I never said it was proof. My point is, people do download stuff thats not legitimate and I suspect when letters are sent out, there is probably enough smoke to be a fire. Not saying that it proves anything specific however.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:53 AM, James Bensley <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14 September 2015 at 11:33, Paul Civati <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 14 Sep 2015, at 08:57, James Bensley wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > Do they not provide even a simple amount of info such as offending IP > > address and date/time? > > > > If I sent you an email with your public IP on it saying you were > downloading "Jumbo Knockers - Part 3" on Saturday 12th of October 2015 > at 12:05, and this is copyrighted material for which you don't have > the rights to be copying, how is that proof? > > If I sent you an email saying "I saw your wife having sex with another > guy, that wasn't you, in a park last weekend, yep, it definatly > happend" - is that proof? Would you confront her on such a > ridiculously loose claim? How about if I sent it from you local > .police.uk domain name? Ah, it must be undeniably true now! > > I don't disagree with some of the points others have raised, however I > am not going to potentially accuse my customer of breaking the law > without someone giving me something a bit more realiable to go on :) > > Even if the media company is correct, they haven't given me anything > reliable to go on. If it is a company in the UK and they can serve me > with a legal request then I will happily oblige. I'm not a total cunt, > for the record, just not a total cunt either.... > > James. > >
