Alleged copyright infiringment

I got an email from Zen about alleged copyright infringement.

Allegedly I down/uploaded Transformers, Dark Side of the Moon, or is that Pink Floyd? My first reaction was that's crazy. Watch Transformers? I'd rather slash my wrists with a banana.

Anyway asked around the mob and a daughter says when she had friends around they were using the internet on their laptops at the time of the alleged offence. Further investigation shows that one friend was running a torrent program, itorrent or utorrent or some such.

So assuming this explains the alleged offence and its a fair cop gov, am I responsible for other users on the network? What are my legal duties to prevent copyright infringement?

There's no legal precedent determining whether you are responsible for other's usage of the connection. Basically, the only way to find out is to get taken to court and see what the judge says. If it were a public access connection, eg a free hotspot, then you would be responsible.

Again, there are no set legal duties. If you were to inform anyone who uses the connection that they should not share copyrighted files, this may be deemed as sufficient by a judge if the matter got that far. However it might not be enough.

To further complicate things, the methods which have been used to detect the breach of copyright on your connection may not be legally sound, in terms of methodology. They could even be completely wrong, as many people accused in ACS:Law cases will tell you.

There is a lack of clarity in UK civil law with the whole topic of copyright infringement and the internet. This is exactly what ACS:Law tried, and succeeded for a while, in exploiting.

Have you been asked to pay anyone or been threatened with legal action?

Edited by haggismn (Tue 31-Jan-12 10:14:14)

If it were a public access connection, eg a free hotspot, then you would be responsible.

Really? So if I drive drunk on a public road, it's the council's responsibility, and they should be held accountable?

The law in this area is a complete joke right now. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. An IP address is not a person. Thus an IP address being logged against an illegal download can't actually implicate a person, unless it can be reasonably proven that they alone had access via it.

There have been, and indeed are (SOPA & PIPA in the US) many proposed legislations aimed at dealing with this problem, but I'm still waiting to find one that won't breach human rights legislation and/or the data protection act.

Zen's email says they only hand over user info if there is a court order. I would be surprised if it gets that far.

There was a case a while back where a pub owner was fined when customers were using the pub's free hotspot for infringing copyright. I can't remember more details than that but I can dig out the article when I have time. My worry is that this will be applied to private connections as well, for the sake of ease, even if the bill payer has nothing to do with the usage of the connection.

The requirement to provide proof of guilt only applies to criminal cases. In civil cases it is up to the defendant to argue against the other's evidence. The fact that an IP address is not a person is very much a valid argument, at the moment, though. A major piece of information that ACS:Law tried to find out from its victims was whether or not their internet connection was shared between other people, when they were deciding whether or not to pursue further action against them.

As you no doubt know, this matter still hasn't been resolved, but it is a very significant hurdle. If a precedent is set, that all bill payers of private internet connections are responsible for the content transferred over the connection, then it may open the floodgates, as the process of litigation will be greatly simplified for copyright holders. On the flip side, if it were ruled that the bill payer is not responsible, it would make things much more difficult for copyright holders, as the IP address would not tell much about who had been infringing other than who pays the bill.

Edit: here you go

Edited by haggismn (Tue 31-Jan-12 15:06:04)

Even under civil law the burden of proof is still on the accuser. The difference is that you need only convince the court that it is likely that the defendant is guilty, it doesn't have to be "beyond reasonable doubt".

Of course we can continue further down the rabbit hole and start talking about being compelled to produce passwords to decrypt information that may implicate you in a crime, and being subject to imprisonment if you don't. But this is a broadband forum, not a human rights forum.

You've identified the source, and everyone has learnt their lesson.

In terms of legal duties, as bill payer you would be called to accredit for any offences, whether they would bother for a single infringement is another matter. Whilst this has not been tested in court, are you wanting to be the one to try out the system?

Post deleted by billford

Ignore the letter

and look here

http://torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-address-doesnt-i...