Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS?

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by brundles

Any attempt to fight through the courts here would rely on proving evidence faulty rather than proving innocence - dodgy ground to say the least. All that will do is force them to up the quality of work done and in turn the size of the first instance out of court settlement figure asked for.

Good point,

That's what a lot of people forget that in this instance it's a civil claim and doesn't need the burden of proof to overturn the automatic INNOCENT label

[slash181]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

How do you know there won't be??? The news reports prove that companies have done so in the past and are planning to do so in the future..

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------



The letter is stating that you downloaded it, not shared it

actually i will put down what it says :

Our client is in possession of evidence that on the following UK date(s) and at the following time(s), all or part of the work was made available from the named internet protocol ( or IP) address(es) using the following P2P protocol(s), specifically for the purpose of being downloaded by third parties.

[brundles]

Originally Posted by slash181

actually i will put down what it says :

Our client is in possession of evidence that on the following UK date(s) and at the following time(s), all or part of the work was made available from the named internet protocol ( or IP) address(es) using the following P2P protocol(s), specifically for the purpose of being downloaded by third parties.

OK, lets focus on the wording of that letter and how bittorrent works.

From my understanding, even IF you weren't uploading at all and accepting your download on the sub 2K speed, the other clients out there don't know that. All they know is that you are another member of the swarm and as a member of the storm can be guaranteed to have at least some of the data.

They have evidence you were a member of a swarm in a protocol designed to facilitate uploading as much as much as downloading with the focus of the swarm being the rights protected data.

At that stage, the burden of proof is likely to fall squarely on your shoulders to prove you weren't uploading (remember they don't know which other members of the swarm you've uploaded to even if you didn't upload to them) rather on them to prove that you were'nt uploading in a protocol designed for uploading.

[Kymmy]

Not what you put in your first post.

As Sirius and others have stated P2P/Torrent automatically shares what you download (only BBC iplayer and other legal p2p apps can turn this off) that is the point of P2P/torrent, you can restrict the upload but as the letter says "all or part of the work" it only takes a slight fraction of a file and they've got you..

The letter is irrelavant to a court case as once they apply for a case all evidence (logs from them and the ISP) will be submitted so what dates on the letter is inconsequencial

[slash181]

okay well they havnt even signed it properly lol sorry that was a pathetic come back, erm okay i completely overlooked during the download period of the uploading, and yes i do know how it all works just got 2 letters in front of me saying ive gotta pay £565 on both letters.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by slash181

okay well they havnt even signed it properly lol sorry that was a pathetic come back, erm okay i completely overlooked during the download period of the uploading, and yes i do know how it all works just got 2 letters in front of me saying ive gotta pay £565 on both letters.

Again the letters are just really a warning stating that they WILL take action if you don't agree to thier company set fine. After that a court case will NOT use the already recieved letters but the proof that they have...

Will be intresting though as sooner or later someone will fight it and then it'll become a landmark case which I'm sure a lot of other companies with P2P data will stream out of the wings...

[slash181]

im really wanting to fight it tbh
thank you for all your help, might be on the news soon
ive sent a letter to davenport lyson asking for more evidence as the accusation is false, see what that comes up with. will let ya know asap

[brundles]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Again the letters are just really a warning stating that they WILL take action if you don't agree to thier company set fine. After that a court case will NOT use the already recieved letters but the proof that they have...

Will be intresting though as sooner or later someone will fight it and then it'll become a landmark case which I'm sure a lot of other companies with P2P data will stream out of the wings...

There's 2 sides to that though. If the rights holder wins, as you say, it'll open the flood gates.

However if the rights holder loses, it shouldn't be seen as a green flag for P2P. All that will do is clearer define the requirements from the rights holder and essentially set them up for a more likely positive result in 6 months time when they've gone back and got the necessary data from a new bunch of P2P users.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by brundles

However if the rights holder loses, it shouldn't be seen as a green flag for P2P. All that will do is clearer define the requirements from the rights holder and essentially set them up for a more likely positive result in 6 months time when they've gone back and got the necessary data from a new bunch of P2P users.

The simple fact that some people have paid means that even if they don't win the court case they'll just keep on sending out the letters... Fear itself will mean that they'll always get someone paying "thier fine"

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by slash181

will let ya know asap

Please do and good luck

[brundles]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

The simple fact that some people have paid means that even if they don't win the court case they'll just keep on sending out the letters... Fear itself will mean that they'll always get someone paying "thier fine"

Very true - along a similar line there were suggestions on the CAG thread that slash181 linked to indicating that perhaps DL knew some of the data was bad but sent all of the letters anyway in the hope of some payouts.

[slash181]

btw ive got another link from a few anon's
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=44092
that is a new thread explaining loads.

[moaningmags]

Does this then mean VM keep detailed records of who had what IP address, when?
IP addresses are dynamic, 2 customers with the same NIC MAC can and frequently do battle over an IP address. How can they prove who had what, when?

[Toto]

Originally Posted by moaningmags

Does this then mean VM keep detailed records of who had what IP address, when?
IP addresses are dynamic, 2 customers with the same NIC MAC can and frequently do battle over an IP address. How can they prove who had what, when?

Yes, all ISP's keep detailed IP assignment (for a period of time), or they should.

Simply, an ISP keeps a DB of its IP allocation mechanism, what IP address was assigned to what user on what date/time (based on radius user name or some other mechanism such as modem MAC).

In relation to the NIC MAC assignment on cable networks, you can't have two or more of the same client MAC and Modem MAC on the same uBR. If two or more customers had the same NIC MAC, they would likely be on different uBR's which would mean different IP ranges, hence seemingly accurate IP assignment data.

[moaningmags]

You can. 2 customers have the same NIC MAC on the same ubr.
If both trying to connect at the same time, only one gets on. Say this is the one that illegally downloads games, movies, whatever. They then go offline, the other customer reboots and gets the IP address the other guy had. He then surfs the web, checks his mail and a while later gets a letter and hasn't a clue what it's about.

It can and does happen and lately more and more often.