PluseNet sells thousands of customers details for cash

[#1]

Your subscription costs haven't gone up since we have been getting these have they? Operational costs are something we always have.
I'm not sure there's an answer I can give that you'd like here, so I'll leave it at that for now given the main points have been addressed.

[#2]

Now that seems a shame.
I would have thought it reasonable that somebody accusing PN customers of breaking the law should cover the costs of enabling the ISP to comply with the order, as otherwise what is to stop somebody with a grudge making the request so onerous that it results in the company either going bust attempting to comply or not complying at all and then being dealt a further legal case to defend.
There is cash for providing the information by choice and then compensation for complying with a legal order.
As somebody who should not be on the list, I would like to confirm that my subscription fees should not be used to pay the legal costs of PN customer base who are responsible.

[#3]

@geoff

Quote

I would like to confirm that my subscription fees should not be used to pay the legal costs of PN customer base who are responsible.

As mand has already pointed out, this would be taken out of the 'operating costs budget' rather than the pot of money subscribers pay. Its all part of the overheads, and PN are required to answer the court order - theres no getting around that.

Quote

Your subscription costs haven't gone up since we have been getting these have they?

IIRC, there was a few 'high profile' ones around 2004/2005, where people had been using file sharing software - its not a new phenomena - just one thats occurring more regularly.
the ISP's banding together and telling companies like this to "shove off" will not go down well with rights holders, and they would then want to impose things like, in contracts with people like YouTube - no one from PN can watch any videos from XYZ... You cant go round being petty when it involves content providers unfortunately

[#4]

Not claiming the costs seems incredibly stupid to me. This time it may have been not many users details requested, next time it could be many fold more, but having established a precedent that PN don't claim the costs...
All you have done is make it certain that ACS Law are more likely to go after PN users that users of ISPs that claim the costs.
Thanks a bunch!

[#5]

could be that PN account system is so difficult to understand that they dont know what it cost

[#6]

TBH, id prefer PN to not charge for it. im sure they would just pass this cost on to anyone they "catch" advertantly, or inadvertantly.

[#7]

Regardless of the fact that subscription costs have not changed (apart from the fact that everybody is on different packages at different rates), I am still paying for this cost.
I would much rather that the costs were recovered from ACS Law and that the income from the customer base goes to pay the central overheads that are a necessary part of providing the service - namely employee's wages, office rental and broadband connectivity etc.
Legal costs are not normally factored into budgets and so have an adverse effect on the PN profit margin which could be negated by PN claiming these costs back where appropriate.

[#8]

Quote from: Mand

Your subscription costs haven't gone up since we have been getting these have they? Operational costs are something we always have. I'm not sure there's an answer I can give that you'd like here, so I'll leave it at that for now given the main points have been addressed.

While it is true that monthly subscriptions have not increased since you have been getting these, and operating costs are indeed something you will always have, I find the apparent policy decision to not recover costs extraordinary:

Quote from: Fletch

For absolute clarity on this issue:  at no point have Plusnet (or will do in the future) received any money for providing ACS Law with the detail which where requested via the court order. Fletch

At present, the source of these requests is marshalled through ACS Law, a small firm of solicitors with a sole principal named Andrew J. Crossley. With the passage into law of the Digital Economy Bill it is likely that rights holders will become much more proactive in this area and I for one would be disappointed if the volume of requests increased to such an extent that PlusNet management were facing choices such as maybe not taking on a new hire in the support department or deferring activating that new pipe because of a policy decision such as this.
From my own point of view, I think this aspect of the Bill is ultimately going to prove unenforceable and is doomed to fail. Until that happens, all ISPs including PlusNet are required to abide by it. That does NOT mean that thay have to roll over or, worse, be passively complicit in the whole shabby affair.

[#9]

It would seem that if Plusnet want to do unpaid work for ACS Law - or anybody else, then they are perfectly entitled to do so.
However, as a shareholder in BT  I'd actually prefer them to charge companies for provision of services.
BT shares aren't doing very well at the moment (wonder why)...

[#10]

I am in total agreement with what "Torbay Guy" put in his post on page 1 of this thread. Basically if you have not done anything which infringes anyone,s copywright, or have done nothing to annoy the neighbours,  ;),then you have nothing to worry about. I am 75, so I am past caring anyway.

[#11]

Norappy well said!

[#12]

Alrighty - so the estimated 10% of these "letters" that go to innocent people (like you!), demanding large sums of money with the threat of court action won't bother you?
And then when your internet connection is terminated because of the DEBill, even though you're totally innocent... still won't bother you?
I'm fed up with people using the "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" argument.  Sorry, but you do.
B.

[#13]

Quote from: Barry

"If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"...

I bet it's the same argument was used by the Nazis...

[#14]

Barry you sound rather paranoid mate.
The United Kingdom has the best legal system in the world, and before ANYBODY can disconnect you or fine you, they have to have that little thing called proof!!
No, Im not bothered if I get a letter.
If it ever happened, I would simply hand it to my solicitor, and tell him I definately did not do what the letter is accusing me of, and instruct him to defend me, and sue for costs.
Have you seen the american programmes with the paranoid computer geeks worried the worlds out to get them?

[#15]

I take it you have a static IP then.
If you don't, I'd be inclined to make a note of my IP address everytime I connect to the net in order for the possibilty that when the rights owners come knocking and ask for details, that you can prove that it was not you on that IP address at the time.
If you cannot, then let's face it, there is proof that the data was downloaded, there is proof that youv'e had the IP address.  There is no proof that it was not you.