This follows the recent decision at the Central London County Court against four people who were found to have infringed copyright by sharing games illegally on the Internet.
Dazzle_2 wrote:I bleieve your reading of this is spot on MrFred, what causes me considerable anguish is that not only do we have the BBC publishing any anti-filesharing article unchecked or contested but that no one has asked how the alleged evidence was allowed to be presented to a UK court when it was gathered illegally by a Swiss company breaching UK and EU data gathering legislation, that is the core of this case for me.
penguin15793 wrote:am i missing something? this is for fucking pinball?
Ashibael wrote:Dazzle_2 wrote:I bleieve your reading of this is spot on MrFred, what causes me considerable anguish is that not only do we have the BBC publishing any anti-filesharing article unchecked or contested but that no one has asked how the alleged evidence was allowed to be presented to a UK court when it was gathered illegally by a Swiss company breaching UK and EU data gathering legislation, that is the core of this case for me.
I have to agree with you there. If the 'evidence' in this case was collected illegally.... then why did the British courts let it in? They have ruled in numerous other cases over in England that if evidence is collected in an illegal manner, EVEN BY A PRIVATE CITIZEN.... that evidence cannot be entered into a court of law.
Some of those accused of sharing the game chose to fight the legal action and it was in one of these contested cases that Topware Interactive won its claim for damages.
"This is a proper Intellectual Property (IP) court that has made this judgement," said independent IP barrister David Harris. "The previous ones were default judgements where defendants never turned up."
enigmax wrote:Thanks for being the only non-sheep writer on this subject so far Tom. The truth will come out.
Aalamo wrote:Guys, the following text (extracted from the BBC article), clearly indicates that this case has been contested and that it was not a default judgment.
"Some of those accused of sharing the game chose to fight the legal action and it was in one of these contested cases that Topware Interactive won its claim for damages.
"This is a proper Intellectual Property (IP) court that has made this judgement," said independent IP barrister David Harris. "The previous ones were default judgements where defendants never turned up."
Are you suggesting the above is false? It says "contested" and "the previous ones", why would you think that this one was a default judgement?
MrFredPFL wrote:..but i presonally suspect someone is mistaken, or was possibly even intentionally misled, as deliberately misleading people seems to be a cornerstone of DL's approach to this whole lawsuit campaign. until such time is i see anything more definitive, i will continue to reserve judgement on this - but if i had to bet on it, my money would be on a default judgement today.
Ross Wheeler, CEO of Albury.net.au, referring to the Australian Governments internet filtering plan wrote:"It's the most ill-conceived pile of stupidity by the biggest bunch of cretins that I've ever seen in my life"
Lee1001 wrote:This case was heard in a special court,"In the case heard at London's Patents County Court the game maker won damages of £6,086.56 plus costs of £10,000."
This is a proper Intellectual Property (IP) court that has made this judgement," said independent IP barrister David Harris. "The previous ones were default judgements where defendants never turned up."
The hearing in the IP court meant the case had been rigorously analysed and the law properly understood, said Mr Harris.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests