Morning,
On 14/09/2015 09:08, William Waites wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 08:57:28 +0100, James Bensley <[email protected]> said:
> The media companies (seeing as they seem to be exclusivly US
> based in my experiance) have no legal leg to stand on and no
> proof. I'm not going to offend my customer or potentially damage
> our relationship by presenting them with the legel warning when
> the media company haven't provided any proof they are even in
> the wrong.
We forward them for two reasons -- neither of which have anything to
do with caring about the media companies or whatever it is they
assert:
We also forward them on to the user - without any response to the sender.
- Many users are under the mistaken impression that bittorrent is
somehow anonymous. It's not, and if they want to use it they
should know that.
- Looking at abuse reports, regardless of merit is work. If a user
is doing something that is causing me work they should know about
it so that hopefully they can try to not do things that create
work for me.
This. Add to that the fact that (a) the customer may genuinely have
been compromised, or (b) it is a member of staff thinking "great, I can
torrent on work's fast Internet connection" - it is useful information
to send on and isn't hard to do.
Under no circumstances short of a (local) court order would I ever
give any information to the media companies.
Absolutely. You get a court order, and we'll comply. Up to that point,
we'll generally try and be co-operative (ie: forward your notice to our
customer) but no more. Whilst I'm aware that these notice-generation
systems do spew out false positives, we don't see that many of them so
if two or three turn up in quick succession for one customer the odds
are reasonable that they are behaving badly.
Paul.
