So reports the BBC:
More than 150 people have approached consumer publication Which? Computing claiming to have been wrongly targeted in crackdowns on illegal file-sharing.
ACS:Law has sent thousands of letters to people claiming they have illegally downloaded material and offers them a chance to settle by paying around £500.
Which? says it has been approached by some – including a 78 year-old accused of downloading pornography – who have no knowledge of the alleged offence.
You can read the full story here.
The wider significance of the story is that the Government’s line on the Digital Economy Bill is that in future more alleged internet pirates should be identified in similar ways and face more severe sanctions, claiming that this can be done in a fair, reliable way. The evidence so far suggests that in fact trying to identify people this way will result in large number of innocent people facing punishment.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Dominika the roving Braybrooke skunk is found again - in Corby
Starmer kills off Leveson two
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
Bye bye coal: A Net Zero milestone
Helen Dudden
Roland
Suzanne Fletcher
Joseph Bourke
Steve Trevethan
7 Comments
ACS:Law are running a well-known scam. They accuse whoever they feel like, and then sift the responses for people that seem likely to pay up without making a fuss – those who are not quite sufficiently well-informed to stand up to the ever-so-subtly misleading claims that ACS:Law makes.
It’s completely legal, although it really shouldn’t be. Of course, the government’s policy is to give these people more power, not to stop them.
Mark – you are not entirely correct.
The Digital Economy Bill sets out a process by which the business of solicitors sending out threatening letters like this is replaced as a form of best practice by a system where ISP’s send notifications to persistent downloaders on the basis of complaints made by copyright holders.
Lib Dems in the Lords have tried to strengthen this requirement as the ability of solicitors to send threatening letters is not completely abolished by the Bill.
However, it is incorrect to say that Bill will mean more and more of these sort of incidents involving solicitors letters will occur.
Mike: fair point, I could have been clearer on that. What I meant was that under the DEB there would be more of people checking against technical records and on that basis claiming to know whether or not someone has been making illegal downloads. You’re right about the different people involved in doing this, but there’s still going to be the issue of whether the evidence they use is really good or accurate enough (e.g. multiple people in one house, sharing IP addresses etc.)
>”The evidence so far suggests that in fact trying to identify people
>this way will result in large number of innocent people facing punishment.”
What evidence could you of collected from a situation that hasn’t occurred yet?
Had we of had a proper system in place, as outlined in the DEB, we would of had a procedure that uses the best evidence available, instead of private firms hacking peoples connections to insecure clients. The ACS:Law suits are just the kind of scam you’ll get if you do nothing, as seems to be your position. I think you need to present us with an alternative, whereby tax revenue is maintain and the country isn’t forced to pay.
You’re fearmongering again without presenting an alternative and acting like the Lib Dems would have nothing to do with this, whereas in reality the parliamentary party is broadly supportive of the bill. I never hear you speaking up in favour of protecting the ISP records of internet paedophile rings, yet by your reasoning we shouldn’t be able to prosecute them using the same records for evidence…but we do. So, would you stop these prosecutions? If not, how can you possibly have a coherent argument?
You’d give away the tax revenue of the creative industries, and the shortfall is being paid by average people. So, you’re effectively making average Britains pay to protect thieves. I don’t think your campaign to keep paedophiles and thieves safe online is going to work out in the long term, and I can’t see how doing nothing will help the people of this country, who suffer much more from this problem than most and have much more to lose. Clause 17 obviously needed removing, the bill isn’t perfect by any means, but you present no alternative to a problem that reduces tax revenue, and will continue to do so long into our future.
Thanks to the Lib Dems that bought our album, it’s very much appreciated and your support is warmly received – hope you liked it!
>there’s still going to be the issue of whether the evidence they use
>is really good or accurate enough (e.g. multiple people in one house, sharing IP addresses etc.)
So, I could send back my phone bill if my housemate uses the phone whilst I’m out? Decline to pay my electricity bill because the neighbours plug their outdoor lighting into our shed? This doesn’t make any sense, why is it accurate enough to jail people for a decade, but not accurate enough to fine the account holder? If someone is downloading child porn on your connection, surely it’s up to you to have some responsibility for the use of your connection. You should stop them.
That doesn’t make any sense. If someone is downloading child porn on your lawn, is that somehow your responsibility too? What if they do it on your street? Should we punish all the people in the neighbourhood for failing to form a vigilante militia to stop them?
Yes. I would also stop the vigilante militias mentioned above. Rule of law applies to everybody, not just people that you like.
Incidentally, I’ve never seen a successful criminal prosecution on the basis of this sort of non-evidence. What really happens is that the non-evidence is used as justification for a search warrant, which turns up real evidence, on which the prosecution can then proceed. That’s not a problem.
That’s a myth. Big media companies made it up. There have been a lot of people who have tried this, either by making things easier to copy, or by making things harder to copy. The result in every case has been the same: no major impact on sales (and when there is a change, sales usually go up slightly when there are more unpaid copies around).
They also employ people to make pseudonymous posts on discussion sites that repeat their claims. Hmmm…
No, it’s one guy, and he’s just repeating industry propaganda.
Hi Andrew,
>If someone is downloading child porn on your lawn, is that somehow your responsibility too?
Yes, you’re the landowner – “your lawn”, implies ownership. Same with drugs, guns, stolen goods, guns, child care, animal welfare, etc. You’ll find that you’re responsible for what’s happening on your land – in court, ignorance of the law or your circumstance are not reasonable defences. Try telling BT that it was your wife that made the 8 hour phone call to a porn chat line, you’ll still be paying the bill or getting disconnected. You’re saying if someone was downloading child porn on your land, using your connection, you wouldn’t feel any responsibility? What if children got seriously hurt? I find this hard to believe, and more than a little ridiculous – are you trying to be funny or are these really your beliefs?
>What if they do it on your street?
No – you are responsible for what goes on in your house, but you’re not responsible for what happens down the street. I thought people understood this to be the case, it’s fairly consistent throughout UK law.
>>”I never hear you speaking up in favour of protecting the ISP records
>>of internet paedophile rings, yet by your reasoning we shouldn’t be
>>able to prosecute them using the same records for evidence…but
>>we do. So, would you stop these prosecutions?”
>”Yes. I would also stop the vigilante militias mentioned above.”
Bit shocked about this – ACS:Law are not the same as paedophiles. You’re saying you’d like to stop the prosecution of paedophiles rings on the basis of ISP records? You’d like us to stop a practice that has been a very successful method of detecting paedophiles. I just don’t understand that, I’m not sure many people would. Do you have kids?
>That’s a myth. Big media companies made it up.
You’re telling me you think if the UK music industry makes less revenue, you believe that doesn’t reduce the amount of tax paid? Are you sure about this?
>”In 1999, UK trade deliveries were worth £1,133m, compared to £893.8m in 2008.” : BPI UK
Truthfully Andrew, your reply doesn’t read to me like you’ve thought about any of these matters through at all, so, as is often the case, you resort to this sort of thing :
>They also employ people to make pseudonymous posts on discussion sites that repeat their claims. Hmmm…
That’s a bit of a wild conspiratorial statement, and reveals a little more about your view. Oddly, Mark made a similar claim last time I was here, that big Media had changed the mind of Lib Dem MPs. Do you have tinfoil wrapped around your head now so they can’t read your thoughts? I’m self-employed, a Lib Dem and haven’t had any money from a big media company for years. There’s no conspiracy, you’re just discussing something with someone with a contrary view, online. Incidentally, if any media behemoth does want to employ me in the fashion Andrew suggests, contact me. 😉
I’m just reasoning against people, like yourself, that believe that it’s OK to throw tax revenue sources out, and that nobody is responsible for digital theft. I’ve talked to a lot of people in the party on this subject, as I was concerned that your and Marks view was prevalent. However, that appears not to be the case and most people seem quite supportive of the idea of the DEB, if not all its finer points. I’d suggest that Mark might actually be the person who has changed most peoples minds, not the big media companies you think are lurking around the corner.
You don’t believe that the tax take from music is less than a decade ago, you don’t believe in using ISP records to prosecute paedophiles rings and you don’t believe you’re responsible for what happens in your own home. What you do seem to believe is that big media have sent me here. All of this is wrong. You seem to be in some sort of fantasy state, and if you believe any of what you’ve written I hope you don’t have contact with children!
Still, nice to see you good folks again. Always a pleasure, hope you’re all enjoying Blair at the inquiry.