Since their French 3-strikes scheme is also technically doomed then they are getting the locals used to a little pain before turning up the heat in the hope they can tolerate it.

We will have to see what becomes of the UK’s DEA but I believe that some information concerning router security and anti-virus software would much help.

Many computers are very dirty in terms of viruses and trojens and hackers/skiddies usually has more control than the owner does.

BeingThreatened have worked hard to educate and protect innocent people from this speculative invoicing scam.

Then the disruptive and very active nature of Anonymous did lead to this ACS:Law email database breach. Exposing the workings of ACS:Law, including some very damaging information, was certainly the tipping point to have this bad scheme come crashing down.

More work yet to do in terms of compensation and punishment but let us hope no one tries this again.

And if anyone starts to feel pity for Andrew Crossley then remember his arrogance and how his copyright exploitation business has caused great distress to many innocent people.

We here are well information and can protect our own turf but many others had no legal or technical knowledge and were harassed and exploited.

Someone seriously needs to track that woman down to see if this case was real or part of a manipulative plan.

For example since she left the country then it would be easy to fake evidence (or scheme with her), take her to court, win through a default no-show, then get the damage claim you want.

That judgement can then be used for years to scare those suspected of copyright infringement.

Although it could be genuine I have a nose for the truth and this one smells bad.

Achat d’un foulard Moncler, beaucoup de Moncler écharpes pour hommes, femmes et enfants à la vente

Achat d’un foulard Moncler, beaucoup de Moncler écharpes pour hommes, femmes et enfants à la vente

But one thing in that report I’m really surprised about is where they say,

That could create serious problems for copyright owners seeking to enforce their rights under the Digital Economy Act. Although the law allows for a “three strikes” provision in which internet service providers (ISPs) would be required to write to the people who are using an IP address at a time that it is found to be infringing, it has not yet been implemented.

Does anyone know if that’s actually true?
I haven’t properly read the Digital e-RipOff Act for months now, but I don’t recall seeing any specific section stating this. Or is it a possibility that can be created under subordinate regulations?

But one thing in that report I’m really surprised about is where they say,

That could create serious problems for copyright owners seeking to enforce their rights under the Digital Economy Act. Although the law allows for a “three strikes” provision in which internet service providers (ISPs) would be required to write to the people who are using an IP address at a time that it is found to be infringing, it has not yet been implemented.

Does anyone know if that’s actually true?
I haven’t properly read the Digital e-RipOff Act for months now, but I don’t recall seeing any specific section stating this. Or is it a possibility that can be created under subordinate regulations?