> ><no-...@myarl.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > It's not OK just to say it's probably that chap, you have to have
> > > something to back it up, and that something is the ISP's
> > > identification of the internet connection and the time and date of
> > > the alleged illegal copying. That constitutes a prima facie case
> > > that the owner of that connection more likely than not performed the
> > > act complained of.
> >
> > That's a big leap. If it's a single person household, you might
> > have the shreds of a very poor argument. Otherwise... I'm not buying,
> > and neither will the court, I'd wager: just for starters, I'd guess
> > that most internet connections are paid for by one or other parent,
> > while their kids (or their kids friends) are more likely to be file
> > sharing than the parents...
>
> If that is the case, then the parents need to be taking a little more
> interest in what their dear little offspring are up to. I would hold the
> parents largely responsible if the kids were out thieving. Why shouldn't
> they also be held responsible if what they're thieving is someone else's
> copyright?
>
> Maybe the parents being held liable would be just the kick up the arse they
> need to impose some proper discipline and supervision. The kids need to
> learn that the law cannot be ignored just because they don't like it or it
> gets in the way of their social life. Wouldn't that be a good thing? And
> wouldn't it be very appealing to a judge?
unfortunatly once your children reach 13 or 14 years of age they no longer want
to be or should be tied to your apron strings , you have to show trust in them
At these ages its impossible to supervise them 24/7 they are young adults all
you can do is offer them guidence , you cant force them to follow your lead you
have to hope the princibles you have tried to instil into them in thier
formative years shine through
Phil Stovell
I'm really getting a bit bored with this. It seems (from you) that DL can
scam anyone and they'll pay rather than go to court to prove that they
didn't download and upload "Army Fuckers". It's only £500 and what will
the neighbours think of us if it's reported in the papers that we watch
gay porn? Even if they're found, on BoP, not to have done it, there's no
smoke without fire, is there?
It is a logical fallacy, you cannot prove a negative.
P2P software, by default, will upload whilst it's running, and will upload
parts of files whilst it's downloading them.
You could accidentally start downloading DLscamfile.mpg, realise that
you're downloading copyright material, and cancel the download. You
haven't downloaded anything, yet you may have uploaded the part you
downloaded, before realising your error, to many people.
Another thing is upload speed. To upload a whole CD of data (600MB) will
take a considerable time on ADSL. My current speed is 2133/662Kbps. I
could download 600MB in 600000000*8/2133000 s = 2250 s = 37 minutes. To
upload, it will take 600000000*8/662000 s = 7250 s = 120 minutes. It's
this length of upload time that makes me doubt the claims.
BTW, BBC iPlayer uses P2P technology.
steve robinson
> tim..... wrote:
> >"Norman Wells" <no-...@myarl.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:lTGfl.1086$oB4...@newsfe10.ams2...
>
> > > Anyway, why shouldn't a court say that it's incumbent on anyone to
> > > secure their connection against unauthorised access?
> >
> > a) Because it's unreasonable to expect numpty man in the street to
> > actually know how to
>
> If they can set up a router to work, they'll have followed the instructions
> provided. Those same instructions will also explain how to set up security,
> so I don't accept what you say.
>
most routers now are plug and play with manufacturer set defaults , there is no
need for user input unless you intend to set up static ips and mac address
identification
> > b) because even if you do, the knowledgeable person can BREAK through
> > that protection.
>
> It's like leaving a window open encourages the casual thief. Close it and
> you'll cut down the number of robberies even though the window can easily be
> broken. It's a very simple concept that I think anyone can grasp.
your anology also highlights how insecure systems are
steve robinson
> Phil Stovell wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:05:53 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
> >
> > > It's not OK just to say it's probably that chap, you have to have
Its also quite possible that her computer may have been compromised by a virus
_
Carer and I look after young adults with many social and behavioural
difficulties. I have a wifi network in my house and give access keys to
my lads, but I am forbidden by local legislation and possibly by law to
inspect their computers without their permission, which of course they
wont give if they've anything to hide. But its me who rents the
connection, so according to DL that makes me responsible if my boys
share copyrighted music, even though I have no method of discovering
whether they do or not, and that if I _did_ know I'd be admitting
breaching the legislation that places them in my home?
So, in summary, I dont share any music. I dont know if others do share
using my connection. I have no lawful way of finding out if others share
using my connection. But you reckon that I should be liable for
anything that happens on my connection? Can you see the flaw in this
plan yet?
steve robinson
you however do not set the standards , you can download password crackers off
the net , remember the inland revenue encrypted disc that went missing , the
muppets in power saying how difficult it would be to unlock the files , took an
engineer 20 minutes with a piece of freely available software .
I have seen my daughter in action hacking a freinds computer for a bet over the
net (bag of sweets) took her 15 minutes including a trip to the loo , she was
15 then and it was done for fun with her freinds consent .
Phil Stovell
> Everything is hackable, so they say, but it clearly depends on the
> knowledge of the hacker concerned. I do not for example believe that
> the average net user would be able to hack a router that is properly
> password protected, and that is what I would require as an absolute
> minimum.
You can download live CDs that contain all the tools you need to crack
wireless networks. WPA2-personal has been cracked, according to this.
http://www.zone365.com/403/wpa2-personal-cracked-russian-company-claims
steve robinson
> steve robinson wrote:
> > Norman Wells wrote:
>
> > > I've said already they probably don't need to look at any equipment
> > > at all. In fact I doubt if they have any legal right to do so
> > > without a court order. All they will do is sue you as the owner of
> > > the internet connection and allege that you have made illegal
> > > downloads, and that gives you the dilemma of what you say in your
> > > defence. If it wasn't you, who was it?
> >
> > Its not up to me to find the ilegal downloader , they can aledge
> > anything they like , without evidence they wont get very far , all i
> > need to say in my defence is its not me , and my computer does not
> > hold any disputed files , hand the court a print out of my file lists
> > showing no such files and let them contest it .
>
> Fine. If you can show to the court's satisfaction that you do not have the
> disputed files, and never had them, then that's of course a defence. But
> just saying it wasn't you isn't any real evidence, and just providing a file
> list of a directory from which you may have deleted the relevant files is no
> real evidence either.
>
Niether is an ip address without a full pathway trace
You cant prove a negative norman , if the file lists dont contain any ilegal
files they dont and contary to your mistaken belief it is evidence it proves
the files do not exist on your computer and its up to the plaintiff to dispute
your evidence or prove you have deleted the files , not an easy thing to do
without a forensic disk analasis .
> > Its down to them then , at that point they are unlikely to proceed
> > any further as the evidence is then contradictory
>
> ... the point is whether it tips the balance of probabilities back in your
> favour. If it doesn't you're still in trouble.
>
> > they say i have i
> > say look not on my machine
>
> They'd love that and probably take you up on it, looking for all the
> fragments that you left when deleting the questionable files and anything
> else of passing interest.
>
> It would also make them look incredably stupid when they didnt find anything
At the end of the day the plaintiff has to prove your guilt if the evidence is
suspect they are unlikely to do that
Phil Stovell
> If they can set up a router to work, they'll have followed the
> instructions provided. Those same instructions will also explain how to
> set up security, so I don't accept what you say.
A relation recently had wireless installed. Bod came in, plugged in
router, set up the SSID/password on her PC, told her the password to
connect to the wireless, she wrote it down and lost it.
I couldn't connect to her network with my laptop, because she'd lost the
password, but there were ~5 unsecured networks nearby. Fortunately, I took
a RJ45 cable with me, as I expected that :-).
steve robinson
force the machine into a hard reset and the password will go back to the
factory default which usally is 1111 , 1234 , admin or the name of the router
some units default to no password
martin
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:04:39 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> If they can set up a router to work, they'll have followed the
>> instructions provided. Those same instructions will also explain how to
>> set up security, so I don't accept what you say.
>
> A relation recently had wireless installed. Bod came in, plugged in
> router, set up the SSID/password on her PC, told her the password to
> connect to the wireless, she wrote it down and lost it.
Gawd that kind of thing annoys me. I don't record my client's passwords
and stuff unless we have a contract, and the number of times I get phone
calls "what was that password again?"
I have to tell them I don't know, but they gave it to me and for their
security I didn't record it. Sometimes I'll be able to say "it was
something about you dog I think"
>
> I couldn't connect to her network with my laptop, because she'd lost the
> password, but there were ~5 unsecured networks nearby. Fortunately, I took
> a RJ45 cable with me, as I expected that :-).
heh always a good bet.
Norman Wells
Lots of things are 'quite possible', but what the judge has to decide is
what is likely, which is not the same thing.
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> Maybe the parents being held liable would be just the kick up the
>> arse they need to impose some proper discipline and supervision. The kids
>> need to learn that the law cannot be ignored just because
>> they don't like it or it gets in the way of their social life. Wouldn't
>> that be a good thing? And wouldn't it be very appealing to
>> a judge?
> How about me then Norm? As you know I'm a Difficult Placements Foster
> Carer and I look after young adults with many social and behavioural
> difficulties. I have a wifi network in my house and give access keys
> to my lads, but I am forbidden by local legislation and possibly by
> law to inspect their computers without their permission, which of
> course they wont give if they've anything to hide. But its me who
> rents the connection, so according to DL that makes me responsible if
> my boys share copyrighted music, even though I have no method of
> discovering whether they do or not, and that if I _did_ know I'd be
> admitting breaching the legislation that places them in my home?
If you do not know and cannot tell, then DL would say, with some
justification, you're not fit to be letting anyone have access to your
intenet account. You don't have to provide access keys. You don't have to
provide internet access. You don't have to provide the opportunity for them
to break the law.
> So, in summary, I dont share any music. I dont know if others do share
> using my connection. I have no lawful way of finding out if others
> share using my connection. But you reckon that I should be liable for
> anything that happens on my connection? Can you see the flaw in this
> plan yet?
No.
You are not obliged to provide free internet access, and I'm not sure if you
do that it's within the terms of your service provision contract. In fact,
I suspect it isn't.
The solution is obvious. Don't provide it. That way the problem won't
arise, will it?
Norman Wells
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:11:42 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> Isolated examples do not make a general principle. Besides, as
>> someone else has pointed out, she did not necessarily need to be
>> there at the time, just have her computer turned on and connected to
>> the internet. Her computer could have been sharing a file she had,
>> and she would have been none the wiser. To download a file she
>> would need to be there but, as I understand P2P, uploading can
>> happen automatically on demand whether she was there or not. Maybe
>> Watchdog, in its haste, overlooked this.
>
> I'm really getting a bit bored with this. It seems (from you) that DL
> can scam anyone and they'll pay rather than go to court to prove that
> they didn't download and upload "Army Fuckers". It's only £500 and
> what will the neighbours think of us if it's reported in the papers
> that we watch gay porn? Even if they're found, on BoP, not to have
> done it, there's no smoke without fire, is there?
I don't believe DL are deliberately scamming anyone, but merely pursuing
those whose IP addresses and identities have been provided by the ISPs as
having shared copyright files. I think moreover, in general, that their
accusations are largely accurate. And I doubt if many would be intimidated
into paying if they genuinely denied the accusations, particularly for th
reasons you give.
> It is a logical fallacy, you cannot prove a negative.
>
> P2P software, by default, will upload whilst it's running, and will
> upload parts of files whilst it's downloading them.
>
> You could accidentally start downloading DLscamfile.mpg, realise that
> you're downloading copyright material, and cancel the download. You
> haven't downloaded anything, yet you may have uploaded the part you
> downloaded, before realising your error, to many people.
>
> Another thing is upload speed. To upload a whole CD of data (600MB)
> will take a considerable time on ADSL. My current speed is
> 2133/662Kbps. I could download 600MB in 600000000*8/2133000 s = 2250
> s = 37 minutes. To upload, it will take 600000000*8/662000 s = 7250 s
> = 120 minutes. It's this length of upload time that makes me doubt
> the claims.
Why? If you're not there you wouldn't notice, and you probably wouldn't
even if you were.
_
> _ wrote:
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>> Maybe the parents being held liable would be just the kick up the
>>> arse they need to impose some proper discipline and supervision. The
>>> kids need to learn that the law cannot be ignored just because
>>> they don't like it or it gets in the way of their social life.
>>> Wouldn't that be a good thing? And wouldn't it be very appealing to
>>> a judge?
>> How about me then Norm? As you know I'm a Difficult Placements Foster
>> Carer and I look after young adults with many social and behavioural
>> difficulties. I have a wifi network in my house and give access keys
>> to my lads, but I am forbidden by local legislation and possibly by
>> law to inspect their computers without their permission, which of
>> course they wont give if they've anything to hide. But its me who
>> rents the connection, so according to DL that makes me responsible if
>> my boys share copyrighted music, even though I have no method of
>> discovering whether they do or not, and that if I _did_ know I'd be
>> admitting breaching the legislation that places them in my home?
>
> If you do not know and cannot tell, then DL would say, with some
> justification, you're not fit to be letting anyone have access to your
> intenet account. You don't have to provide access keys. You don't have
> to provide internet access. You don't have to provide the opportunity
> for them to break the law.
>
told in no uncertain terms to go and fuck themselves. Where exactly in
my ISP's TOC did I sign up to letting an unconnected thirdy party
deciding my fitness to have access? Free clue for you Norm - my contract
is between myself, and my ISP. DL dont get to decide whether I'm "fit"
or not :)
>> So, in summary, I dont share any music. I dont know if others do share
>> using my connection. I have no lawful way of finding out if others
>> share using my connection. But you reckon that I should be liable for
>> anything that happens on my connection? Can you see the flaw in this
>> plan yet?
>
> No.
>
> You are not obliged to provide free internet access, and I'm not sure if
> you do that it's within the terms of your service provision contract.
> In fact, I suspect it isn't.
>
As ever, your suspicions are entirely wrong. At least you're
consistently stupid Norm, I'll give you that. Now, lets recap. I dont
share music. I provide access to others. I am permitted to do so. I am
not permitted to inspect machines. I know its a struggle for a
monochromatic chap such as you Norm, but I think its time you finally
realised that the concept of holding an account holder responsible for
his connection no matter what is not only untenable, but could never
ever be consistent with English law. If I do not commit a civil wrong,
and I do not permit others to do so, but that they do so despite an
express instruction not to, and I have no way of knowing if they have
done so anyway, it is patently impossible for me to liable.
> The solution is obvious. Don't provide it. That way the problem won't
> arise, will it?
Part of the fee I am paid each week is to provide internet access. Next
question?
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> Fine. If you can show to the court's satisfaction that you do not
>> have the disputed files, and never had them, then that's of course a
>> defence. But just saying it wasn't you isn't any real evidence, and
>> just providing a file list of a directory from which you may have
>> deleted the relevant files is no real evidence either.
>>
> Niether is an ip address without a full pathway trace
>
> You cant prove a negative norman , if the file lists dont contain any
> ilegal files they dont and contary to your mistaken belief it is
> evidence it proves the files do not exist on your computer and its up
> to the plaintiff to dispute your evidence or prove you have deleted
> the files , not an easy thing to do without a forensic disk analasis .
That depends. The likelihood is that, if you're willing to provide file
lists, you will already have deleted the files that matter if ever you had
them. So, it's not really proof of anything, is it?
>>> Its down to them then , at that point they are unlikely to proceed
>>> any further as the evidence is then contradictory
>>
>> ... the point is whether it tips the balance of probabilities back
>> in your favour. If it doesn't you're still in trouble.
>>
>>> they say i have i
>>> say look not on my machine
>>
>> They'd love that and probably take you up on it, looking for all the
>> fragments that you left when deleting the questionable files and
>> anything else of passing interest.
>>
>> It would also make them look incredably stupid when they didnt find
>> anything
I don't think that would bother them in the slightest actually.
>> You forget the standard of proof required is only balance of
>> probabilities. The judge only has to believe that you were slightly
>> more likely than not to have done it. You seem wrongly to be trying
>> to set the bar higher.
>
> At the end of the day the plaintiff has to prove your guilt if the
> evidence is suspect they are unlikely to do that
If the evidence is sufficient to persuade a judge that you were even ever so
slightly more likely than not to have done what you are accused of, that's
quite enough. You lose.
Norman Wells
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:07:35 -0000, "Norman Wells"
> <no-...@myarl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I know all about Which? thank you very much. What they don't seem to
>> realise, however, is that DL as solicitors only act on behalf of
>> their clients and under their instructions.
>
> Perhaps the head of Which? legal services doesn't know as much about
> the law as you do Norm.
Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows?
> I wonder, does a firm of solicitors have to work to certain s in their
> work - or can they say - I was following my client's instructions?
> What do you think Norm?
A solicitor has to act at all times within the law and within his
professional code of conduct, different sanctions applying in each case. He
cannot just blindly follow his clients' instructions if that would cause him
to breach either.
Do you think DL have breached either the law or their professional code of
conduct? If so, do please tell us exactly why.
_
> steve robinson wrote:
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>> Fine. If you can show to the court's satisfaction that you do not
>>> have the disputed files, and never had them, then that's of course a
>>> defence. But just saying it wasn't you isn't any real evidence, and
>>> just providing a file list of a directory from which you may have
>>> deleted the relevant files is no real evidence either.
>>>
>> Niether is an ip address without a full pathway trace
>>
>> You cant prove a negative norman , if the file lists dont contain any
>> ilegal files they dont and contary to your mistaken belief it is
>> evidence it proves the files do not exist on your computer and its up
>> to the plaintiff to dispute your evidence or prove you have deleted
>> the files , not an easy thing to do without a forensic disk analasis .
>
> That depends. The likelihood is that, if you're willing to provide file
> lists, you will already have deleted the files that matter if ever you
> had them. So, it's not really proof of anything, is it?
>
demand for payment, they need substantiate their claim no more than "we
saw it upload a file. No, yeronner, I haven't got anything written down
to prove that. But I DID see it, honest injun". However, when it comes
to refuting the claim, Mr Bloggs can show documentary evidence but, in
your mind, this should be dismissed because after all we all know that
Mr Bloggs aint honest upstanding geezers as a rule.
You really are massively deluded here - even were your demonstably
laughable ideas of balance of proof true, they would STILL have to apply
equally to both sides. The ONLY document that DL can have is a bit of
paper from an ISP saying that at a given moment a particular IP number
was being used by Bloggs' router. DL have nothing to show the court to
demonstrate that that IP address uploaded a file, other than their word
that its true. Thats fine, if thats all they have then they are taking a
chance. But on the other side, Bloggs actually DOES have documentary
evidence that the file isn't on his PC, but for some reason you think
this should be given LESS merit than the spoken word of the litigant!
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> Maybe the parents being held liable would be just the kick up the
>> arse they need to impose some proper discipline and supervision.
>> The kids need to learn that the law cannot be ignored just because
>> they don't like it or it gets in the way of their social life.
>> Wouldn't that be a good thing? And wouldn't it be very appealing to
>> a judge?
>
> unfortunatly once your children reach 13 or 14 years of age they no
> longer want to be or should be tied to your apron strings , you have
> to show trust in them
And the price of trust is responsibility. The one does not come without the
other.
> At these ages its impossible to supervise them 24/7 they are young
> adults all you can do is offer them guidence , you cant force them to
> follow your lead you have to hope the princibles you have tried to
> instil into them in thier formative years shine through
No, offering them guidance is not _all_ you can do. What you can do in
addition, and what you should do, is also enforce strict sanctions if they
betray the trust you place in them.
What you can't do is abrogate the responsibility you have by hiding behind
your kids, saying oh well I had no control over them you know, they just do
what they like, I can't stop them and they have to have free internet access
otherwise they don't have any social life. That's just a feeble cop-out.
_
He doesn't have to, he didn't make an official complaint about them.
Which, on the other hand, did, and I've no doubt that they checked very
carefully before doing so. After all, having published the info that
they (Which) had reported them (DL), especially given the particularly
odious oooooops sorry I mispelt litigious nature of the company
concerned, I reckon that Which wouldn't risk a libel action if they
weren't extremely sure of their ground.
_
Jesus wept... Norm, come to my home county and I'll arrange for you to
be given a whistlestop tour of the facilities we provide for young
adults in care. And I'll pull in some favours and get you a visit to the
residential units, presuming you can pass an enhanced CRB. I'll even
guarantee you safe passage, as long as you dont volunteer your opinions
to the lads themselves. When you've done that tour, presuming you're not
running screaming for the hills, we'll talk again about how trust,
responsibility, and sanctions, all work in the context of damaged
children, and we can discuss the statistics of looked after children who
go on to become young offenders.
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> steve robinson wrote:
>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>>> Fine. If you can show to the court's satisfaction that you do not
>>>> have the disputed files, and never had them, then that's of course
>>>> a defence. But just saying it wasn't you isn't any real evidence,
>>>> and just providing a file list of a directory from which you may
>>>> have deleted the relevant files is no real evidence either.
>>>>
>>> Niether is an ip address without a full pathway trace
>>>
>>> You cant prove a negative norman , if the file lists dont contain
>>> any ilegal files they dont and contary to your mistaken belief it is
>>> evidence it proves the files do not exist on your computer and its
>>> up to the plaintiff to dispute your evidence or prove you have
>>> deleted the files , not an easy thing to do without a forensic disk
>>> analasis .
>>
>> That depends. The likelihood is that, if you're willing to provide
>> file lists, you will already have deleted the files that matter if
>> ever you had them. So, it's not really proof of anything, is it?
>>
> Right, so if DL picks your IP number from a random list
... which of course it doesn't
> and sends a
> demand for payment, they need substantiate their claim no more than
> "we saw it upload a file. No, yeronner, I haven't got anything
> written down to prove that. But I DID see it, honest injun".
Normally, as I understand it, they provide evidence from the ISP of the time
and date of the file sharing, and of the name of the file shared. That's
rather different from the situation you are postulating.
> However,
> when it comes to refuting the claim, Mr Bloggs can show documentary
> evidence but, in your mind, this should be dismissed because after
> all we all know that Mr Bloggs aint honest upstanding geezers as a
> rule.
It's all a question of which evidence is more persuasive.
> You really are massively deluded here - even were your demonstably
> laughable ideas of balance of proof true, they would STILL have to
> apply equally to both sides. The ONLY document that DL can have is a
> bit of paper from an ISP saying that at a given moment a particular
> IP number was being used by Bloggs' router. DL have nothing to show
> the court to demonstrate that that IP address uploaded a file, other
> than their word that its true.
Then how do they manage to identify the file they say has been shared at
that time?
> Thats fine, if thats all they have
> then they are taking a chance. But on the other side, Bloggs actually
> DOES have documentary evidence that the file isn't on his PC, but for
> some reason you think this should be given LESS merit than the spoken
> word of the litigant!
It depends on believability. Bloggs has a reason to delete any relevant
files from his computer before providing his 'evidence' that the files are
not there, and deleting them is simplicity itself. So, such evidence is
scarcely of any relevance whatsoever. It doesn't go any way to proving that
the files were not there at the time the allegation was made.
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> If you do not know and cannot tell, then DL would say, with some
>> justification, you're not fit to be letting anyone have access to
>> your intenet account. You don't have to provide access keys. You
>> don't have to provide internet access. You don't have to provide
>> the opportunity for them to break the law.
>>
> Well then they, and for that matter you, would find themselves being
> told in no uncertain terms to go and fuck themselves. Where exactly in
> my ISP's TOC did I sign up to letting an unconnected thirdy party
> deciding my fitness to have access? Free clue for you Norm - my
> contract is between myself, and my ISP. DL dont get to decide whether
> I'm "fit" or not :)
No, the courts will do that. And they will decide too whether your actions
make you liable. The more reckless you are in providing interent access to
all and sundry, the more likely you are, I suggest, to be found liable if
illegal activities are conducted over your network.
>>> So, in summary, I dont share any music. I dont know if others do
>>> share using my connection. I have no lawful way of finding out if
>>> others share using my connection. But you reckon that I should be
>>> liable for anything that happens on my connection? Can you see the
>>> flaw in this plan yet?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> You are not obliged to provide free internet access, and I'm not
>> sure if you do that it's within the terms of your service provision
>> contract. In fact, I suspect it isn't.
>>
> As ever, your suspicions are entirely wrong. At least you're
> consistently stupid Norm, I'll give you that. Now, lets recap. I dont
> share music. I provide access to others. I am permitted to do so.
By whom? Most service providers to domestic customers apply conditions that
do not permit indiscriminate access.
> I am
> not permitted to inspect machines. I know its a struggle for a
> monochromatic chap such as you Norm, but I think its time you finally
> realised that the concept of holding an account holder responsible for
> his connection no matter what is not only untenable, but could never
> ever be consistent with English law. If I do not commit a civil wrong,
> and I do not permit others to do so, but that they do so despite an
> express instruction not to, and I have no way of knowing if they have
> done so anyway, it is patently impossible for me to liable.
>
>> The solution is obvious. Don't provide it. That way the problem
>> won't arise, will it?
>
> Part of the fee I am paid each week is to provide internet access.
You don't have to break the law just because you are paid a fee. In fact,
it's clear you shouldn't.
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
> Jesus wept... Norm, come to my home county and I'll arrange for you to
> be given a whistlestop tour of the facilities we provide for young
> adults in care. And I'll pull in some favours and get you a visit to
> the residential units, presuming you can pass an enhanced CRB. I'll
> even guarantee you safe passage, as long as you dont volunteer your
> opinions to the lads themselves. When you've done that tour,
> presuming you're not running screaming for the hills, we'll talk
> again about how trust, responsibility, and sanctions, all work in the
> context of damaged children, and we can discuss the statistics of
> looked after children who go on to become young offenders.
Whoever they are, they are not above the law.
Norman Wells
> He doesn't have to, he didn't make an official complaint about them.
> Which, on the other hand, did, and I've no doubt that they checked
> very carefully before doing so. After all, having published the info
> that they (Which) had reported them (DL), especially given the
> particularly odious oooooops sorry I mispelt litigious nature of the
> company concerned, I reckon that Which wouldn't risk a libel action
> if they weren't extremely sure of their ground.
Since a libel action isn't at all relevant, neither is your point.
Making a complaint does not mean it's a valid complaint.
steve robinson
> steve robinson wrote:
> > Norman Wells wrote:
>
> > > Maybe the parents being held liable would be just the kick up the
> > > arse they need to impose some proper discipline and supervision.
> > > The kids need to learn that the law cannot be ignored just because
> > > they don't like it or it gets in the way of their social life.
> > > Wouldn't that be a good thing? And wouldn't it be very appealing to
> > > a judge?
> >
> > unfortunatly once your children reach 13 or 14 years of age they no
> > longer want to be or should be tied to your apron strings , you have
> > to show trust in them
>
> And the price of trust is responsibility. The one does not come without the
> other.
>
> > At these ages its impossible to supervise them 24/7 they are young
> > adults all you can do is offer them guidence , you cant force them to
> > follow your lead you have to hope the princibles you have tried to
> > instil into them in thier formative years shine through
>
> No, offering them guidance is not all you can do. What you can do in
> addition, and what you should do, is also enforce strict sanctions if they
> betray the trust you place in them.
That may work with some children but not all , unfortunatly the sanctions you
can apply are very limited as they get older
>
> What you can't do is abrogate the responsibility you have by hiding behind
> your kids, saying oh well I had no control over them you know, they just do
> what they like, I can't stop them and they have to have free internet access
> otherwise they don't have any social life. That's just a feeble cop-out.
Who said anything about abrogateing responsiblity , its a very fine tightrope
you walk with youngsters these days with many organisations ready to give you a
push at the first sign of a wobble .
steve robinson
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:41:29 GMT, "steve robinson"
> <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > At the end of the day the plaintiff has to prove your guilt if the evidence
> > is suspect they are unlikely to do that
>
> Actually it a claimant who must prove liability.
>
> Tony
yes i realised after the post but couldnt be arsed to change it