Anti-Piracy Law Firm Torn Apart By Leaked Emails

[Cynic]

Oh I dunno. Its an interesting idea and dominating Page 1 of google would be a relatively straightforward exercise. Spam a few forums, setup some social networking pages, buy a few domain names that selectively aggregated news feeds interspersed with some manufactured ones, then use established sites to backlink to them.

 

The tricky part would be finding something positive to say whilst still answering the questions that people want answered, hence stopping them getting to page 5 in the first place

 

Of course the ethics of this are seriously questionable, so it doesnt surprise me in the slightest that ACS Law have courted the idea.

 

The first time you get your name mentioned by the BBC and similar you will lose a lot of your rankings and be replaced by media sources. It is easy to dominate pages and pages of the Google serps until you actually have your name all over the media.

[Eck!]

It is easy to dominate pages and pages of the Google serps until you actually have your name all over the media.

 

Oh I dont doubt this, ACS are way beyond damage limitation, but this is only recent. ACS have been around terrorising pensioners for 18 months and gathering a bad rep along the way. Until recent events, the google manipulation would have worked. Now its all over the beeb they have no chance.

 

The previous bad press from the likes of Which and Watchdog would have dropped off the front page quicker than yesterdays chips.

[Eck!]

I wonder how many people can genuinely claim innocence? I mean, the IP spoofing defence is a definite no-no, it cant be done with P2P so the data provided will be 99% accurate (allowing for a few IP switches).

 

The defence that torrent sites insert random IPs into the logs wont work, apart from the fact that theres no evidence that they actually do this, even if they did randoms would be easy to filter out when cross referenced against the ISP data, so that a no-go.

 

The "cheerleader" defence of a shared or hacked wireless connection might work once, but many of the people on the list are repeat offenders.

 

The "I was asleep in bed at the time and so was my partner" defence is too ridiculous to even mention.

 

Im on the list for allegedly downloading the top 40 charts, something I have no interest in doing. However, Ive no doubt at all that I would probably find those songs on my 14 yr olds mobile phone if I could be bothered to check.

 

8000 are on the list for downloading porn (Granny F****rs 4 seems to be a favourite) and then claim to be disgusted and offended at the accusation. More like the embarrassment of being caught one handed .

[nicksix]

8000 are on the list for downloading porn (Granny F****rs 4 seems to be a favourite) and then claim to be disgusted and offended at the accusation. More like the embarrassment of being caught one handed .

 

 

Nice:hihi:

[Eck!]

These guys are brave. The corpse of ACS is still warm.

 

http://www.wiredvc.com/gallant-3macmillan44-to-follow-acslaw-route/

[L00b]

I wonder how many people can genuinely claim innocence? <snip>

In matters of copyright infringement, the burden of proof lies squarely and entirely with the claimant (ACS and/or their rights holder clients), so that question is pretty much redundant, until and unless ACS/McMillan/their like can prove rights have been infringed and who by. The threshold of proof is pretty high, btw and involves such niceties/subtleties as proving that a substantial part of the work has been copied. I am talking here about "proof" in a legal context (Court proceedings), not as the 'common wisdom' term.

 

Eye-balling an IP address proves little to nothing. At most, it proves that a computer networked data processing device (could be a computer, could be a router, could be a NAS...could be anything, even a TV or Blu-Ray player these days!) identified by that IP was online on the date/time specified and that Mr X -the subscriber- was handed that IP by the ISP on the date/time specified. That's it.

 

ACS/McMillan/their ilk would have to prove that this computer at that IP address at the date/time specified was part of a torrent swarm and that this torrent swarm concerned the copyrighted material complained of and that this computer at that IP address at the date/time specified was uploading at least a substantial part of the copyrighted material complained of (which supposes monitoring over an extended period, not just a snapshot grabbing the IP).

 

As I have not heard about any such evidence in the body of emails/attachments leaked, nor seen any such evidence as a result of concluded and published proceedings, the existence and strength of it remains to be seen and tested. And by 'evidence', I mean Court-grade, not a print-out of an alleged "snooping database" of their online snooper outfit (which anyone with a modicum of Excel knowledge could knock together on the back of the IPs volunteered/sold by ISPs).

 

So, even if they can prove (i) the computer (ii) at the IP (iii) was part of a swarm (iv) and was uploading (v) the copyrighted material, unless they can prove the uploading computer stored at least a substantial part of the work and shared it entirely (e.g. somehow inspecting the joint-uploader's HDD or seed details to check whether the joint-uploader had and uploaded more than 50% of the full file (rule of thumb here)), they're going to struggle. Mightily.

 

Assuming they can prove it (i.e. prove -via their own evidence- that they have 'foraged' on people's HDD/in people's computers), I'd imagine that involves some very serious breaches of privacy (and various related Statutes) which would make them liable for a juicier counter-suit, than their own infringement proceedings.

 

Note that they still have to prove who the uploader was (however, under the DEB, that last one may prove easy as the subscriber is held responsible, as I understand matters)

 

After that, of course this is all provided they have locus (i.e. that the copyright actually belongs to the rights holder client and that ACS have made representation in the name of the correct rights holder).

[Eck!]

Eye-balling an IP address proves little to nothing. At most, it proves that a computer networked data processing device ... That's it.

 

So, even if they can prove (i) the computer (ii) at the IP (iii) was part of a swarm (iv) and was uploading (v) the copyrighted material, unless they can prove the uploading computer stored at least a substantial part of the work and shared it entirely (e.g. somehow inspecting the joint-uploader's HDD or seed details to check whether the joint-uploader had and uploaded more than 50% of the full file (rule of thumb here)), they're going to struggle. Mightily.

 

Youre absolutely right about all of this except the 50%. This crops up several times in their email and the precedent they have set themselves is that the intent was there whether you grabbed 0.01% or the whole file.

 

A more tickly (for them) defence is that the value of the files people have allegedly downloaded sometimes amounts to 79p (a single song) and they are not legally entitled to claim any damages or compensation above the value of the item, so asking for £500 is a real punt on their part.

 

There is however a rock solid defence which I have found amongst their emails which has them dropping cases like a stone, no questions asked, which Im squirreling away for if these new vultures send me a letter.

[L00b]

Youre absolutely right about all of this except the 50%. This crops up several times in their email and the precedent they have set themselves is that the intent was there whether you grabbed 0.01% or the whole file.

Actually, I'm not (wrong about the 50%). Not meaning to sound pedantic or know-it-all, but I am very familiar with this area of Law

 

As I posted, '50%' is a 'rule of thumb' example I used for simplifying the point about substantiality of a work. There is positively-encyclopaedic volumes of Case Law about what constitutes a substantial part of a work and what doesn't... Depends on the work, depends on its notoriety, depends on a whole p*sspot-full of variables individual to each case (as each case turns on its facts).

 

E.g. in some cases, 3 musical notes (of a concerto) have been found to be 'substantial', in others 70% of the source code for a complete e-commerce web application have been found to be 'insubstantial'. There is no one-size-fits-all criterium or test, it all and always depends on the facts in each case.

 

ACS could 'set themselves' all the 'precedent' that they want, intent is immaterial to copyright infringement proceedings: as I posted, ACS must prove that at least a substantial part the work has been copied. Otherwise, there is no infringement (within the meaning of Section 16 and, generally, Ch.II provisions of the CDPA 1988 ). Simple as (yes, really).

 

I suppose these emails you refer to show that they were about as legally competent as they were IT-literate

[alchresearch]

A more tickly (for them) defence is that the value of the files people have allegedly downloaded sometimes amounts to 79p (a single song) and they are not legally entitled to claim any damages or compensation above the value of the item, so asking for £500 is a real punt on their part.

 

That is assuming you don't allow anyone to take data from your torrent as you're downloading, and immediately delete it after you've got the song?

[Agrajag]

I wonder how many people can genuinely claim innocence? I mean, the IP spoofing defence is a definite no-no, it cant be done with P2P so the data provided will be 99% accurate (allowing for a few IP switches).

 

No where near 99% accurate.

 

For several years torrent trackers have been inserting random IP addresses to create fake peers (downloaders). This is done specifically to confuse IP harvesters such as ACS:Law and render their method of evidence gathering unreliable.

 

With decent torrent tracking software these fakes can be filtered out, for example when the tracking software tries to connect to them, it can't.

 

Since about 25% of the IP addresses sent to Sky were returned as "unknown", it seems ACS:Law's tracking software does not filter out the fakes.

 

When creating random IP addresses, obviously sooner or later an IP address will be created which does exist and is being used, even though that person might have never used bittorrent or even heard of it.

 

Since at least 25% of the IPs collected were known fakes and were not assigned at the time, it can be assumed that at least another 25% were fakes which were assigned to innocent people.