Alleged film scam

[Davey]

The claim is for a downloading fee, not for distributing it, as I read it. If their Sky account says that they will pay when a film is downloaded, then they owe Sky, as a film was downloaded, even if it was the neighbours what did it. If the Sky account was either in the free trial period, or included free downloading of movies, fine, but I don't see either of those explained in the original post. If one of those conditions was true, then I would agree with you, but not if neither one was.

If my neighbour siphons off my electricity supply without my knowing, I, as the account owner, still owe SSE for the bill. It is then up to me to regain the value of the stolen power from the neighbour.

[Clive George]

It's nowt to do with the Sky films people. Sky are the ISP.

[whisky-dave]

In the past they perhaps didn't care or in some cases as our student said he didn't know he was sharing it. Sometimes people like the idea that they are providing a service to others. We do that all the time here, provide info and even do jobs as DIYers that can take jobs from the professionals but as yet that's not illegal.

[tim.....]

Plaintiff's (the people claiming that they are owed) have tried this argument in court already

and were told to Foxtrot Oscar.

It is NOT a valid argument that if you don't secure your wifi you are liable for the acts of someone who hacks it

tim

[Tim+]

How about going back and actually reading the original post, the article it links to and the letter quoted therein before you say anything else? You've clearly either not done this or skimmed it so quickly you've failed to understand it.

Sky were the customers ISP. The customer is being pursued for copyright infringement (by file sharing copyrighted material), not for refusing to pay for a download. It is NOT Sky doing the pursuing, it's agents acting for the copyright owners.

Tim Tim

[Andrew Gabriel]

Pretty sure I've seen on the real life drugs busts that they have to pay to get the door fixed afterwards if they don't find anything.

[Davey]

Yeah, I did just that, took more time to read it.

Ok, I'm convinced.

[Bob Eager]

Which reminded me that my ISP allows its customers to opt for a lunar billing cycle.

[Graham.]

James Arkell and I worked for the same company GTVR in 1971, not that I knew him, or even recall hearing his name at the time.

[Blano]

Because you aren't legally liable for what say a burglar does when inside your house with a service you have. This is no different legally.

[ARW]

I am sure that they pay f*ck all. Unless fixing means boarding up with plywood.

[Blano]

Wrong.

If the Sky account was either in the free

Wrong. And you aren't if a burglar orders a pizza delivered either.

It is then up to

[spuorgelgoog]

"Dear Sirs

I do not admit your claim.

Any court action will be vigorously defended and I will lodge a counter claim for costs and compensation.

Quod ultra denied.

Yours faithfully

A Friend"

IANAL

Owain

[Graham.]

Because you have misunderstood the issue. Sky in this case was an Internet service provider, not a broadcaster or content provider.

[Jethro_uk]

They may pay, but don't have to.

[John Rumm]

Sounds like twaddle to me...

Sky in this case are the ISP and are acting as a common carrier. They have no involvement in the dispute beyond connecting the aggrieved party to their customer.

[Davey]

See my post of 18:21 yesterday.

[Davey]

See my post of 18:21 yesterday.

[RJH]

Actually, yes, I remember from using a torrent programme, sharing is part and parcel of downloading. And if you leave the torrent prog open, it continues to upload.

That was a serious point Jeremy Hardy once made, in an argument against DIY in general, and flat packs in particular.

Just about the only thing I disagree with him about.

[Mark]

Go here