BT prepping challenges over file-sharing court orders
By Stewart Mitchell
Posted on 5 Oct 2010 at 11:41
A BT legal battle could have far-reaching implications for the way internet piracy is policed, the telecommunications giant believes.
BT has secured an adjournment in a case involving law firm Gallant Macmillan, which is seeking court orders on behalf of the Ministry of Sound over alleged illegal downloads.
Gallant Macmillan is looking to force a group of ISPs - including BT-owned PlusNet, Sky and Be Broadband - to hand over the names and addresses of people the law firm believed had downloaded music without paying.
We want to ensure broadband subscribers are adequately protected so that rights holders can pursue their claims without causing unnecessary worry to innocent people
However, in the wake of last week's ACS:Law data breach fiasco, BT has had the case adjourned until 11 January while it prepares to ask the courts for a “a moratorium on outstanding applications and orders”.
“The incident involving the ACS:Law data leak has further damaged people’s confidence in the current process,” said a spokesperson for PlusNet, which is owned by BT. “We’re pleased that the court has agreed to an adjournment so that our concerns can be examined by the court, this will then act as a precedent or test case for the future.”
Level of evidence
BT is believed to be considering asking the courts to rethink the level of evidence presented by rights holders before ISPs are required to divulge customer details, and for proof of sufficient Data Protection Act safeguards within law firms collecting the data.
Asked whether the company would be asking for rights enforcers to show stronger evidence that customers had been file-sharing, a BT spokesperson would only say “that is one of the arguments that's out there”.
However, a company statement did indeed hint that it would be seeking solid proof before agreeing to hand over details. Under the current system, the IP address alone is taken almost as proof of guilt, allowing law firms to send out threatening letters.
“We want to ensure broadband subscribers are adequately protected so that rights holders can pursue their claims for copyright infringement without causing unnecessary worry to innocent people,” the company said.
BT is already challenging the new Digital Economy Act that was pushed into legislation just before this year's general election, and was also unhappy about ISPs being asked to pay 25% of the costs for a system of warning letters to be sent to alleged filesharers.
From around the web
The fundamental question
I've been trying to follow that whole issue for a while and there's still one thing I don't understand at all. So the procedure is as follows: the copyright holder (e.g. Sony, Warner etc) suspects a member of the public of copyright infringement, refers a case to a law firm and the law firm contacts an ISP asking for the details of said member of public.
How on earth, the copyright holder starts suspecting a random citizen in the first place? Are THEY scanning our network traffic in any way???
By Josefov on 5 Oct 2010 ![]()
Easy!!!!
For torrents, just open the torrent client, open the torrent file, start sharing, and then watch all the IP addresses of the seeds/peers appear on the screen. You even get the country that there in.
"easy money"
By andy_fogg on 5 Oct 2010 ![]()
Well, yes, they are. In the same fashion as a honeypot network works they attract 'bees' using content uploaded and then monitor the IPs that access that content to download it.
This whole nonsense would go away if companies allowed everyone to buy their stuff on the day of release, removed the geographical nonsense at the right price.
I suppose piracy is the price they pay for draconian market control.
By bubbles16 on 5 Oct 2010 ![]()
it's a bit of entrapment if that is how they're doing it.
However if you use Peer Blocker you will notice that your computer is forever being scanned, hundreds per hour by all sorts of companies
By TimoGunt on 5 Oct 2010 ![]()
WOW
THAT easy? I'm really baffled. I'd expect superhackers of anti-copyright underground to come up with better ways of disguising their sinful deeds :)
By Josefov on 5 Oct 2010 ![]()
Entrapment
Yes, it is effectively - but it's neither the rights holder, nor the Law firm that's gathering the evidence.
Seems there's a company in Switzerland that does the torrenting & IP gathering for them.
And it's a civil case. The police are not allowed to use entrapment, but this is not the police.
By greemble on 6 Oct 2010 ![]()
The court order is supposed to get details for court action not threatening letters. Also, the data has to be sent encrypted, but their is no obligation to supply the decryption information. Similarly, one does not have to fill in one's tax return in English!
By DrTeeth on 7 Oct 2010 ![]()
advertisement
- Laptop bag reviews: nine tested
- Sony VAIO T Series Ultrabook review: first look
- Revealed: the military standards and robots HP uses to test its laptops
- Windows 8: multi-monitors and double standards?
- Why is TalkTalk's year-old porn filter suddenly big news?
- Why are laptop screens so far behind mobiles?
- HP EliteBook Folio review: first look
- The shoebox-sized all-in-one printer
- Forget the Ultrabook: here comes the HP Sleekbook
- HP Spectre XT review: first look
- ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite
- Webroot Internet Security Essentials
- Trend Micro Internet Security
- PC Tools Internet Security 2009
- Panda Internet Security 2009
- Norton Internet Security 2009
- Kaspersky Internet Security 2009
- F-Secure Internet Security 2009
- AVG Internet Security 8
- BullGuard Internet Security 8.5
advertisement
