A previous posting here referred to another instance of this sort of
thing, but the discussion wandered a bit.

A friend of a friend received a letter from Sky like this

http://tinyurl.com/od8n9qq

relating to the downloading of a film in April 2013.

The subsequent letter from the company behind this asks them to agree to
pay "a sum of money as compensation to the claimant for the losses", and
doesn't give any hint as to the sum to be claimed.

They are given 28 days to respond. I suspect it is no coincidence that
it was sent out at the beginning of school summer holidays, and the
friend was indeed on holiday when it arrived.

I am surprised that Sky has given out the name and address of the
subscriber even if they have failed in their defence of the court order.
If I had received the letter, I would have immediately asked Sky to
provide me with their records relating to that IP address on the date in
question. Would this be a good thing to suggest to this subscriber?

The film in question can be rented for the monthly Netflix subscription
or free during the trial period.

No-one remembers downloading this film, and they are not aware of using
torrents to download. They have checked their router and they believe it
has the standard default password. An adjacent house is rented to
students.

Any thoughts welcome on what else to think about and what to suggest
they say, politely, in response.
--
Bill

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 12:11:51 +0100
Bill wrote:

No-one remembers downloading this film, and they are not aware of
using torrents to download. They have checked their router and they
believe it has the standard default password. An adjacent house is
rented to students.

Any thoughts welcome on what else to think about and what to suggest
they say, politely, in response.

It sounds as though basic defence wasn't implemented, and the students
probably latched on to their WiFi and watched the film. If this is the
case, the owner of the account owes Sky, and they had better beef up
their security A.S.A.P. The chances of proving it was the students is
small. They could try sending them a bill anyway.
If the students found this so easy, they can do a lot more.

--
Davey.

"In the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971), the plaintiff was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments, and the magazine (Private Eye) had ample evidence to back up the article.[26] Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply." The magazine responded: "We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: **** off."

Hth

Jim K

On Friday, 7 August 2015 12:56:10 UTC+1, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 12:11:51 +0100
Bill wrote:

No-one remembers downloading this film, and they are not aware of
using torrents to download. They have checked their router and they
believe it has the standard default password. An adjacent house is
rented to students.

Any thoughts welcome on what else to think about and what to suggest
they say, politely, in response.

It sounds as though basic defence wasn't implemented, and the students
probably latched on to their WiFi and watched the film.

With you so far.

If this is the case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Err, no.

and they had better beef up their security A.S.A.P.
At least we agree on that. (These days, most ISPs ship each router
with a unique password - and if you aren't using an ISP supplied
router, you are probably clueful enough to change the default as soon
as you get it.)

The chances of proving it was the students is small.

True. But Sky needs to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that
it wasn't. Given sworn witness statements from the owner and
other occupants, that is going to be hard.

They could try sending them a bill anyway.
If you can find them. The house may still be occupied by students,
but probably not the same ones. Even if they could find the relevant
students, I would advise them to respond with Arkell vs Pressdram.

If the students found this so easy, they can do a lot more.

On 07/08/2015 12:11, Bill wrote:

Snip.

Its probably a teenage son.

Any thoughts welcome on what else to think about and what to suggest
they say, politely, in response.

They aren't claiming they downloaded the film, they are claiming it was
made available for others to download.
Of course torrent clients do this if you let them.
It is this that is illegal.

Maybe you could claim they were not authorised to use the computer to
download anything and claim they were breaking the computer misuse act?
They couldn't know it was there without them trying to download it.

Or you could just tell them you have no idea what they are talking about
and to send you the evidence with an explanation as to what it means.

Or just ignore them which is what I would do, after all they can't prove
you have ever seen the letter.

Bill wrote:
A previous posting here referred to another instance of this sort of
thing, but the discussion wandered a bit.

A friend of a friend received a letter from Sky like this

http://tinyurl.com/od8n9qq

relating to the downloading of a film in April 2013.

Um, no. Relating to sharing a film.


The subsequent letter from the company behind this asks them to agree to
pay "a sum of money as compensation to the claimant for the losses", and
doesn't give any hint as to the sum to be claimed.

They are given 28 days to respond. I suspect it is no coincidence that it
was sent out at the beginning of school summer holidays, and the friend
was indeed on holiday when it arrived.

I am surprised that Sky has given out the name and address of the
subscriber even if they have failed in their defence of the court order.
If I had received the letter, I would have immediately asked Sky to
provide me with their records relating to that IP address on the date in
question. Would this be a good thing to suggest to this subscriber?

The film in question can be rented for the monthly Netflix subscription
or free during the trial period.

No-one remembers downloading this film, and they are not aware of using
torrents to download. They have checked their router and they believe it
has the standard default password. An adjacent house is rented to students.

Do they have a static IP address? I often wonder how they trace
downloads/uploads done via accounts that don't have fixed IP addresses.

Tim

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Bonner wrote:

If this is the case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Err, no.

Why not? If a film was downloaded using the Sky service, then the
account owner owes Sky for that download.
Who downloaded it is of no consequence.

I have no love of Sky, but why is this not the case?

--
Davey.

Davey posted
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 12:11:51 +0100
Bill wrote:

No-one remembers downloading this film, and they are not aware of
using torrents to download. They have checked their router and they
believe it has the standard default password. An adjacent house is
rented to students.

Any thoughts welcome on what else to think about and what to suggest
they say, politely, in response.

It sounds as though basic defence wasn't implemented, and the students
probably latched on to their WiFi and watched the film. If this is the
case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Nope. He doesn't owe anybody unless it can be proved that he personally
cause the movie to be distributed. Anyone who claims otherwise needs to
cite case law, and they will find that a difficult task in the wake of
the Davenport Lyons and related affairs.


and they had better beef up
their security A.S.A.P. The chances of proving it was the students is
small. They could try sending them a bill anyway.
If the students found this so easy, they can do a lot more.

The students have got nothing to do with it.

--
Les

Davey posted
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Bonner wrote:

If this is the case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Err, no.

Why not? If a film was downloaded using the Sky service, then the
account owner owes Sky for that download.

Sky is just a bystander in this. They didn't supply the movie.

Who downloaded it is of no consequence.

I have no love of Sky, but why is this not the case?


You have to explain why it *is* the case.

--
Les

"Davey" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Bonner wrote:

If this is the case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Err, no.

Why not? If a film was downloaded using the Sky service, then the
account owner owes Sky for that download.
Who downloaded it is of no consequence.

I have no love of Sky, but why is this not the case?

Because it is not Sky who is trying to claim.

Do they have a static IP address? I often wonder how they trace
downloads/uploads done via accounts that don't have fixed IP addresses.


They simply require the ISP to provide them with the subscribers details. All ISP's keep a log of IP addresses assigned when they are assigned.

Philip

In message ,
" writes
They simply require the ISP to provide them with the subscribers
details. All ISP's keep a log of IP addresses assigned when they are
assigned.

Wikipedia says

"United Kingdom

Like the rest of the EU the UK is subject to the European Union's Data
Retention Directive. All telecommunications data in the UK is kept for a
minimum of one year and a maximum of two years."

And the supposed making available of the film was well over 2 years ago.

Elsewhere, it seems that the European Court of Human Rights has declared
this illegal.

The film is available on YouTube. The person involved has daughters, and
doesn't necessarily accuse the students nearby of anything. I think the
point is that no-one knows. It doesn't seem to have been a very
memorable film.



--
Bill

In article ,
Davey writes:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Bonner wrote:

If this is the case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Err, no.

Why not? If a film was downloaded using the Sky service, then the
account owner owes Sky for that download.
Who downloaded it is of no consequence.

Exactly the wrong way around.

I have no love of Sky, but why is this not the case?

What offence are you suggesting the broadband account owner committed?

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
Tim+ writes:
Do they have a static IP address? I often wonder how they trace
downloads/uploads done via accounts that don't have fixed IP addresses.

Generally from the logs of DHCP servers, Radius servers, and the like
which will have known the mapping at the time.

However, there was recently a case where an ISP supplied wrong info to
the police, and the wrong people got their doors kicked in in the
middle of the night and all their computer equipment removed to search
for illegal images.

There seems to be a suggestion in this case that they used 2015 logs
to identify the addresses used in 2013.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Friday, 7 August 2015 14:23:06 UTC+1, Big Les Wade wrote:
Davey posted
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 12:11:51 +0100
Bill wrote:

No-one remembers downloading this film, and they are not aware of
using torrents to download. They have checked their router and they
believe it has the standard default password. An adjacent house is
rented to students.

Any thoughts welcome on what else to think about and what to suggest
they say, politely, in response.

It sounds as though basic defence wasn't implemented, and the students
probably latched on to their WiFi and watched the film. If this is the
case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Nope. He doesn't owe anybody unless it can be proved that he personally
cause the movie to be distributed. Anyone who claims otherwise needs to
cite case law, and they will find that a difficult task in the wake of
the Davenport Lyons and related affairs.


and they had better beef up
their security A.S.A.P. The chances of proving it was the students is
small. They could try sending them a bill anyway.
If the students found this so easy, they can do a lot more.

The students have got nothing to do with it.

We had a email from I think vivaldi claiming that one of our computers was sharing a film of theirs and that we should take steps to stop it.
It was a research student using a torrent service, he was tracked down via his IP. Nothing else happened as far as I know the student was spoken to apparently and that was that. Well I assume he was stopped and some warning not to do it again issued.

On 07 Aug 2015, Bill grunted:

The film is available on YouTube. The person involved has daughters, and
doesn't necessarily accuse the students nearby of anything. I think the
point is that no-one knows. It doesn't seem to have been a very
memorable film.

Perhaps that's why they are attempting to reap some revenue for it now...

--
David

On 07/08/2015 15:02, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Davey writes:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Bonner wrote:

If this is the case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Err, no.

Why not? If a film was downloaded using the Sky service, then the
account owner owes Sky for that download.
Who downloaded it is of no consequence.

Exactly the wrong way around.

I have no love of Sky, but why is this not the case?

What offence are you suggesting the broadband account owner committed?


IIUC, it's the hosting of the film, not the downloading, that's at
issue. As Tim+ tries to point out.

I've never understood why people host pirated files without protecting
their anonymity.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Friday, 7 August 2015 16:00:28 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 07/08/2015 15:02, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Davey writes:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Bonner wrote:

If this is the case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Err, no.

Why not? If a film was downloaded using the Sky service, then the
account owner owes Sky for that download.
Who downloaded it is of no consequence.

Exactly the wrong way around.

I have no love of Sky, but why is this not the case?

What offence are you suggesting the broadband account owner committed?


IIUC, it's the hosting of the film, not the downloading, that's at
issue. As Tim+ tries to point out.

I've never understood why people host pirated files without protecting
their anonymity.

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.

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 12:11:51 +0100
Bill wrote:

No-one remembers downloading this film, and they are not aware of
using torrents to download. They have checked their router and they
believe it has the standard default password. An adjacent house is
rented to students.

Any thoughts welcome on what else to think about and what to suggest
they say, politely, in response.

It sounds as though basic defence wasn't implemented, and the students
probably latched on to their WiFi and watched the film. If this is the
case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

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

In article ,
Jethro_uk writes:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:08:53 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

However, there was recently a case where an ISP supplied wrong info to
the police, and the wrong people got their doors kicked in in the middle
of the night and all their computer equipment removed to search for
illegal images.

With no recourse in law, don't forget. The police are not liable for
their actions under an erroneously -but lawfully - issued search warrant.

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.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:09:05 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 13:23:29 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 06:22:42 -0700, wrote:

Do they have a static IP address? I often wonder how they trace
downloads/uploads done via accounts that don't have fixed IP
addresses.


They simply require the ISP to provide them with the subscribers
details. All ISP's keep a log of IP addresses assigned when they are
assigned.

Philip

And that all involved (unlike UK plod, who raided the wrong address
based on an IP address) bear in mind any time zone offsets.

In a Fortean moment ... todays BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33815153

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

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:05:52 -0700 (PDT), JimK
wrote:

"In the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971), the plaintiff was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments, and the magazine (Private Eye) had ample evidence to back up the article.[26] Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply." The magazine responded: "We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: **** off."

Hth

Jim K

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.



--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Bonner wrote:

If this is the case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Err, no.

Why not? If a film was downloaded using the Sky service, then the
account owner owes Sky for that download.
Who downloaded it is of no consequence.

I have no love of Sky, but why is this not the case?

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.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jethro_uk writes:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:08:53 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

However, there was recently a case where an ISP supplied wrong info to
the police, and the wrong people got their doors kicked in in the middle
of the night and all their computer equipment removed to search for
illegal images.

With no recourse in law, don't forget. The police are not liable for
their actions under an erroneously -but lawfully - issued search warrant.

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.


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

--
Adam

On Friday, 7 August 2015 12:12:02 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
Any thoughts welcome on what else to think about and what to suggest
they say, politely, in response.

"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

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:11:30 +0100, Davey
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Bonner wrote:

If this is the case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Err, no.

Why not? If a film was downloaded using the Sky service, then the
account owner owes Sky for that download.
Who downloaded it is of no consequence.

I have no love of Sky, but why is this not the case?

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

--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On 07/08/2015 14:11, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Bonner wrote:

If this is the case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Err, no.

Why not? If a film was downloaded using the Sky service, then the
account owner owes Sky for that download.
Who downloaded it is of no consequence.

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.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:21:41 +0100
John Rumm wrote:

On 07/08/2015 14:11, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Bonner wrote:

If this is the case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Err, no.

Why not? If a film was downloaded using the Sky service, then the
account owner owes Sky for that download.
Who downloaded it is of no consequence.

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.





See my post of 18:21 yesterday.
--
Davey.

On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 23:03:45 +0100
Graham. wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:11:30 +0100, Davey
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Bonner wrote:

If this is the case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Err, no.

Why not? If a film was downloaded using the Sky service, then the
account owner owes Sky for that download.
Who downloaded it is of no consequence.

I have no love of Sky, but why is this not the case?

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



See my post of 18:21 yesterday.
--
Davey.

On 07/08/2015 16:35, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 7 August 2015 16:00:28 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
On 07/08/2015 15:02, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Davey writes:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Bonner wrote:

If this is the case, the owner of the account owes Sky,

Err, no.

Why not? If a film was downloaded using the Sky service, then the
account owner owes Sky for that download.
Who downloaded it is of no consequence.

Exactly the wrong way around.

I have no love of Sky, but why is this not the case?

What offence are you suggesting the broadband account owner committed?


IIUC, it's the hosting of the film, not the downloading, that's at
issue. As Tim+ tries to point out.

I've never understood why people host pirated files without protecting
their anonymity.

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.

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.

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.


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.

--
Cheers, Rob

wrote in message
...
On Friday, 7 August 2015 12:12:02 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
Any thoughts welcome on what else to think about and what to suggest
they say, politely, in response.

"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



Go here
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopi...634&start=1675

In message , John
Rumm writes
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.

And I still want to know whether, if my friend of friend became
aggressive they would have a claim against Sky.
The 2006 EU Data Retention Directive, which Sky apparently claims to be
working to, states that data should be retained for a maximum of 2
years, and yet Sky has passed on information, which may or may not be
correct, from well over 2 years ago.


--
Bill

In message , Bill
writes
And I still want to know whether, if my friend of friend became
aggressive they would have a claim against Sky.
The 2006 EU Data Retention Directive, which Sky apparently claims to be
working to, states that data should be retained for a maximum of 2
years, and yet Sky has passed on information, which may or may not be
correct, from well over 2 years ago.

Sorry to follow up my own post, but I've now looked at the Directive,
and it looks as though Sky has broken the law. The alleged IP address
allocation was for the date of April 2013 and the Sky letter was dated
July 2015.
See the first and last paragraphs below:

"Article 6

Periods of retention

Member States shall ensure that the categories of data specified in
Article 5 are retained for periods of not less than six months and not
more than two years from the date of the communication.

Article 7

Data protection and data security

Without prejudice to the provisions adopted pursuant to Directive
95/46/EC and Directive 2002/58/EC, each Member State shall ensure that
providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of
a public communications network respect, as a minimum, the following
data security principles with respect to data retained in accordance
with this Directive:

(a)


the retained data shall be of the same quality and subject to the same
security and protection as those data on the network;

(b)


the data shall be subject to appropriate technical and organisational
measures to protect the data against accidental or unlawful destruction,
accidental loss or alteration, or unauthorised or unlawful storage,
processing, access or disclosure;

(c)


the data shall be subject to appropriate technical and organisational
measures to ensure that they can be accessed by specially authorised
personnel only;

and

(d)


the data, except those that have been accessed and preserved, shall be
destroyed at the end of the period of retention."
--
Bill

Bill wrote:
In message , Bill writes
And I still want to know whether, if my friend of friend became
aggressive they would have a claim against Sky.
The 2006 EU Data Retention Directive, which Sky apparently claims to be
working to, states that data should be retained for a maximum of 2
years, and yet Sky has passed on information, which may or may not be
correct, from well over 2 years ago.

Sorry to follow up my own post, but I've now looked at the Directive, and
it looks as though Sky has broken the law. The alleged IP address
allocation was for the date of April 2013 and the Sky letter was dated July 2015.
See the first and last paragraphs below:

"Article 6

Periods of retention

Member States shall ensure that the categories of data specified in
Article 5 are retained for periods of not less than six months and not
more than two years from the date of the communication.

Article 7

Data protection and data security

Without prejudice to the provisions adopted pursuant to Directive
95/46/EC and Directive 2002/58/EC, each Member State shall ensure that
providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of
a public communications network respect, as a minimum, the following data
security principles with respect to data retained in accordance with this Directive:

(a)


the retained data shall be of the same quality and subject to the same
security and protection as those data on the network;

(b)


the data shall be subject to appropriate technical and organisational
measures to protect the data against accidental or unlawful destruction,
accidental loss or alteration, or unauthorised or unlawful storage,
processing, access or disclosure;

(c)


the data shall be subject to appropriate technical and organisational
measures to ensure that they can be accessed by specially authorised personnel only;

and

(d)


the data, except those that have been accessed and preserved, shall be
destroyed at the end of the period of retention."

So, it looks like Sky have broken the law, but isn't that a separate issue
though? The issue of breach of copyright is still there surely?

Tim

In message
-septemb
er.org, Tim+ writes
Bill wrote:
In message , Bill
writes
And I still want to know whether, if my friend of friend became
aggressive they would have a claim against Sky.
The 2006 EU Data Retention Directive, which Sky apparently claims to be
working to, states that data should be retained for a maximum of 2
years, and yet Sky has passed on information, which may or may not be
correct, from well over 2 years ago.

Sorry to follow up my own post, but I've now looked at the Directive, and
it looks as though Sky has broken the law. The alleged IP address
allocation was for the date of April 2013 and the Sky letter was
dated July 2015.
See the first and last paragraphs below:

"Article 6

Periods of retention

Member States shall ensure that the categories of data specified in
Article 5 are retained for periods of not less than six months and not
more than two years from the date of the communication.

Article 7

Data protection and data security

Without prejudice to the provisions adopted pursuant to Directive
95/46/EC and Directive 2002/58/EC, each Member State shall ensure that
providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of
a public communications network respect, as a minimum, the following data
security principles with respect to data retained in accordance with
this Directive:

(a)


the retained data shall be of the same quality and subject to the same
security and protection as those data on the network;

(b)


the data shall be subject to appropriate technical and organisational
measures to protect the data against accidental or unlawful destruction,
accidental loss or alteration, or unauthorised or unlawful storage,
processing, access or disclosure;

(c)


the data shall be subject to appropriate technical and organisational
measures to ensure that they can be accessed by specially authorised
personnel only;

and

(d)


the data, except those that have been accessed and preserved, shall be
destroyed at the end of the period of retention."

So, it looks like Sky have broken the law, but isn't that a separate issue
though? The issue of breach of copyright is still there surely?

Tim
Well, IANAL, but I would have thought that an alleged, disputed and
unprovable breach of copyright based on data that was illegally held and
that did not incriminate the person named in the data would not be a
sensible place from which to start any legal action or threat.

We have a few more days to decide whether they should just bin the
letters or respond. I'd be tempted to respond quite aggressively to Sky
and copy in the dodgy law firm/copyright purchaser, but it might be
interesting to take all this along to the local CAB (who are suggested
by Sky) and see what they advise.

I'm grateful for the pointers in this thread to the other reports about
this.
--
Bill

On 08/08/2015 17:43, Bill wrote:
In message
-septemb
er.org, Tim+ writes
Bill wrote:
In message , Bill
writes
And I still want to know whether, if my friend of friend became
aggressive they would have a claim against Sky.
The 2006 EU Data Retention Directive, which Sky apparently claims to be
working to, states that data should be retained for a maximum of 2
years, and yet Sky has passed on information, which may or may not be
correct, from well over 2 years ago.

Sorry to follow up my own post, but I've now looked at the Directive,
and
it looks as though Sky has broken the law. The alleged IP address
allocation was for the date of April 2013 and the Sky letter was
dated July 2015.
See the first and last paragraphs below:

"Article 6

Periods of retention

Member States shall ensure that the categories of data specified in
Article 5 are retained for periods of not less than six months and not
more than two years from the date of the communication.

Article 7

Data protection and data security

Without prejudice to the provisions adopted pursuant to Directive
95/46/EC and Directive 2002/58/EC, each Member State shall ensure that
providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of
a public communications network respect, as a minimum, the following
data
security principles with respect to data retained in accordance with
this Directive:

(a)


the retained data shall be of the same quality and subject to the same
security and protection as those data on the network;

(b)


the data shall be subject to appropriate technical and organisational
measures to protect the data against accidental or unlawful destruction,
accidental loss or alteration, or unauthorised or unlawful storage,
processing, access or disclosure;

(c)


the data shall be subject to appropriate technical and organisational
measures to ensure that they can be accessed by specially authorised
personnel only;

and

(d)


the data, except those that have been accessed and preserved, shall be
destroyed at the end of the period of retention."

So, it looks like Sky have broken the law, but isn't that a separate
issue
though? The issue of breach of copyright is still there surely?

Tim
Well, IANAL, but I would have thought that an alleged, disputed and
unprovable breach of copyright based on data that was illegally held and
that did not incriminate the person named in the data would not be a
sensible place from which to start any legal action or threat.

We have a few more days to decide whether they should just bin the
letters or respond. I'd be tempted to respond quite aggressively to Sky
and copy in the dodgy law firm/copyright purchaser, but it might be
interesting to take all this along to the local CAB (who are suggested
by Sky) and see what they advise.

I'm grateful for the pointers in this thread to the other reports about
this.

I'd bin them. It's obviously a scam

On 07/08/2015 18:51, Bob Eager wrote:


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


Which in itself is not that wacky, several of my friends used to be paid
"4 weekly" as opposed to "Monthly".



--
CB

In article ,
CB wrote:
On 07/08/2015 18:51, Bob Eager wrote:


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


Which in itself is not that wacky, several of my friends used to be paid
"4 weekly" as opposed to "Monthly".

Indeed - that is how my UK (state) pension is paid.

--
Please note new email address:

On 10/08/15 09:38, charles wrote:
In article ,
CB wrote:
On 07/08/2015 18:51, Bob Eager wrote:


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


Which in itself is not that wacky, several of my friends used to be paid
"4 weekly" as opposed to "Monthly".

Indeed - that is how my UK (state) pension is paid.

Mmm. That reminds me. How do you tell those people of a change of address?


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 9:30:22 AM UTC+1, CB wrote:
On 07/08/2015 18:51, Bob Eager wrote:


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


Which in itself is not that wacky, several of my friends used to be paid
"4 weekly" as opposed to "Monthly".



--
CB

I had a friend who was paid by the calender month and his wife whinged endlessly about the 5 week months when she claimed she was left a week short.