Plusnet will give your personal details to ACS Law with not informing you!!

[#1]

Slowly one by one ISPS are begining to realise they need to put their customers first !
http://www.slyck.com/story2077_XILO_Communications_Say_No_Way_to_IP_Address_Demands
United we stand divided we fall ........................

[#2]

The lesson to be learnt is do not use torrents unless you are using a VPN or a seedbox.
There are other ways to do it but I had best not say what but you could use a net to catch the files you need.

[#3]

Toolbox, plenty of people that got letters from ACS:Law never used a torrent, or even knew what one was - that's why the speculative invoicning scheme is so named.
This isn't about catching file-sharers, it's about raising revenue from anyone they can frighten into paying up.
Don't forget that, because MoS, Gallant Macmillan and ACS:Law would love you to.

[#4]

Quote from: Toolbox

The lesson to be learnt is do not use torrents unless you are using a VPN or a seedbox. There are other ways to do it but I had best not say what but you could use a net to catch the files you need.

Why not?  There are plenty of legit reasons to use torrents that should not result in you needing to use anything other than your torrent client of choice.

[#5]

The scam artists are only monitoring cheesy popular music and porn anyway.

[#6]

I wouldn't bet on that.

[#7]

Personally I've never used torrents, I hear to many bad things about them but anyway If any one would like to continue using torrents I don't see why not, Especially If your downloading a few Linux distros, Lets see them try taking that to court!!

[#8]

The question is how did the record companies get the information, they must have intecepted telecommunications as 'plus' did not supply the IP addresses. This is illegal without a RIPA warrent, refer to:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents
When they put that fake torrent up or equivalent they were intercepting your telecommunications to get your address. So is their evidence illegally gathered and if so is probably not admissable in court. We never hear of the companies having interception warrents. Try a reverse sue for unlawful interception if they don't have one 
If you were caught on a real torrent they were attached to was not the copyright holder then the person doing the sharing? We could maybe detect their shares and just download from them for legal copies.
This is all just my opinion, do your own research.
I don't download and think there must be a better solution the music companies can put in place.

[#9]

@germ, no interception is needed, indeed it would be way over complicated.
All thats needed to get a list of potential IP addresses is to contact a torrent tacker in exactly the same way as a normal torrent client does.
If you will, the tracker publishes the list of IP addresses, however there is no reason to assume that the IP addresses it publishes are all involved in downloading/uploading the torrent.

[#10]

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing-part-one
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing-part-two
Background and report of Mondays hearing.

[#11]

Well apparently 17 people attended the hearing

• Thats at least 2 solicitors (one for each side)


• Fletch


• BBC reporter


• Open Rights Group


• BPI


• BE ?


• Guardian ?

I wonder who the other 9 people were.

[#12]

But getting an IP address is an interception as it was not meant for them. Thats the key to the act it stops third parties from hacking you phone calls, else everyone could hack whatever communications medium legally. This stops for example the Diana gate call monitoring.

[#13]

It is not interception if the information is published.
Any more than the leaking of ACS Laws data was hacking - they published it.
When you file share, you are effectively publishing your IP as an open invitation to trade files (or parts of files). If someone else decides to look at that published IP for other purposes, it does not make it interception. (At least, that is my layman's view)

[#14]

Quote from: germ

But getting an IP address is an interception as it was not meant for them. Thats the key to the act it stops third parties from hacking you phone calls, else everyone could hack whatever communications medium legally. This stops for example the Diana gate call monitoring.

I don't think things published to anyone that wants to listen can ever be described as interception.

[#15]

An ip address doesn't identify an individual either.