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

[#1]

Of course Plusnet's legal team is the BT legal team. So if BT have raised objections to the DEA, it could be mostly because of the likes of Fletch's hard work over here at Plusnet bringing it to their attention... (even if it is flagged under the name of  "BT", it might represent all their "brands" including Plusnet)
It might be worth Plusnet getting their own name specifically mentioned in relation to the DEA too though, as it can't be bad publicity to have your name being repeatedly mentioned alongside BT and TalkTalk whenever the DEA is talked about....
Mike

[#2]

At first reading I thought Fletch's post was his own commentary on what had been happening.
You might like to compare his words with http://community.bt.com/t5/The-Lounge/ACS-Law-Update/td-p/152543

[#3]

Quote from: XPC

So if BT have raised objections to the DEA, it could be mostly because of the likes of Fletch's hard work over here at Plusnet

BT raised the objections to the DEA before things got excited here about ACS:Law

Quote from: jelv

At first reading I thought Fletch's post was his own commentary on what had been happening.

Me too.  But on reflection, a statement that will have taken drafting and lawyering, I'm not surprised they only did the excersize once, and who knows, it may have a statement that Fletch put much time into.

[#4]

As it was a joint statement I'd have expected the post to be something like "There's been a lot going on, here's a joint statement being issued to both BT and Plusnet customers".

[#5]

Quote from: jelv

At first reading I thought Fletch's post was his own commentary on what had been happening. You might like to compare his words with http://community.bt.com/t5/The-Lounge/ACS-Law-Update/td-p/152543

So by 'we' it's BT that appear to have issued this statement and would represent Plusnet as Fletch posted it which appeared to be a Plusnet response?

[#6]

ACS law attorney faces disciplinary hearing June 3rd
www.zeropaid.com

[#7]

Quote

New Media Law (NML), a UK based law firm, has leapt on the Digital Economy Act's (DEA) recent problems by proposing their own solution to "illegal" internet copyright infringement (piracy) - a £1 per month music tax. This would be applied to almost all of the country's broadband ISP connections, with the revenue being distributed amongst the copyright holders, based on a statistical assessment of what music is being streamed or downloaded via the internet.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/04/05/uk-law-firm-calls-for-broadband-isp-customers-to-pay-a-n...

[#8]

Not the first time its been proposed.

[#9]

I'd be happy to have cost-free access to all of Amazon's content for my £1 per month!
I'd want video and books included though.

[#10]

From BBC News website -
'Chaotic' ACS:Law facing costs over file-sharing cases
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13116796

[#11]

Morning PLUSNET,
Please can we have some sort of update to what Fletch said

Quote

Reply #2148 on 22/03/2011, 15:56 Digiprotect was another client of ACS:Law. We have already disclosed some customer details to them under a court order in early 2010.  Since even before the revelations about ACS:Law, we had been challenging Digiprotect on their use of that data but did not get satisfactory answers. We have now taken the matter back to court and secured an order requiring Digiprotect either to issue proceedings or delete the data. The time for issuing proceedings has now expired and the data should be deleted.

Has DIGIPROTECT Destroyed the Data given to them in response to ALL NPO's?
Has GALLANT McMILLAN and THE MINISTRY OF SOUND destroyed all data given to them in response to ALL NPO's?
Has TILLY BAILLY IRVINE destroyed all data given to them in response to ALL NPO's?
Also What is PLUSNET's position regarding the DIGITAL ECONOMY ACT and the ACS Law findings. Afterall JUDGE BIRSE said in court that he did not think that a IP address alone was enough to prove Copyright infringement, and this is the ONLY evidence that a rights holder will need to have someones internet connection disconnected. (he did not rule on this however as the court hearing was only MEDIACAT trying to discontinue the cases not them trying to prove copyright infringement)
does PLUSNET think it fair that "Alleged infringers" will have to prove that they did not do the infringements (Prove a negative) rather than the rightsholders having to Proove that they did the deed.

[#12]

Well I'm glad ACS:Law have been exposed for the shamsters they are, and now that they've closed up shop, I'd be pretty red in the face if I were Plusnet, knowing that I'd fully complied with their outrageous demands. I'm just glad the internet community spoke up when they did and helped put an end to it.

[#13]

I suspect that the incompetent response by ACS:Law to the attack by Anonymous was a major factor in their downfall.
The legal manoeuvrings played only a minor role (thanks, BT & Plusnet).

[#14]

i have just been reading RALLI, the website where court cases are listed and the transcriptions are posted and have read the judgement from Mondays ACS law hearing. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/10.html
in the transcript the judge questions why ACS law did not adhere to section 11 of the NPO regarding the production of a report to the ISPs

Quote

ii) Paragraph 11 of the order provides that a report will be provided by the Applicant to the Respondent ISPs within 6 months of the date of the order. The report was to state precisely, from the names disclosed, how many persons were sent letters of claim and against which persons legal proceedings were issued. In her witness statement served well in advance of the hearing Ms Perchal drew attention to this paragraph and made the point that it clearly envisages that the legal proceedings were meant to be issued within 6 months of the order. Plainly that did not happen and before me there is no evidence that any report was ever prepared either. The only point taken on behalf of ACS:Law about this is that the breach of paragraph 11 cannot have caused any wasted costs. In my judgment Mr Parker is right that no wasted costs flow from this apparent breach of the order. I will hear counsel as to whether I should direct ACS:Law and/or Media CAT to provide the report to the court and the defendants' solicitors or explain why there is no report to provide.

perhaps PLUSNET should write to Judge Birse and inform him that they did incur costs trying to get ACS Law to provide said report in response to this forum.

[#15]

Not related to ACS:Law as such, but the BBC just announced a ruling about the Digital Economy Act:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13141986
It still stands.