Porn company free to pursue O2 users for file-sharing

What do thay have?

"...seeking the IP addresses of more than 9,000 O2 broadband customers they believe have downloaded copyright material."

If they don't have the IP addresses of alleged offenders, what do they have?

By synaptic_fire on 26 Mar 2012

Yes, this ruling means nothing if they don't have the IP addresses already.

I suspect it's just PC Pro getting the story wrong again.

By AlphaGeeK on 26 Mar 2012

They have nothing

If they don't have the IP addresses then they have nothing - even if they did, they can't assume the bill payer is guilty. So they have no idea who is guilty....or of what....sounds like a pile of poo to me!

By everton2004 on 26 Mar 2012

IP addresses

Well, yes... actually subscriber details based on IP addresses. Thanks for pointing out.

By SMitchell on 26 Mar 2012

I presume

that O2 will behave exactly like BT in the Ministry Of Sound NPO - doing everything they can to retain their customers in the face of outlandish business practices:

http://www.technollama.co.uk/ministry-of-sound-giv
es-up-p2p-claims

If O2 were complicit in this in any way then they don't deserve to have any customers.

By revsorg on 27 Mar 2012

Justice for sale!

After all, if I wanted a court order to reveal how this company got access to people's data WITHOUT an IP, would I get anywhere? Unless I had a lot of money to throw around, THEN I could buy whatever "justice" I wanted....

By cheysuli on 27 Mar 2012

Still no proof of loss

Even with all the safe guards proposed by the judge in the case the letters to be sent out still expect people to pay up without the copyright owner demonstrating that they were a) able to download the actual file from the offending persons computer and b) they have incurred any actual loss.

By stuscott78 on 27 Mar 2012

I'm out

I'm cancelling my o2 contract as soon as possible not because I'm guilty of any illegal downloads but because of the attitude of o2. I had hoped that they may have learnt something from the ACS debacle. But yesterdays decision would suggest otherwise.

As has been stated above Ben Dover and others already have the IP addresses of those who they believe to be infringing their copyright, the court visit is to tie those IP addresses to individual broadband subscribers.

O2 have stated that they will comply with the court order, and to be fair that is all they can do.

So why am I angry with o2?

There were discussions at a very early stage between Golden Eye and O2 where O2 agreed not to contest the court case, thereby making the order a fait accompli. At no stage did O2 say that they wanted the court to make a decision based upon the evidence presented, in fact they even declined to have any legal representation present yesterday.

The judge himself was concerned enough to approach Consumer Focus and ask them to present a legal challenge that resulted in 12 of the 13 cases being knocked back.

If it had been up to O2 then every case would have been granted a court order.

I'm also sure that every reader of this blog is very well aware that IP tracing isn't an exact science and that even if it were the IP address does not necessarily identify the infringer, just the subscriber.

Yet even knowing this the likes of Golden Eye harrass those they know may very well be innocent through false legal pretences.

So it's not O2's reaction to the order, it's O2's behaviour prior to this and their unwillingness to support their customers even knowing that many may be innocent of any crime.

By randalf on 27 Mar 2012

@stuscott78

The people who have downloaded the content have, presumably, watched it, therefore they have deprived the producer of the price of at least one viewing of said content.

Whilst that might not be hundreds of pounds per infringer, that is still money they have been deprived of.

By big_D on 27 Mar 2012

@big_D

You realise there is a war currently being fought out between the MPAA/RIAA and 99.999% of the rest of society, on many battlefronts. If you haven't done so already please can you watch this TED talk by Rick Falkvinge:

http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/21/falkvinge-at-tedx-
like-a-cross-between-churchill-gandhi-and-mad-max/


I suggest that this Golden Eye thing is some weird kind of Dardanelles in that larger conflict.

When you argue in support of Ben Dover's right to engage in a campaign of speculative invoicing, that he's hoping will earn him £6.3m to share with his bedfellows, surely you admit that this places you in an odd position. I know the downturn in the economy has hit everyone hard, and pornographers, especially, need all the help they can get to make their companies as profitable as possible, but really? You really support his position? And can't see the rest of the iceberg that is wrong with what's going on here?

By revsorg on 27 Mar 2012

@bigD

My understanding is that for a party to claim damages it has to demonstrate that is has suffered a loss. I would like to see how the figure of £700 can be justified as the loss incurred by having a copy of a file on your computer. On a different note I would like to know how the technology used to determine if a person is sharing a file works? Does it download a full copy of the file or just part of it?

By stuscott78 on 27 Mar 2012

Wouldn't this all go away if

the judge said that each infringement is only worth 99p?

By revsorg on 27 Mar 2012

This reminds me of a story in the news a few months back. Neighbours had a dispute over planning. One of those in the dispute put a golly wog in their window. The other neighbour complained to the police. However no charges were brought as there was no proof of WHO put the golly wog in the window.

Same thing here. They wont be able to prove who actually downloaded anything..

By bigrob14 on 28 Mar 2012

Hard Times in the Pron Industry!

Is Ben dOver Hard up? Isn't that supposed to be good in his 'trade? If the likes of him suckseed (sic...in more ways than I care to contemplate!) then we are all truly buggered. I saw him interviewed on a Channel 4 documentary some months ago - he offered the young interviewer £5000 to shoot a 'specialist' (my words, not his) scene with himself - what an ugly sleazebag (personal opinion again!).
I can't imagine any way in which there would be £700 worth of damages due to him/his company - what multiple of the typical retail price would that represent? I know that unauthorized use of a photographic image (without licensing/permission) usually results in a punitive invoice for 3.5 times the usual rate. I wonder what valuation they are placing on their product in order to justify such a demand!

By Minou on 28 Mar 2012

Burn IT

What about dynamic IP addresses - yes maybe different ISP like Sky

By Burn_IT on 29 Mar 2012

Re: Burn_IT

@Burn_IT - It doesn't matter about Dynamic IP. When you login to your internet account (using your router) for the first time, the router is given an IP address. This is noted by the ISP in account records. When the session ends, this fact is also recorded. When a new session starts a new IP is produced and is again stored in account details. Dynamic IP addresses tended to change far more often when people were using dial-up. These days the "Dynamic IP" address is more like a static IP because routers are on for months or years at a time. However Dynamic IP's are stored by the ISP for future reference, and not just for this purpose. There may be other reasons that ISP's need this info, not least of witch is to make sure that IP addresses are not duplicated. The time particular IP's are used is vital in this context. If the time is wrong, then the wrong subscriber could be caught.

By dmoriarty2 on 29 Mar 2012

Has something changed?

I'm still an O2 BB subscriber...

I thought these NPO cases were being abandoned, owing to the fact that the proceeds (from the handful of subscribers whose ignorant panic infers but doesn't prove their guilt) were simply not worth the cost of pursuance?

Has there even been an individual test case in court yet?

I'm still amazed that not everybody looks at Metallica vs Napster and thinks "Hmm, which side ended up as the billionaire?" But then, I suppose not everybody is as intelligent as Shaun Fanning, but surely plenty must be as daft as Lars Ulrich.

I'm still waiting for one of these letters to hit my doorstep so that I can laugh at it, and see how far they want to take me. I'm guessing they could force me all the way to a new ISP, if it even goes that far. What else could they possibly hope to get from suing my internet connection? It is an inanimate object with no means of income, let alone a sophisticated tracking mechanism that records precisely which MAC number was used for filesharing, even if that device could ever be proven to be within my property.

Have they tried to sue a coffee shop yet?

By baldmosher on 29 Mar 2012

We've all done it, but c'mon...

Wow, Rick Falkvinge's arguments are slightly odd...on the one hand he argues that we shouldn't have our web traffic monitored, in the same way we wouldn't like our paper mail tampered with - of course, who could argue with that - but then he goes on to claim that the copyright industry objects to this. I think what they probably object more to is that millions of people have assumed that they don't need to pay for stuff any more. Hey, maybe we don't need to pay for stuff any more! In that case, I'll be round your house tomorrow night, in the spirit of this new free sharing movement to 'share' your beer, wine fags, and maybe your girlfriend, while I'm at it.

By matflan1 on 29 Mar 2012

We've all done it, but c'mon...

Wow, Rick Falkvinge's arguments are slightly odd...on the one hand he argues that we shouldn't have our web traffic monitored, in the same way we wouldn't like our paper mail tampered with - of course, who could argue with that - but then he goes on to claim that the copyright industry objects to this. I think what they probably object more to is that millions of people have assumed that they don't need to pay for stuff any more. Hey, maybe we don't need to pay for stuff any more! In that case, I'll be round your house tomorrow night, in the spirit of this new free sharing movement to 'share' your beer, wine fags, and maybe your girlfriend, while I'm at it.

By matflan1 on 29 Mar 2012