Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Piracy The Courts

Virgin Media Subscribers Told To Pay 'Thousands of Pounds' To Settle Piracy Laws (torrentfreak.com) 53

Posted by BeauHD from the anti-piracy-measures dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Virgin Media subscribers receiving letters accusing them of movie piracy may find that settling their cases will be a costly affair. TorrentFreak understands that settlement demands run to several thousand pounds, a massive uplift on the several hundred usually requested in similar cases. Interestingly, however, some subscribers could be immune from being sued. [...] At this stage it's too early to definitively say what factors are being considered when assessing the settlement amount. However, if earlier methodology is deployed it's possible that Voltage's anti-piracy monitoring company (believed to be MaverickEye) will take the BitTorrent swarm size (the number of people sharing the movie at the same time) and multiply that by the price of the Ava movie.

As previously reported, this system has serious flaws. However, for people who simply want to settle and move on, paying Voltage a few thousand pounds should make the whole thing go away -- at least in respect of this particular accusation. But what about those who wish to contest the claims being made? At the core of the letters is the assumption that the person who pays the Virgin Media bill is the person who downloaded and shared the movie 'Ava' without permission. 'Assumption' is key here since Voltage acknowledges that may not be the case and someone else in a household could be liable. If the bill payer did not carry out the infringement and did not authorize/allow someone else to do so, under the Copyright Designs and Patent Act they are not liable. This means that they can issue a direct denial to Voltage but that would not prevent the company from filing a claim if it believes it has a case. At this point it's important to note that any claim by Voltage would be actioned in a civil court where cases are decided on the balance of probabilities -- 51% confidence of infringement could tip a case in the company's favor, resulting in a damages award. That's in addition to the associated legal costs of a failed defense. Given that Voltage is setting the bar so high with demands for multi-thousand-pound settlements, it seems likely that defendants who can afford to mount a defense will do so.

[T]he High Court states that Voltage may not initiate legal proceedings against a minor, which means anyone under the age of 18 in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. This means that if a parent pays the bill and a 17-year-old illegally downloaded and shared the movie, Voltage cannot bring a case against them. Furthermore, the High Court says that Voltage cannot pursue cases against an infringer who is a pensioner. The retirement age in the UK is currently 66 and according to the High Court's instructions, "anyone over the age of 65" can not have proceedings brought against them. In addition, anyone who is considered "vulnerable' will not have to face proceedings either.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Virgin Media Subscribers Told To Pay 'Thousands of Pounds' To Settle Piracy Laws More

Virgin Media Subscribers Told To Pay 'Thousands of Pounds' To Settle Piracy Laws

Comments Filter:

  • How about not doing a damn thing? If Voltage had a case to begin with they wouldn't be sending out blackmail. They're just fishing, hoping that someone will either pay or challenge, which in turn will let them build a case. Just ignoring this drivel will let it fade away.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If you ignore it they might get a default judgement against you, which can then be enforced (i.e. they can set debt collectors on you, trash your credit rating, maybe apply to the court to send bailiffs).

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 )

        There can be no default settlement unless there is a formal accusation which has to be registered through the court. Given the evidence it seems unlikely a judge would rule in favor of such a wide and unsupported slew of accusations.

        A civil proceeding can not result in a default judgment without grounds for an accusation, i.e. you cannot accuse anyone of whatever you want and then collect a summary ruling if they do not show up. Since the blackmail by Voltage is not that far from a "guilty unless proven inn

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          There is some history to this. Previously default judgements had been obtained. More recently the High Court set out some rules for sending these kinds of speculative invoices, so if there was an attempt to get a default judgement and everything had been done according to the guidance from the High Court it's quite likely that it would be granted.

          • But, can you get a default judgement before even filing a case in court and only after sending a blackmail letter?

          • But how can you get a judgment on a speculative invoice? It is borderline illegal in its own right, and does not follow any agreement. I can't demand money from you simply because I want it, nor can I see how a British judge, even shouldered with a mountain of peculiar and industry-lobbied rulings as they are, would ever allow an attempt to subvert the law into direct attempts at blackmail and strongarming.

            Has British law truly fallen so far?

      • not exactly.
        There are very specific requirements to consider a case "served" (just look at whats happening with Prince andrew in the epstein case). Which is basically an officer of the court giving you court papers.

        Up until that point any default judgement is worthless, and getting there costs about £35,000

        But in this case the bill payer just denying it is more than enough for any case to be throw out. "I am not aware of anyone downloading material illegally and have not seen the film/music myse

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          In the UK all that has to happen is the notice be sent by Royal Mail to the address that Virgin supplied.

          This happens all the time with parking "fines" from private companies. You see a lot of threads about people discovering they have a default judgement and a CCJ on their file that they didn't know about, and it's a bit of a pain to undo because you have to ask the court to set it aside and show that you intend to contest it.

          Your defence would probably be that you didn't download it, and neither did anyon

          • >and it's a bit of a pain to undo because you have to ask the court to set it aside and show that you intend to contest it.

            Yeah, but you can claim all the costs for attending court for doing so.

            I made about £2,000 that way back in the day denying speeding and parking fines post default judgement. they destroy all their evidence when they get a default judgement so never actually retry them.

            >and a CCJ
            Debt is for peons, never take on personal debt, ever.

            >Your defence would probably be tha

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              These days you have to be a bit more careful getting things set aside, as with electronic evidence they do tend to keep it and do contest it.

              Their evidence will be that Virgin Media said that IP address was assigned to your broadband account at the time. Unless you can cast doubt on that the court will have no reason to think it's not accurate, on a balance of probabilities.

              • In the same way an IP address doesn't prove who was using it

                No amount of electronic evidence will prove who parked or was speeding in the car several years ago, and no one would expect someone to remember when they actually get round to trying to enforce the judgement, with the exception of maybe forward facing cameras.

                My favourite of which there was my dad's defence being I'm clearly not a woman, and that is clearly a picture of a woman.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Cederic ( 9623 )

              Debt is for peons, never take on personal debt, ever.

              Debt is a resource to exploit and manage. I took on substantial debt to buy a house and as a result I now own a house and have no debt.

              • >I took on substantial debt to buy a house and as a result I now own a house and have no debt.

                I took on no debt, and now I have 4 houses, a helicopter licence and no debt.... mostly because there was a global house price crash that let me buy at half price, and I didn't have to pay back double what I borrowed.

                Personal debt is for peons.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Cederic ( 9623 )

                  There hasn't been a house price crash where I live, and my home is worth around four times what I paid for it.

                  Congratulations on your helicopter licence, I hope you have fun flying around.

                  Do however please get a fucking clue and consider that half the average house price in the UK is still three times the average wage. You don't just save up and buy four houses round here.

                  • You confuse borrowing to invest which you would never do in your own name.
                    with borrowing to spend

                    "The man who borrows in order to spend will soon be ruined, and he who lends to him will generally have occasion to repent of his folly"

                    personal debt is for peons. you worked like a slave to pay off a mortgage, it isnt really anything to be proud of. A good portion of the world gets for their 18th birthday from the state what you worked your whole life for.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Cederic ( 9623 )

                      You confuse borrowing to invest which you would never do in your own name.

                      Of course I would. I am accountable for myself and my financial affairs.

                      with borrowing to spend

                      Ah, you mean like the several hundred pounds I owe my credit card company? That costs me nothing, as I won't pay interest or fees, and in return I get payment protection guarantees that remove some of the risks of shopping online.

                      What, incurring that debt was wrong?

                      you worked like a slave to pay off a mortgage, it isnt really anything to be proud of

                      I'd have been paying far more in rent than I was on the mortgage, and ended up with no house afterwards. Housing. Not cheap.

                      A good portion of the world gets for their 18th birthday from the state what you worked your whole life for.

                      Given a good portion of the world will during thei

                    • >Of course I would. I am accountable for myself and my financial affairs.

                      You are also a victim of usury
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

                      >What, incurring that debt was wrong?

                      No, making all those loans was wrong, you are the victim.

                      >I'd have been paying far more in rent than I was on the mortgage, and ended up with no house afterwards. Housing. Not cheap.

                      By design, in a monarchy, obviously.
                      You think are are rich, and have a pension, until you actually need to use it and then you will find your house

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Cederic ( 9623 )

                      I can only assume you're a fucking idiot, or being paid to troll. Quite possibly both.

                      Your non-sequitur arguments are flawed, based on invalid assumptions and posit nonsensical positions. Go away.

                    • You have cognitive dissonance
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

                      And I find it mildly amusing to trigger your particular brand of bullshit.

                    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

                    • The cognitive dissonance is he (and many others) think they are rich and free in one of the wealthiest democratic countries.

                      When in fact they are debt slaves who barely have 4 walls to rub together in a failed empire whose worthless lives will be remembered in history through Prince Andrew and Jimmy Saville.

                      AKA victims of usury.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ac22 ( 7754550 )

        Name some examples of judgements made that were specific to:

        1) The UK
        2) Downloading copyrighted materials

        Piracy has been rampant in the UK for over 20 years. Has there been a single successful case brought against a downloader in the UK that resulted in a UK court issuing a financial penalty?

  • Share your account with someone under 17, ideally a son or daughter or with a UK pensioner, ideally a parent. Nephews, nieces , uncles and aunts are ok too. At a stretch it can be a friend.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      My wifi serves an open hotspot to which multiple neighbours have in the past connected.

      While I do ban any Apple devices I see on there, I exert no control and have no visibility of the traffic my neighbours are causing.

  • Do they have an arbitration clause in the contract (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2021 @09:25AM (#61816941)

    Because sometimes you can tie up the arbitrators for years, and you may have moved or retired by then.

    Don't forget to file in tiny little towns that may not even have lawyers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      Which contract? You signed a contract to torrent a film? Who with?

      Don't forget to file in tiny little towns that may not even have lawyers.

      How on earth would that help? Lawyers aren't nailed to the floor, they're able to move around in this country.

  • Will they actually sue? (Score:3)

    by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2021 @09:50AM (#61817011) Homepage

    Or will the be like the Getty Images extortion in Germany, some years ago. Lots of threats, but they sued exactly nobody. It was all about making lots of accusations and raking in lots of money via extortion.

    Getty hit our tiny company right before the Christmas holidays. The amount they demanded was about what it would cost to hire a lawyer to defend ourselves, so we (stupidly) paid them to go away. I'm sure neither the timing nor the amount was a coincidence - that's exactly what they hoped for.

    If all they have is an IP address, I'd say "screw em". They can't possibly prove who was sharing, and it sounds like UK law is actually sensible in this regard. Of course, IANAL.

    • The amount they demanded was about what it would cost to hire a lawyer to defend ourselves, so we (stupidly) paid them to go away.

      Yeah, that was a horrible mistake. You should only consider paying if the amount is considerably less than what it would cost to hire a lawyer. But clearly you know that :)

  • Exempting minors from civil action is one thing, they are not adults. Exempting adults from civil action just because they are over 66 (still quite responsible) or âoevulnerableâ is f-ing absurd. Yes, it makes sense to exempt adults that are not functionally adult (what do we call retarded now?), but âoebecause they are receiving health careâ is insanity.

    Jest because someone is on the dole, receiving health care (thatâ(TM)s everyone, right?), or in prison should not shield the

  • Not a lawyer - Maybe someone who is one can answer?

    I thought the civil standard in both the US and the UK was a preponderance of evidence; issues around default and summary judgements if you don't respond aside.

    Can the standard really be described as 51% or is that something the writer just made up? Obviously 'preponderance of evidence' is a much lower standard than the criminal 'reasonable doubt standard' but certainly the plaintiff has to show evidence the defendant really incurred the liability they clai

    • Preponderance of evidence is a little more than just 51% likely.
      They can simply argue that they have no basis to make a claim in a motion to dismiss. Argue that the facts they claim (infringement from an IP) are legally insufficient to accuse an individual of infringement.
      If it survives the motion to dismiss stage, the respondent could lie but that's perjury, although it's unlikely they could prove *who* did the infringement unless they start examining computers. Bonus points if multiple people use the
  • Instead of fixing the law, just exempt enough people to avoid enough voter outrage to change the result of elections! Brilliant!

  • It could not be more literal, unless you mean an implement with a handle connected to a round frame strung with wire, sinew, or plastic cords. ;)

    To put it into words for anyone who might be unclear:
    The secret is of course, that Virgin media themselves did not and will not pay the actual creators one dime of that additional money,
    and that they will not do any additional work that would warrant any additional pay.
    So, with them taking it by force ... it becomes factually equal to robbery.
    Making Virgin Media l

Slashdot Top Deals

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Close