Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Privacy Government Media Music The Courts News

UK ISPs To Hand Over Thousands of File Sharers' Data 180

Death Metal Maniac sends along a link from TorrentFreak on the latest development in game developer Topwear's battle against file sharers in the UK. "US game developer Topware Interactive, the people behind the now infamous Dream Pinball affair, are about to turn up the heat. Operating through London lawyers Davenport Lyons, they have managed to convince the High Court to send out an order demanding that ISPs in the UK start to hand over the details of several thousand alleged pirates ... BT, one of the UK's largest ISPs ..., confirmed it had been ordered to hand over details of alleged copyright infringing file-sharers ... Virgin Media was a little more slippery in its response but reading between the lines it seems obvious they are involved too."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK ISPs To Hand Over Thousands of File Sharers' Data

Comments Filter:
  • Re:No need to worry (Score:3, Informative)

    by StreetStealth ( 980200 ) on Friday September 05, 2008 @10:16AM (#24887813) Journal

    Don't forget to assume the Party Escort Position!

  • Re:Land of the free (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05, 2008 @10:24AM (#24887937)

    You must have left the UK a while ago. The ambulance chasers are alive and well in the UK. Big ads on the TV like we have in the US.

  • What affair? (Score:4, Informative)

    by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Friday September 05, 2008 @10:29AM (#24888003)
    the people behind the now infamous Dream Pinball affair,

    OK, I'll bite, what "now infamous Dream Pinball affair"? Gee Slashdot, this is the web and a post in HTML. Would it have been so much to ask that any such statement like this might contain a link to some past discussion about this now infamous thing that we are all supposedly in the know about? Is it too much to ask that an editor who accepts such a story either requires such strong statements to be supported or (if he's willing to do more than just accept a submission verbatim (you know what I mean, edit) put the link in?

  • by segedunum ( 883035 ) on Friday September 05, 2008 @10:31AM (#24888033)
    They're using Norwich Pharmcal court orders, which basically obligate someone mixed up in wrongdoing (i.e. ISPs) to hand over information related to that wrongdoing. However, in many cases the ISPs seem to be handing over information without a court order, or signing off a confirmation with the letter they get from Davenport Lyons so they don't have to turn up to the court order hearing. The court order is merely in case ISPs are worried about little things like the Data Protection Act. They can then invoice Davenport Lyons, and in one case Telewest invoiced for over £18,000.

    However, it seems that Davenport Lyons says that you can pay £300 and make all this legal stuff just 'go away'. I was under the impression that Norwich Pharmcal order were given out on a reasonable basis, simply because they can obviously be abused. I'm pretty sure that extortion, which is what this is pretty much, is against the terms of the order. You can't just use the order and the information you get from it to extract money from people.
  • Re:Land of the free (Score:3, Informative)

    by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Friday September 05, 2008 @11:03AM (#24888487) Journal

    Well, damn. If only there were another option, a third option...

    There are three pseudo-viable third options; parties that are on the ballot in enough states that should they win them all, they win the election.

    Bob Barr []

    Cynthis McKinney []

    Chuck Baldwin []

    I plan on voting for Barr. Sure, he'll lose, but so will one of the two major party candidates. Why do the media insist that voting for a loser is a wasted vote? Could it be that they are owned by corporations, who bribe both candidates to get legislation (like the Bono Act and the PATRIOT act) passed with 100% or nearly so of the vote?

  • Re:What affair? (Score:3, Informative)

    by bhunachchicken ( 834243 ) on Friday September 05, 2008 @11:07AM (#24888533) Homepage

    This is because of the woman who is facing a £16,000 ($32,000) fine for sharing Dream Pinball online. []

  • by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Friday September 05, 2008 @11:17AM (#24888649) Journal

    'course, it'll still be pricey as hell, etc.

    Not if you win; in the UK the loser pays.

  • Game, set, match... (Score:2, Informative)

    by harrie_o ( 1350423 ) on Friday September 05, 2008 @11:20AM (#24888699)
    Look people, its all over. Why persist in trading copyrighted materials using Bit-torrent?

    To find anyone who is using bt to get an illegal file is like shooting-fish-in-a-barrel. Its not rocket science. To get a file sharer's name all any corporation has to do is:

    1) attempt to download the file (just a tiny bit).

    2) snap the list of peers that have 100-percent (cut and paste) and note the time in GMT (UTC).

    3) end the download before you got anything

    4) using ping -a to lookup the name of the computer at that ip address (gets the ISP, too its just that simple).

    5) write letter to ISP demanding its logs of what customer was on that IP address at that time.

    The ISP then sends it letter and its game, set, match. Just give it up. Use bt for your own creative content and what (like youtube) could be considered fair use.
  • Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Informative)

    by tiananmen tank man ( 979067 ) on Friday September 05, 2008 @11:24AM (#24888749)

    Interesting but False.

    From an USAToday story [1], "Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants."

    [1] []

  • Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Informative)

    by tonyray ( 215820 ) on Friday September 05, 2008 @11:36AM (#24888915)

    As an ISP in the US, we've been asked many times to hand over information wholesale to the FBI. Such warrants are not inforceable and we always ask them what it is they really want. Then they tell us specifically what they are looking for and we tell them if we have the data. If we do, they issue another warrant, signed by a judge, and they get the data. We narrow the FBI request down to the point that it identifies a single account. If it can't be narrowed to a singe account, the data would be worthless to them in court and they don't ask further.

  • Re:Land of the free (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05, 2008 @11:55AM (#24889155)

    I believe the GP was referring to the RIAA/Verizon [] case, not FISA.

  • by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 ) <> on Friday September 05, 2008 @11:56AM (#24889183) Homepage

    The reason they didn't turn up is because they didn't actually know there was a court case against them - they had moved house and the lawyers didn't bother to find out the new address. How the hell they managed to get a judgement when the accused didn't even know they'd been accused of anything I've no idea.

"The pathology is to want control, not that you ever get it, because of course you never do." -- Gregory Bateson