help

[Peter Fairbrother]

Francis Davey wrote:
> 2012/3/30 Peter Tomlinson <pwt at iosis.co.uk>:
>> From Out-Law this morning an article about the flaws in using IP addresses
>> to identify miscreants, in the legal cae reported it was about copyright
>> infringers.
>>
>> http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/march/o2-disclosure-ruling-could-impact-on-workings-of-imminent-new-anti-piracy-code-campaigners-say/
>>
>> "A High Court judge has laid out flaws in using internet protocol (IP)
>> addresses to identify alleged copyright infringers which should have
>> "ramifications" for how imminent new anti-piracy rules operate, a campaign
>> group has said."
>>
> 
> Well, it was Richard Clayton who laid out the flaws :-).
> 
> Does anyone know if Xtrack (the software there used) attempts to
> download from the IP addresses it picks up? In Media CAT v Adams and
> Golden Eye v Maricar, the evidence looked to me like they just took a
> list of peer IP addresses, so there was a possibility that no file was
> actually being made available at that address.
> 
> Golden Eye seems not to have been interested in actually pursuing its
> claim in the Maricar case, very much like Media CAT (in both cases, as
> soon as the claimants were aware there were lawyers on the other side,
> they began to back away). I am of course sceptical that this will be
> at all different, for all their protestations.
> 
> I'm just itching to get to challenge all this evidence in a proper trial.
> 

"In the High Court ruling, Mr Justice Arnold had determined that Golden 
Eye, on behalf of Ben Dover Productions, was entitled to the names and 
addresses held by O2 under the terms of a 'Norwich Pharmacal Order' so 
as to pursue claims for compensation against individuals who are alleged 
to have illegally downloaded copyrighted material."


Isn't it the people who _upload_ copyright material who do more damage?




On a slightly different point, I don't know that I have ever downloaded 
copyright material when I should not have done so.

It is often not at all obvious to the downloader both that material 
which is apparently freely available on the internet is in copyright and 
that the copyright holder objects to it being downloaded. How am I 
supposed to know?

And if you think I'm going to wade through the small print, think again.


-- Peter Fairbrother