CrashedOutAndBurned Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 This could backfire on the company. Now attention's been drawn to their actions against these posters people may asked, 'Hmmm, so they may or may not be a criminal enterprise but they're probably dodgy either way.' Also couldn't 'criminal enterprise' be used as a mere figure of speech? 'That pub's charging £4 a pint - it's a criminal entertprise!' And surely calling something a 'scam' can mean anything from downright illegality to simply being a mildly poor deal? Hope these bullies lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Remember it can't be slander or libel if it's true. I've posted my comments about experience at the hands of companies, and if any want to challenge my take on it, I'll see 'em in court. As long as what you can say you can prove it's a non story, surely? Robert Maxwell vs. Private Eye? The Eye was one of the few willing to go up against Captain Bob while he was still alive (and suing). "I've just given a fat cheque to a fat Czech" as Ian Hislop said at the time. Maxwell used litigation, or the threat of litigation, to stop the truth about his activities coming out. Once he was dead, everybody was free to say what had been true all along. (allegedly). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MongerOfDoom Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 You are forgetting that the case would never make it to court in the first place. The point is that you cannot prove who the perpetrator is, you can't just sue anyone you choose without having proof you have the right person. Except that is not what happened in the past. ACS law (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8483482.stm ) was able to obtain addresses from IPs, and then sue those identified for alleged copyright infringement. There was no need to prove who (if anyone) did anything against the law. They went bust, but not before seriously inconveniencing a lot of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thod Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 If I say "In my opinion, X is an idiot", then it is clear that it is just an opinion and I may hold whatever opinions I wish. Yet how then do we conclude that "X is an idiot" is a statement of fact? I do not claim any professional expertise in the diagnosis of idiocy. Surely everything I say is simply my opinion and thus the qualifiers are redundant. It is up to the reader to decide whether to believe me or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) Except that is not what happened in the past. ACS law (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8483482.stm ) was able to obtain addresses from IPs, and then sue those identified for alleged copyright infringement. There was no need to prove who (if anyone) did anything against the law. They went bust, but not before seriously inconveniencing a lot of people. I don't think ACS law actually took a single copyright case to court. They just used the law to get IP addresses and then started sending letters to people threatening to sue them. They never won a single contested case. Instead they just relied on intimidating people with threats of legal action to hand over money. I believe they were being investigated by the Law Society at the time that they folded. Edited October 1, 2011 by stormymonday_2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainlessSteelCat Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) This is a fascinating area and I agree only the lawyers will benefit in the end. I wonder if we can popularise a new meme. If you have to sue some poor schmuck on the internet - you probably have something to hide. Edited October 1, 2011 by StainlessSteelCat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I don't think ACS law actually took a single copyright case to court. They just used the law to get IP addresses and then started sending letters to people threatening to sue them. They never won a single contested case. Instead they just relied on intimidating people with threats of legal action to hand over money. I believe they were being investigated by the Law Society at the time that they folded. Exactly. They relied on people just paying up. They had no legal case and if people wrote to complain they just buckled and dropped the cases. In law you are required to prove you have the correct party, an IP address is like a house or worse a pub. You can't just sue someone at random in a pub just because you heard 'someone' call you something slanderous. The Copyright case was the same. They were unable to prove an individual stole films etc. all they could prove was an IP address, which is as vague as sueing the pub. Absolutely odd behaviour, but just like our previous poster, people didn't understand the law and bricked themselves, probably because they were guilty. It's incredibly hard to prosecute anyone for a computer related crime. The evidence trail has to stand up in court and therefore has to be recorded and obtained following the chain of custody precisely with no room for alteration. Next to impossible. Hence seizing laptops and trying to forensically analyse them to link to an individual. Really really difficult to bring a case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Generation Game Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 This is a fascinating area and I agree only the lawyers will benefit in the end. I wonder if we can popularise a new meme. If you have to sue some poor schmuck on the internet - you probably have something to hide. Well, now that the super-injunctions appear to be failing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 INJIN is ******ed !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) As I have never heard of the company involved in this case one wonders what is going on. There may be more than meets the eye here and that the posting of potential libels was done by individuals with the clear aim of damaging the business rather than the rantings of a few dissatisfied customers. Indeed it is possible that the identities of those involved are already suspected. BTW best of luck to the lawyers in getting any meaningful response out of TalkTalk as in my experience that is often difficult even for their own customers. http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/jul/21/talktalk-worst-landline-broadband-ofcom Edited October 1, 2011 by stormymonday_2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MongerOfDoom Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I don't think ACS law actually took a single copyright case to court. They just used the law to get IP addresses and then started sending letters to people threatening to sue them. They never won a single contested case. Instead they just relied on intimidating people with threats of legal action to hand over money. I believe they were being investigated by the Law Society at the time that they folded. Google is your friend. 27 people were sued: http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-12767714 You are right that ACS did not win a single case, but that is not the point. Those with lawsuits brought against them had to pay for defense, and that on its own could easily be enough to bankrupt many people. Remember, the point of bringing a libel suit might not be to win in court, but to just get the alleged libel withdrawn and not repeated. Indeed, many complainants cannot actually go as far as the court, for then they would either lose or risk doing an Archer. The Private Eye tend to have a fair few experiences of that kind, some more amusing than others. In one case they received a letter threating to sue over something they had published, but also pointing out that the approach to damages would depend on whether they would apologise. Their reply was along the lines of: "we wondered what your approach to damages would be if our reply were to be: F U C K O F F". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Hang on, are you saying they got sued and in court couldn't prove what they said was true? If that's the case then of course they are going to lose. Or maybe Maxwell could afford an army of high priced lawyers? Rumours of dodgy dealings swirled around Maxwell for most of his career. However, Maxwell used his wealth to fund teams of lawyers who threatened any critics with libel actions. For most of the press, Maxwell was a no-go zone. Private Eye continually mocked Maxwell with the nicknames 'Cap'n Bob' and 'The Bouncing Czech' but was unable to do much more. In 1984, Private Eye ran a 'Spot the worthless Czech' cover of Maxwell. On several occasions, the magazine was sued by Maxwell, the most notable of which led to the publication of Not Private Eye by Maxwell. Maxwell's only real critics when he was alive were the Eye and Tom Bower (with his book The Outsider). After Maxwell: The Outsider appeared in Britain, the ''Bouncing Czech'' called Bower ''a liar and a perjurer,'' sued him and his publisher, and warned booksellers that he had obtained an injunction against the book — which he hadn't. On three separate occasions Maxwell prevented paperback companies from publishing the book. In addition to his mania for control, he may have feared that an honest and thorough accounting of his finances would show that his empire not only was not profitable, as he insisted, but was in fact virtually insolvent. And so it proved to be the case. The most famous libel case involving Hislop and Private Eye was brought by the publishing magnate Robert Maxwell. After the case he quipped: "I've just given a fat cheque to a fat Czech." However the magazine's attacks on Maxwell were fully vindicated by the revelations of massive fraud that followed his death. Oddly enough, billionaires with an army of high-priced lawyers behind them do seem to fare better in our justice system than Joe Bloggs with legal aid. Or maybe I'm just being cynical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saberu Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) I wouldn't buy any from this company What? They did the right thing. There's no political support for hacking a gamers network for identities, it seems to be purely a profit motivated hack. Besides even if it was political hackers they shouldn't be using services like HideMyAss as all they are doing is putting other anonymous users and the whole anonymous proxy user community at risk. What they should have done is use a botnet to query commands. Even just using 5-6 hacked computers as a command chain you already have very little chance of being caught. They are n00b hackers. Anyone with REAL skill in hacking is either making millions of dollars from stealing peoples money which I don't condone, doing affiliate fraud which isn't really that immoral but obviously I don't condone it, or they are using their skills to make money legally which i do condone. I'm not a hacker but I could easily learn how to do it as I'm in the IT field (web dev) and have mid range knowledge in all other areas, people who are really good at IT like trickster are clearly intelligent enough to make money in other ways like doing IT services. The people making millions of dollars from affiliate fraud also use stolen bank accounts so incriminate innocent people which is the main reason it's still immoral in my opinion otherwise it's just another way of making money albiet an illegal one Edited October 2, 2011 by Saberu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.