Acacia Acacia Acacia Acacia Acacia

Isn't that what is happening with these lawsuits though? They are claiming damages and demanding payment for them by proposing a settlement amount up front. If you disagree with the amount or you are innocent of the charges you can choose to go to court.

The tactics used by these lawyers to get the list of who they are going sue might be questionable and clearly the courts have some issues with them, but it doesn't seem that much different to me.

You're a smart guy. Isn't this exactly what happens with any civil suit?

I'm not defending them, i was just commenting on the analogy. Whether this is legal under UK law or some gross violation of legal procedures, legal conduct, use of the courts etc, is the actual issue. Not the simple fact of believing someone caused damages and demanding compensation for damages, alone. Thats what the civil system is about.

Without knowing every detail, the problem I am guessing is in the shotgun approach and not having good reason to believe the potential plaintiff had actually committed any wrong doing which has been found to be in violation of some other laws or procedures.

Ultimately that is what it boils down to. How did they come up with their list and what type of evidence do they have against those on the list to lead them to believe that they have damaged them? I guess it is going to be up to the courts to determine if this is an acceptable practice or not. So far there have been some cases that the courts clearly didn't like, but I have a feeling eventually we will see more and more of this as rulings come down and define what you can and cannot do.

This is what Acacia did. Assholes like Matrix Content and some affiliate programs turned over lists of webmaster contact info and basically, they blasted everyone a mass mailing letting them know they are infringing on their patents and threatening legal action or come forward and agree to generous licensing terms.

first of all lawyers have a code of ethics that they must follow to prevent abusing the system and turning it into a form of extortion

those rules include not making/covering up ruling they know invalidate their arguments

the UK originator of this scheme got his ass handed to him

http://torrentfreak.com/judge-decima...ruling-110907/

hopefully this guy will get the same penalty.

There is a massive difference between actually SEEING someone steal something

and knowing who had access to a location downloaded something.

I love how you use an example where you actually have valid proof as a justification for an accusation where you are no where close

if they got a court order , analysed the guys computers, found the file on the computer

then it would be equal to the example you gave.

That the point there are no where close when they start trial.

I'm in no way defending thieves, however my elderly father was sent one of these notices so I'll toss in my copper:

No residential ISP that I know of has a requirement that customers operate their wireless equipment securely. Me, mine's wide the heck open and I can drag neighbors into court to testify that it's always been that way. (Whether I'd want to take the time to deal with it is a whole different issue.)

I just don't see how these people are winning suits with nothing more than an IP.

This is just a guess, but I am assuming that many of the people on the list are actually guilty. There are no doubt innocent people being hit by these letters and I would guess that some are not guilty, but are paying anyway out of fear, but I think many of the people that get these letters downloaded the video(s) in question illegally, know they did it and admit they were caught.

that's why i said example not an analogy :)
if it were an analogy not an "example".:winkwink: my "example" put it into perspective better. we all know how insurance claims work.

same " proof " as the lawyer has in this case ..:2 cents:

someone might have bought the item at a different store.

The thread.
So he time shifts the TV show or allows others to and this can't be stolen. :1orglaugh

Gideon you're not badly effected by theft, you profiting from it.

The don't BELIEVE someone caused damages. They got a list of thousands of people that pay for the internet access in a place that LOOKS like someone has downloaded something illegally.

This isn't about due process. It's about quasi-blackmail.

Have you seen one of the letters they send?

They aren't. It's not going to trial. They are just trying to get money out of a load of people. When it does get close to trial the judges rules an IP address /= a person.

again that statement is based on you SEEING the person with the item

it not like they strip search everyone in the parking lot because someone, in the area might have stolen something.

They see you with the item first, they accuse you, and you then have a right to pull out your reciept to prove you bought it somewhere else

again for you
then it would be equal

and you are a moron who confuses fair use protected actions like caching with "theft"