PluseNet sells thousands of customers details for cash

[#1]

Guilty until you prove yourself to be innocent?
Or am I being paranoid?

[#2]

Quote

Guilty until you prove yourself to be innocent?

Thats pretty much how the bill reads  

[#3]

What a load of old cobblers!
Its upto them to prove me guilty beyond reasonable doube, not the other way around.
And that is straight from the Magna Carta!!

[#4]

The Magna Carta is not a "Bill of Rights"
Any law can be made to supersede it - AFAIK there was a trial a few months ago where someone was found guilty in the absence of a jury of their peers...

[#5]

Yes there was, and there has been a law for hundreds of years saying that if there was an extreme risk to a jury, either from bribary or other intimidation then a court can sit in their absence.
How this relates to a company bullying gulliable people into giving them money though, I dont know.
And as for the Magna Carta, I know exactly what is!
It also states that any Englishman has the right to a FAIR trial.
If I ever got one of these letters, before laughing at them down the phone, I would opt for a court case, and allow it to be fought out through the legal route.
Now please, put your conspiracy theories where they belong.....
In the bin!!

[#6]

Don't the rights to a fair trial etc. relate to a criminal case? This is a civil case and the law recently passed does put the onus on the user to prove their innocence.

[#7]

Quote from: torbayguy

Now please, put your conspiracy theories where they belong..... In the bin!!

What conspiracy theory?
I've just stated the situation as I view it.
A whole load of evidence that can be used in court against you and your "It wasn't me guv!" attitude.
Given that there is a history of miscarriages of justice in this country, I for one would not like to rely on the justice system to be concluded fairly.  I would much rather be able to prove my innocence beyond reasonable doubt rather than rely on other people to think the other way.

[#8]

As copyright infringement is a civil offence, the burden of proof is lower.
This means that instead of the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard required in criminal cases, the claimant is only required to show that the defendant performed the act (of infringement in this case) on the "balance of probabilities", i.e. it is "likely" that the defendant is guilty.
Coupled with that in the case of the DE Bill are the clauses in section 124K where the cost of mounting an appeal is met by internet service providers, copyright holders and the subscriber concerned
As Barry Zubel has pointed out, a significant proportion of the cases already heard have been shown to involve evidence that has subsequently been shown to be flawed. Sometimes this is as simple as mixing up timestamp data during manual processing, or failing to adjust for daylight saving time when comparing date information from the torrent swarm with IP lease time data provided by the ISP.
It seems therefore that there is at least some potential for complete innocents to find themselves having to fund their way through a complex legal process where the accuser has only a small incentive to get the facts right at the start.
On the wider issue of the much trumpeted conspiracy theory, I have always subscribed to the cock-up theory myself. Politicians have allowed themselves to be convinced by very powerful vested interests that the sky is falling, jobs or event whole industries are at stake and "something must be done".
From a politicians perpective, this is something, therefore it must be done. History shows that in such circumstances, it is really quite unusual for the resulting legislation to either address the real problem, or be free from unintended and quite often disasterous side effects.
I would hope that ISPs in general, and PlusNet in particular are keeping themselves up to speed here and putting in place the groundwork to ensure that their interests as well as that of their subscribers is catered for.
From the evidence presented so far, I remain to be convinced.

[#9]

Midlifer, Plusnet cant even run my service properly, so I wouldnt hold your breath!

[#10]

Quote from: torbayguy

It also states that any Englishman has the right to a FAIR trial. If I ever got one of these letters, before laughing at them down the phone, I would opt for a court case, and allow it to be fought out through the legal route. Now please, put your conspiracy theories where they belong..... In the bin!!

But that's the point people are trying to make, and why the new Bill has caused such a stink - it seems to trample over these long-established rights. Whether you think it is daft conspiracy or not, the truth is that people are being accused of things and being expected to pay substantial unrecoverable court costs to prove themselves innocent.
Some of this comes from foolish lawmakers failing to understand technology (e.g. IP records are not proof - IP's can be, and are, faked regularly), and some is the sheer economic pressure that the behemoth organsiations like the film or music industries can bring to sway governments.
I don't condone piracy, and TBH the levels to which it has now elevated are truly ridiculous. However, pointing at random people and saying "he's guilty 'cos I said so" is not a useful cure for the problem. To draw a very volatile parallel that I'll probably regret, people want to improve the conviction rates for rape allegations. Ok, understandable. If you were a woman who was raped you'd be furious at how difficult it is to "prove" who, or even if, someone did it. However, pressure to change the law to make the burden of proof on the accused has people up in arms (rightly so IMO) because it makes the presumption of "guilty until proven innocent", and there have been plenty of false allegations to "get back at someone". Now that's a very serious crime with dreadful consequences, whereas with music/film piracy we're just talking about some uber-rich people thinking they can get even richer by re-writing laws to make you automatically guilty. Oddly, they are having more success at this travesty than victims of more serious crimes.
Still think it's trivial?

[#11]

Yes I do.
I had a bailiff at my door the other week because I had apparantly driven through London and not paid the congestion charge, however I have never taken my current car to London, it was cloned.
I asked him to produce proof, he couldnt, so I invited him to leave rather more quickly than he came in, and told him to bring proof or bugger off.
He hasent been back.
That is the same response I would give these people.
A great big UP YOURS!
If you are stupid enough to pay money for something you havent done, then its your own stupid fault at the end of the day.

[#12]

Some people get scared when a couple of bouncers turn up at their address.
When they are alone, a few hundred pounds can seem worthwhile to make them go away.

[#13]

thats understandable, but they can always shut the door!
Call the police even.

[#14]

Quote

Call the police even.

useful.. ? 
and no, not really - if i was home alone and someone knocked on the door demanding money, i think i'd brick it tbh.

[#15]

If a bailiff turns up and you get nasty the police will already be there - to support the bailiffs.