Not seen the latency changes but I'm still convinced its regional and something to do with the BTw network.

Don't see it on any other ISP using BTW on the same exchange as the one I see issues with on PN, so I'm not convinced.

In reply to a post by fibrecereal:

In what way do they give details out ?

Had sky fttc for 2 years with full 80 meg profile with no issues. If you mean they don't give you the username and password ? well yes that's true but wireshark can get you the info in 10 mins. If you mean give details out that you get unsolicited texts/emails/postal spam ? then no ive not had that either.

Here.

I think Sky could have fought it a bit more to be honest, but they seem to just allow it.

That would have been in contempt of court.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

In reply to a post by fibrecereal:

In what way do they give details out ?

Here.

I think Sky could have fought it a bit more to be honest, but they seem to just allow it.

There really isn't a lot an ISP can do to fight against an application for a Norwich Pharmacal order.


A copyright holder bringing an application for a Norwich Pharmacal order should have no problem establishing ownership of copyright, and would be in possession of some sort of logs indicating potential copyright infringement, otherwise they have no basis to bring any claims for copyright infringement. As such, the copyright holder should have no problem demonstrating to the court that they have a bona fide claim.

The technical elements of a Norwich application are fairly easy to establish in a case involving online activities - the ISP is clearly involved (albeit an innocent party) in any infringement as the provider of connectivity, the ISP is the only source of information linking IP addresses to individuals, and the copyright holder can defray the ISP's costs in complying with an order if granted.

This just leaves the matter of whether the interests of justice favour granting the requested order. As the copyright holder is alleging tortious interference with their intellectual property rights and the only way to identify the alleged tortfeasors is the granting of a Norwich order, it is overwhelmingly likely that the court will grant the order. The copyright holder does have to show that they will use the disclosed details to seek redress in the courts or via another route (a requirement since British Steel Corp v Granada Television [1981] AC 1096 and the subsequent codification in s. 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981), though the sole intent of a copyright holder is to seek redress. What the British Steel v Granada requirement does is prevent Norwich orders from being used for purposes other than seeking redress, such as identifying a journalist's sources (for example, by alleging the source has libelled or slandered you) or to carry out a court sanctioned exercise of fishing for information.

As such, there is not much an ISP fighting against the grant of a Norwich order in a case of alleged copyright infringement. Once the order is issued, the ISP must comply to the best of its ability or it risks being found in contempt. The same factors apply to all ISPs, not just Sky, though greater number of potential infringers' details obtained per Norwich order means copyright holders are more likely to go after customers of the larger ISPs.


The problems that arise are not so much to do with the granting of the Norwich order, but the use that is made of the disclosed data. The copyright holder really does not want to go to court - the costs are likely to outweigh any damages recovered, even if they attempt to argue that a peer to peer user went on to disseminate the infringing material, compounding damage caused (I haven't been following peer to peer case law well enough to know how that argument has fared in court). In any event, the Civil Procedure Rules require parties to take reasonable steps to settle before issuing court proceedings.


The copyright holder will use details disclosed pursuant to a Norwich order to write to the identified individuals, threatening legal proceedings but offering to settle for a reasonably high sum of money. They know that many will settle, and will reach a view on how much resources to put into pursuing those who refuse to pay up. It's a bit like private parking claims - the parking companies know that a stiffly worded letter with threats of legal action and arguably exaggerated statements of the consequences will result in a significant proportion of recipients paying up, even though the basis of their claim may well be legally rather shaky as there are several viable defences.


As an aside, if you defend a civil claim in the courts of England and Wales and you lose, the details will not appear on the public register if you settle in full within thirty days. A judgment against you only becomes an issue for creditworthiness if it goes unsettled for more than thirty days, as it then appears on the register for six years even if you subsequently pay in full and have the judgment marked as satisfied.

The risk in going to court is that if you lose, you will almost certainly have to pay more than if you settle out of court, as there will be court fees and legal fees to pay. However, it is possible that the out of court settlement offer is seeking damages higher that a judge would award if you lost in court.


Much as I dislike the way that intellectual property rights are sometimes used, I believe that copyright is there to be respected. I only stream media from licensed sources such as Spotify.

However, I believe online copyright infringement claims are amongst the areas of tort law where the inequality of arms between the parties acts against the interests of the individual. The copyright holder might seek a sum far beyond what a court is likely to award them in damages, backing their claim by exaggerating the strength of their legal position and the consequences of non-settlement. The recipients of a one of these letters probably lack the legal knowledge needed to evaluate the merits of the claim and may well be economically excluded from seeking qualified legal advice, not least as unless a recipient you can persuade a solicitor to advise them fully in a fixed fee interview, the costs of taking advice could approach the costs of settling.

The inequality of arms gives considerable power to the copyright holder - once they have the ISP's disclosure pursuant to the Norwich order, they merely need to send out a mailshot, possibly with the help of a law firm who has minimal scruples about trampling over the individual in the pursuit of profit, and the money potentially comes rolling in.


At least the infamous ACS:Law, who specialised in pursuing alleged copyright infringers, is no more. Andrew Crossley, the solicitor behind that firm, was suspended from the Roll of Solicitors for two years.

Things seem to be much better this weekend, especially at peak time. For me anyway.

Thanks David for yet another interesting post on BB and the law. Compared to these legal tangles, sorting out a slow connection is easy

In reply to a post by mirage4802:

Things seem to be much better this weekend, especially at peak time. For me anyway.

Not for me.

4 gateway hops before i got a connection that was almost good.


Plusnet are a joke and i think i may soon be departing.

I would rather pay off my existing contract and go back to Sky.

I still have not had a single problem throughout this "meltdown."

In reply to a post by therioman:

However, given this is a residential only service, I see no compelling reason to have a need for Reverse DNS (nice to have, not necessary).

You don't run a mail server, then?

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

Also Sky gives your details out to any Tom, Dick and Harry. I was looking at it myself until I heard they gave user details out.

Well their TV service department doesn't seem to. I've been a subscriber to that for over a decade and have never received any spam to my Sky email address.