Copyright Infringement letter recieved
Discussion
Hello all,
A family member owns some holiday lets and as part of this offers access to Wi-Fi. It would appear that last year Sky were taken to court in order to provide the details of suspected peer to peer file sharers of a certain film. On catching up over Christmas it turns out a letter landed pretty much as set out below. The most logical explanation is someone has used the internet connection to download this film, said family member isn't what you'd call tech savvy-hasn't long mastered email so hasn't set up any protection in terms of blocking certain sites or capping usage.
As with most people of their age who haven't had so much as a speeding ticket there's been a bit of blind panic and confusion. I fear they're the kind of person of who will cough up just to make it go away despite being innocent.
It's also alleged to have taken place in April 2013. In theory they could look back at there bookings and narrow it down to the potential guilty party but I very much doubt they'd entertain owning up.
So I've done some digging on their behalf and found The 'Speculative Invoicing Handbook' it seems that the settlements are in the region of £500-£1000
Options seem to be
a) Ignore or even 'return to sender'.
b) Seek legal advice some firms are offering free (charity donation in lieu) or a fixed price amount of ~£100 to handle this on your behalf.
c) Pay
The defence seems to be they only know who the bill payer is, which does not necessarily mean it was said individual that downloaded or authorised someone else to download the file using their internet connection.
I know there are a few solicitors who regularly post, anyone familiar with copyright law? The guide makes out as if ignoring the letter isn't the best way to go as without a response run them going after you anyhow although all the information I've read suggests it would never actually end up in a court.
I was going to draft a letter as outlined in the guide, basically stating they didn't do it and aren't the only ones who have access to the internet connection.
Family involvement aside it's quite an interesting case, these types of cases have been going on in the states for a bit now and seem to rely on scaring people into paying. Perhaps incorrectly I thought they were after the original providers/uploaders of the content rather than the individual downloaders/sharers.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/278981497/TCYK-LLC-First...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/115443516/The-Speculativ...
A family member owns some holiday lets and as part of this offers access to Wi-Fi. It would appear that last year Sky were taken to court in order to provide the details of suspected peer to peer file sharers of a certain film. On catching up over Christmas it turns out a letter landed pretty much as set out below. The most logical explanation is someone has used the internet connection to download this film, said family member isn't what you'd call tech savvy-hasn't long mastered email so hasn't set up any protection in terms of blocking certain sites or capping usage.
As with most people of their age who haven't had so much as a speeding ticket there's been a bit of blind panic and confusion. I fear they're the kind of person of who will cough up just to make it go away despite being innocent.
It's also alleged to have taken place in April 2013. In theory they could look back at there bookings and narrow it down to the potential guilty party but I very much doubt they'd entertain owning up.
So I've done some digging on their behalf and found The 'Speculative Invoicing Handbook' it seems that the settlements are in the region of £500-£1000
Options seem to be
a) Ignore or even 'return to sender'.
b) Seek legal advice some firms are offering free (charity donation in lieu) or a fixed price amount of ~£100 to handle this on your behalf.
c) Pay
The defence seems to be they only know who the bill payer is, which does not necessarily mean it was said individual that downloaded or authorised someone else to download the file using their internet connection.
I know there are a few solicitors who regularly post, anyone familiar with copyright law? The guide makes out as if ignoring the letter isn't the best way to go as without a response run them going after you anyhow although all the information I've read suggests it would never actually end up in a court.
I was going to draft a letter as outlined in the guide, basically stating they didn't do it and aren't the only ones who have access to the internet connection.
Family involvement aside it's quite an interesting case, these types of cases have been going on in the states for a bit now and seem to rely on scaring people into paying. Perhaps incorrectly I thought they were after the original providers/uploaders of the content rather than the individual downloaders/sharers.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/278981497/TCYK-LLC-First...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/115443516/The-Speculativ...
I'm not an IT expert, so ignore me if somebody more informed corrects me.
I'm pretty sure peer to peer sharing is tracked via IP addresses, which are unique to each device. Therefore, they need to prove that you own the particular device that downloaded the file. Most of the time, they are after serial offenders who download hundreds of GB of data a month. One or two downloads does not usually warrant them trying to take you to court.
I'm also pretty sure that you ISP doesn't have to provide them with your details; instead they just forward the warning email on.
I have had one of these emails in the past for downloading a film. My ISP sent me an email saying that a company operating on behalf of a production company had asked for my details, which they refused to provide, but they have sent the email onto me. The email from my ISP basically said that I'd been naughty, don't do it again, but we haven't told them anything this time round.
The email from the production company listed out the film, where I'd downloaded it and my IP address. This also told me off, said don't do it again or we'll take you to court.
That was it.
If it is an internet connection with 'open' access then I wouldn't worry about it. Unless they are specifically threatening court/legal action, then ignore it. If they are talking about going legal, speak to an expert.
I'm pretty sure peer to peer sharing is tracked via IP addresses, which are unique to each device. Therefore, they need to prove that you own the particular device that downloaded the file. Most of the time, they are after serial offenders who download hundreds of GB of data a month. One or two downloads does not usually warrant them trying to take you to court.
I'm also pretty sure that you ISP doesn't have to provide them with your details; instead they just forward the warning email on.
I have had one of these emails in the past for downloading a film. My ISP sent me an email saying that a company operating on behalf of a production company had asked for my details, which they refused to provide, but they have sent the email onto me. The email from my ISP basically said that I'd been naughty, don't do it again, but we haven't told them anything this time round.
The email from the production company listed out the film, where I'd downloaded it and my IP address. This also told me off, said don't do it again or we'll take you to court.
That was it.
If it is an internet connection with 'open' access then I wouldn't worry about it. Unless they are specifically threatening court/legal action, then ignore it. If they are talking about going legal, speak to an expert.
The Beaver King said:
I'm not an IT expert, so ignore me if somebody more informed corrects me.
I'm pretty sure peer to peer sharing is tracked via IP addresses, which are unique to each device.
....
I am also no expert, but I do not believe the IP will identify a device. All the devices on the local network will have a local IP allocated dynamically, and externally all devices will share an IP.I'm pretty sure peer to peer sharing is tracked via IP addresses, which are unique to each device.
....
I suspect you will require MAC address logging to identify an individual machine.
The Beaver King said:
I'm not an IT expert, so ignore me if somebody more informed corrects me.
I'm pretty sure peer to peer sharing is tracked via IP addresses, which are unique to each device.
The IP address identifies the internet connection, not the device. So if your internal network has multiple devices, their external IP addresses will be the same. The internal IP address (192.168.x.x) whch IS unique to each device, is not identifiable outside your network. So it would not be possible for them to identify which device had downloaded the film, just that it went via your internet connection.I'm pretty sure peer to peer sharing is tracked via IP addresses, which are unique to each device.
Is the letter from Golden Eye or is it another company doing similar?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34842863
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34842863
The Beaver King said:
I'm not an IT expert, so ignore me if somebody more informed corrects me.
I'm pretty sure peer to peer sharing is tracked via IP addresses, which are unique to each device. Therefore, they need to prove that you own the particular device that downloaded the file. Most of the time, they are after serial offenders who download hundreds of GB of data a month. One or two downloads does not usually warrant them trying to take you to court.
I'm also pretty sure that you ISP doesn't have to provide them with your details; instead they just forward the warning email on.
I have had one of these emails in the past for downloading a film. My ISP sent me an email saying that a company operating on behalf of a production company had asked for my details, which they refused to provide, but they have sent the email onto me. The email from my ISP basically said that I'd been naughty, don't do it again, but we haven't told them anything this time round.
The email from the production company listed out the film, where I'd downloaded it and my IP address. This also told me off, said don't do it again or we'll take you to court.
That was it.
If it is an internet connection with 'open' access then I wouldn't worry about it. Unless they are specifically threatening court/legal action, then ignore it. If they are talking about going legal, speak to an expert.
IP will locate to the router.... They can't identify the machine or it's method of attachment (eg Wifi) with just that.I'm pretty sure peer to peer sharing is tracked via IP addresses, which are unique to each device. Therefore, they need to prove that you own the particular device that downloaded the file. Most of the time, they are after serial offenders who download hundreds of GB of data a month. One or two downloads does not usually warrant them trying to take you to court.
I'm also pretty sure that you ISP doesn't have to provide them with your details; instead they just forward the warning email on.
I have had one of these emails in the past for downloading a film. My ISP sent me an email saying that a company operating on behalf of a production company had asked for my details, which they refused to provide, but they have sent the email onto me. The email from my ISP basically said that I'd been naughty, don't do it again, but we haven't told them anything this time round.
The email from the production company listed out the film, where I'd downloaded it and my IP address. This also told me off, said don't do it again or we'll take you to court.
That was it.
If it is an internet connection with 'open' access then I wouldn't worry about it. Unless they are specifically threatening court/legal action, then ignore it. If they are talking about going legal, speak to an expert.
Take a breather before you reply to them. They are presumably trying to scare you into admitting something that they can't otherwise prove.
https://torrentfreak.com/static/The-Speculative-In...
According to Trading Standards/CAB these may be unfair commercial practices and if they are solicitors making misleading claims you can submit a complaint.
Have a read through some seemingly good advice here:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/copyrig...
https://torrentfreak.com/static/The-Speculative-In...
According to Trading Standards/CAB these may be unfair commercial practices and if they are solicitors making misleading claims you can submit a complaint.
Have a read through some seemingly good advice here:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/copyrig...
Edited by essayer on Monday 4th January 12:15
They need to get a VPN up and running > https://www.privateinternetaccess.com (others are available)
Apparently Sky wrote to customers saying that they'd lost the case and had to hand over their customer details.
It's not from Golden Eye although there seem to be a few operating a similar model, some are for downloading porn which I guess may shame some into paying so there other half doesn't find out!
This was a letter rather than an email. I'm not sure how they can demonstrate losses in the order of £500-£1000 unless they can verify how many people have uploaded a full copy from you? How much is a DVD these days £10? I expect if it's ignored more threatening letters will be sent but their model relies on X percent paying up making the rest not worth chasing beyond a few letters.
It's not from Golden Eye although there seem to be a few operating a similar model, some are for downloading porn which I guess may shame some into paying so there other half doesn't find out!
This was a letter rather than an email. I'm not sure how they can demonstrate losses in the order of £500-£1000 unless they can verify how many people have uploaded a full copy from you? How much is a DVD these days £10? I expect if it's ignored more threatening letters will be sent but their model relies on X percent paying up making the rest not worth chasing beyond a few letters.
essayer said:
Take a breather before you reply to them. They are presumably trying to scare you into admitting something that they can't otherwise prove.
https://torrentfreak.com/static/The-Speculative-In...
According to Trading Standards/CAB these may be unfair commercial practices and if they are solicitors making misleading claims you can submit a complaint.
Have a read through some seemingly good advice here:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/copyrig...
I'm surprised that a few more of these instances are appearing online as I expect they've sent 100's if not 1000's of these letters out.https://torrentfreak.com/static/The-Speculative-In...
According to Trading Standards/CAB these may be unfair commercial practices and if they are solicitors making misleading claims you can submit a complaint.
Have a read through some seemingly good advice here:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/copyrig...
Edited by essayer on Monday 4th January 12:15
toerag said:
They need to get a VPN up and running > https://www.privateinternetaccess.com (others are available
I'm going to put something in place for them. I've used Hide My Ass (HMA) which I've found to be good.When I worked for an ISP we used to get these fairly regularly (accusing us because we owned the IP block). Was quite amusing to find out what our customers were illicitly downloading, some of it was particularly eye opening. 
Didn't go anywhere legally as we just replied back saying that the relevant persons had been reprimanded.
That being said I'm not so sure you can just bury your head in the sand and say "could've been anyone on our connection guv, IPs doesn't identify a specific device". They've gone to the trouble of getting a court order to subpoena BSkyB for your details so ignoring it probably isn't wise. IANAL though so perhaps BV72 will smite me down.
Didn't go anywhere legally as we just replied back saying that the relevant persons had been reprimanded.
That being said I'm not so sure you can just bury your head in the sand and say "could've been anyone on our connection guv, IPs doesn't identify a specific device". They've gone to the trouble of getting a court order to subpoena BSkyB for your details so ignoring it probably isn't wise. IANAL though so perhaps BV72 will smite me down.
Durzel said:
When I worked for an ISP we used to get these fairly regularly (accusing us because we owned the IP block). Was quite amusing to find out what our customers were illicitly downloading, some of it was particularly eye opening.
Didn't go anywhere legally as we just replied back saying that the relevant persons had been reprimanded.
That being said I'm not so sure you can just bury your head in the sand and say "could've been anyone on our connection guv, IPs doesn't identify a specific device". They've gone to the trouble of getting a court order to subpoena BSkyB for your details so ignoring it probably isn't wise. IANAL though so perhaps BV72 will smite me down.
I have a suspicion that this is some sort of conspiracy and that BSKYB have a share in the studio, does Rupert Murdoch have shares in FOX or similar?Didn't go anywhere legally as we just replied back saying that the relevant persons had been reprimanded.
That being said I'm not so sure you can just bury your head in the sand and say "could've been anyone on our connection guv, IPs doesn't identify a specific device". They've gone to the trouble of getting a court order to subpoena BSkyB for your details so ignoring it probably isn't wise. IANAL though so perhaps BV72 will smite me down.
Ignoring it certainly isn't what I'd suggest however, guides are keen to point out not to give them any more information than required as at the moment all they have is an address. The letter suggests replying by email is the 'best' way but I don't find this too official and just saves them money in postage.
I think a good compromise may be to take on a fixed price solicitor versed in copyright law to handle it, hopefully this wouldn't make the claimant think well if they can afford a solicitor then they will cough up.... Said family member is a worrier, they've wanted to call them up and protest but advised them to sit on it and enjoy Christmas.
File the letter in the round filing cabinet.
I suspect the film that it is claimed you downloaded would be a "gentleman's movie" in nature. The solicitor's are relying on the embarrassment factor to get you to pay up. Funnily enough they never go after people for downloading children's movies, just porn.
If they to take it further, they would need to identify the user which is pretty much impossible (note user, not device as the defense can easily be, anyone in my household can use my ipad/laptop/desktop/wifi and I've no idea who was using it on that date/time).
I suspect the film that it is claimed you downloaded would be a "gentleman's movie" in nature. The solicitor's are relying on the embarrassment factor to get you to pay up. Funnily enough they never go after people for downloading children's movies, just porn.
If they to take it further, they would need to identify the user which is pretty much impossible (note user, not device as the defense can easily be, anyone in my household can use my ipad/laptop/desktop/wifi and I've no idea who was using it on that date/time).
a311 said:
I'm going to put something in place for them. I've used Hide My Ass (HMA) which I've found to be good.
If the owner doesn't actually use the connection and therefore isn't bothered about speed, why protect it at all? Then any passing youth with a tablet can connect and download stuff FOC. If there are passwords in place then anyone who stayed there since the last password change could have accessed it. Putting frequently changed passwords in place makes it more likely that the owner will be deemed to be responsible.To suggest that a temporary resident who may not even use Wi-Fi should be responsible for its security is crazy, so tracing who was there at the time is a non-starter IMO.
Breadvan72 said:
I was going to chip in, but as the OP has entered loony wibblist territory I'll give this one a miss.
Would appreciate your input Breadvan as I've read your many excellent replies on other threads. It was just a rambling. 
speedking31 said:
f the owner doesn't actually use the connection and therefore isn't bothered about speed, why protect it at all? Then any passing youth with a tablet can connect and download stuff FOC. If there are passwords in place then anyone who stayed there since the last password change could have accessed it. Putting frequently changed passwords in place makes it more likely that the owner will be deemed to be responsible.
To suggest that a temporary resident who may not even use Wi-Fi should be responsible for its security is crazy, so tracing who was there at the time is a non-starter IMO.
It's basically a farm with a converted barn which makes up 3 holiday lets so they use the same connection.To suggest that a temporary resident who may not even use Wi-Fi should be responsible for its security is crazy, so tracing who was there at the time is a non-starter IMO.
mdglen said:
File the letter in the round filing cabinet.
I suspect the film that it is claimed you downloaded would be a "gentleman's movie" in nature. The solicitor's are relying on the embarrassment factor to get you to pay up. Funnily enough they never go after people for downloading children's movies, just porn.
If they to take it further, they would need to identify the user which is pretty much impossible (note user, not device as the defense can easily be, anyone in my household can use my ipad/laptop/desktop/wifi and I've no idea who was using it on that date/time).
It was a Hollywood film rather than a porno I suspect the film that it is claimed you downloaded would be a "gentleman's movie" in nature. The solicitor's are relying on the embarrassment factor to get you to pay up. Funnily enough they never go after people for downloading children's movies, just porn.
If they to take it further, they would need to identify the user which is pretty much impossible (note user, not device as the defense can easily be, anyone in my household can use my ipad/laptop/desktop/wifi and I've no idea who was using it on that date/time).
Edited by a311 on Monday 4th January 14:12
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff