KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
Despite the fact that in the UK online sharers have to worry about the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit and MPAA backed organisations like FACT gunning for them with piracy charges, we've avoided most of the problems that other nations like the U.S. have faced when it comes to copyright trolls. Rarely have we seen the big extorting, threatening letters sent to alleged pirates demanding monetary payment to avoid court time. But that may be about to change.
Maverick Eye, a German company that has helped spearhead international campaigns for the likes of the Dallas Buyer's Club producers, has now teamed up with British law firm Hatton and Berkeley to begin going after torrenters and other downloaders and streamers in the UK.
This guy on the Maverick homepage is about to Hadouken that copyright logo right in pirates faces
“Since July this year, Hatton & Berkeley and Maverick Eye have been busy working with producers, lawyers, key industry figures, investors, partners, and supporters to develop a program to protect the industry and defend the UK cinema against rampant piracy online,” Maverick Eye said (via TorrentFreak).
“The entertainment industry can expect even more from these experts as they continue the fight against piracy in the UK.”
It's not been said which company or companies that Maverick Eye and its legal friends will be representing, but it's worked with many different studios and filmmakers in the past, so it has quite a breadth of friends to choose from.
Meeting with @CitypolicePIPCU this morning along with some of our studio members to discuss partnership working & #OpCreative
— FACT (@factuk) October 1, 2015
Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.
KitGuru Says: PIPCU and FACT are working more closely together though. Makes you wonder if Maverick Eye is getting in on that partnership.
Image source: Maverick Eye
A waste of time, an IP address does not identify an individual. For example Every single friend and family member I have has access to my WiFi – it’s the way we make people feel at home, “would you like a drink and the WiFi password ?” It may sound strange but as we are on unlimited WiFi it makes no difference to us if friends/family want to use the connection to check in with their online life.
My point is that how can anyone prove who downloaded what ? There is no way on this earth I can get prosecuted if someone happens to start a torrent going whilst they are on a visit, I mean, how the hell am I supposed to know what they are doing with their personal equipment? You can’t say “you can use my WiFi as long as I can see what you are doing at all times” can you ?
Until there is a foolproof way to attach a crime to a specific person this will fail as long as people stand their ground.
Oh and I don’t condone piracy in the slightest but I also don’t condone these bullying tactics either.
ignore the letters. dont read them, DONT respond to them, just throw them away. essentially its fishing, they’re not going to try to reel you in unless you trip the bobber, so if you don’t respond to the letters you won’t really have an issue.
last tuesday I got a top of the range Honda from earning $16020 this last four weeks and also ten-k last-month . this is definitely the coolest work I have ever done . Without any question it’s the most financially rewarding Ive had . I started this 4 months ago & practicaIIy straight away began to bring home over $97 p/h .Visit weblink to start immediately.
..u3g……
➤➤➤➤ http://GoogleExtraPayingTopJobssuperiorEmploymentProjects/Get/Start/Today… ✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱
Whilst I fully agree with your point, unfortunately it becomes the responsibility of the person paying the bill, that is who the letter will be addressed to and that person will automatically become the scape goat.
Exactly the same as a driving offence, if they can’t prove it then it goes to the named driver of the vehicle.
not in the UK it doesn’t, with your example if there is an incident with a car it must be proved who is driving at the time, if no driver can be found no fine/sentence can be given.
If that were the case then speed cameras wouldn’t work in the UK, under those rules it is the stated driver on the V5C document that the fine goes to and it is then down to that person to tell them who it was or face the penalty themselves, exactly how this copyright issue will go.
There have been documented cases in the past where those fines have been unenforceable due to two parties blaming each other for driving but there was no proof as to who was, but in most cases these days the cameras are of better quality and so it is possible to make out who the driver is, ending the issues of identification. A neighbour of mine got recently done in Brighton (a close call with an amber light ) and the photo’s that were sent through it was easy enough to see he was driving even though they were taken after the car had passed the camera.
I do agree that this case is probably not going to have a positive outcome now though as the consumer knackered himself because he told the truth as to why he wanted to return it instead of lying……..how bad is that ?
You know that’s not the best advice in dealing with copyright cases. Based one my brother’s first experience getting a copyright letter, he completely ignored it but it backfired. The only way to make it go away is to respond to it and clear your name.
90% of them are coming from companies that are just looking for someone to blame. they send them out en masse hoping for someone to bite and when they do they start pressuring them with threatening letters, generally demanding some amount of money to make the threatening letters go away. its not much different then a chain letter or one of those telephone scams really.
like several above said, there’s really no way for them to prove you guilty in any court. so responding to those letters is almost an admittance of guilt, and they’ll treat it that way.
These entities might be principled by profit but they are only hired by content holders who seek copyright protection. Or maybe, the way they worded it made us reflect on what my brother has done. You know what I mean? Besides, isn’t the UK government considering a 10-year prison sentence (max) for copyright offenses? So, we chose the option that we can handle because it really could’ve been worse.