file sharing

Microsoft take-down requests – needs its own house in order first?

Posted on

By now its common knowledge that Google has released publically, figures on the takedown requests it has recieved from copyright holders and their affiliates.  Microsoft figured heavily in this release which is what I wish to look at a little closer and maybe offer some alternative reasoning to the requests themselves.

Firstly, this article is not about the rights or wrongs of IP.  Regardless of your views on file-sharing and copyrighted material/law, I ask those be put to one side for the moment.

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that there are alot of searches (possibly through Google) whereby users are looking for “warez”.   Lets consider something else (again in the ethos of common ground) – as the current law stands, it is perfectly reasonable for Microsoft to make a take-down request of Google, like the idea of copyright or not, currently there is nothing to stop Microsoft (or indeed anyone else) requesting that material/link or whatever gets removed.  Now here though is where further consideration asks some questions which don’t seem to make sense.

Lets say Microsoft is concerned about copyright infringement and file-sharing – whilst they can (as stated above) make requests of Google, one would expect then that they would have cleaned up their own house first (or at least at the same time) – let me explain.  Try a Bing search for MS office on PirateBay – you get a direct link.  If Microsoft is so concerned about its IP then surely its own product should be a top priority to purge of such links?  But then if you consider it further, possibly not.

If we are agreed that Bing would like a slice of the pie that Google has in terms of search numbers and we agree that there are a considerable number of people using Google to search for “warez” – would it be suspicious minded to think that if Microsoft can make numerous takedown requests of Google, whilst keeping Bing “intact”, those that search for warez will be more likely to move over to Bing and thus bring value in terms of usage to Bing?  Whilst that may simply be a creative idea in respect of the recent news, it strikes me as strange that after all those take-down requests of Google, that Microsoft hasn’t even done something so simple as remove all PirateBay entries from its own product.

Maybe there’s someone who can explain why Microsoft hasn’t even seemed to take the most simple steps in keeping its own house in order whilst it is busy tackling Google?  Or maybe someone could say what it actually is that Microsoft is asking Google to take-down?

Personally, I think Microsoft products are moody enough without using a “cracked” version.  I remember the misery of being a Windows user with all the malicious code out there (and I was using a genuine version).  To use Microsoft products and trust in the integrity of a “cracked” version, is akin to putting your wedding tackle into a lions mouth and flicking its love-spuds with a wet towel (Credit for quote: Arnold Rimmer, Red Dwarf)

Do as I say, not as I do!

Some Microsoft Advocates often refer to Linux/FOSS users with the derogatory term “freetard” and even if we look past at the apparent double standards Bing employs in comparison with requests made of Google and we ignore the millions of Windows users using the uTorrent client and downloading copyrighted material, we need only look to Microsoft themselves and a very interesting article by torrent freak, who, after researching a few Microsoft IP addresses, find that records show, their machines have been very busy downloading copyrighted material for free too.  Hypocricy? Would we expect anything less from a company that employs a man someone like Steve Ballmer?

In relation to piracy, it’s alleged by TorrentFreak:

Look up a range of IP-addresses assigned to Microsoft and enter those into the search form on YouHaveDownloaded one by one. While we expected that it might take a while to find one, we already had a handful of offenders after two dozen tries.


Priceless, but hardly surprising.  And in light of “warez” seemingly ok if they are linked in Bing results, should we have expected anything less from Microsoft? – I’ll let you decide.

Tim (Goblin)

If you are new to this blog (or have not yet read it) please take time to view the OpenBytes statement, here.

Skype: tim.openbytes
I can also be found in #techrights, #techbytes on

CRAMER PELMONT – 2 day u-turn? and what of the others?

Posted on

The ongoing battle against alleged unlawful file sharing continues as its reported that Cramer & Pelmont were the “new kids on the block” in the world of what has been dubbed speculative invoicing or were they?  Cramer & Pelmont seem to have the record for the quickest u-turn and whilst they were reportedly not going down the route of warning letters like so many before them.

Which? magazine was told recently by Dr Brassley of Cramer Pelmont:

We are working with the film and music industry (strictly non-adult) in the development of an appropriate response to the Digital Economy Act, but I can assure you we have no intentions of taking any business model ideas from ACS Law.

And maybe Dr Brassley has sage advice when he says “no intentions of taking any business model ideas from ACS Law” because I wouldn’t have thought there are many law firms out there at the moment which would see the ACS:Law business model as very desirable.  This was reported on the 4th of October, however things seem to change in the world of p2p pursuit, quicker than a torrent of ACS:Law’s leaked emails.  I find it very interesting when they use the term “strictly non-adult” because we have been led to believe by other firms working in this area that their motives (aswell as representing their clients) is some sort of crusade to curb piracy.  Surely “piracy” is “piracy” adult material or not?

I will move onto what it’s believed Cramer and Pelmont were to be up to, but first have some questions that I think need answered.  Firstly, what is the current status of ACS:Law?  assuming that at least for the time being their revenue stream has dried up and, assuming that there are still outstanding privacy issues and SRA complaints that need resolving (no pun intended) can we assume that ACS:Law has now effectively shut up shop? ISP’s don’t seem to want to co-operate with them either, so is it fair to say that ACS:Law is out of the game?  ISPReview certainly seems to think so and say in a recent article:

A London based law firm, Cramer Pelmont Solicitors, has threatened to pick up where ACS:Law left off by pursuing broadband ISP customers whom it suspects of being involved with “illegal” copyright p2p file sharing activity.

Now maybe ISPReview is privy to some press release/report that I’m not, but Ive certainly not seen anything to suggest that ACS:Law is officially shutting up shop for Cramer Pelmont “to pick up”.  Infact I would suggest that ACS:Law is currently trying to carry on with business as usual, defiantly in the face of the mess that has been created by the leak of their emails.  And what of Gallant Macmillan? there does not seem to have been a press release from them either and on monday 4th October 2010, when their application for a court order to reveal the names and address of suspected file sharers of material belonging to Ministry of Sound was adjourned until January 2011.  Surely as far as GM are concerned, this particular revenue stream has dried up until the new year?

Then theres Ministry of Sound, the company who retained GM to do this “work” for them, there does not seem to be any statement regarding the 4chan Ddos attacks, nor the fact that in respect of pursuing those which are alleged to have infringed on their copyright will have to wait until next year.

So what was Cramer Pelmont up to?

It could be an interesting question.  From Dr Brassley seemingly trying to distance himself from an ACS:Law-esque approach to the subject, it seems the suggestion is that the work would have been in respect of the Digital Economy Act, an act which seems to receive criticism from people on both sides of the alleged unlawful file sharing debate.  How that work would manifest itself is pretty academic now since they appear to have given up after 2 days.

Don’t call us, we’ll call you

The “branching out” of Cramer Pelmont was reported on the 4th of October and in a lifespan so short that makes the Kin look long lived, Pelmont Cramer announced on the 6th of October that they no longer would be pursuing this line of “work”, again ISPreview reports Dr Brassley saying (on the Cramer Pelmont site):

Cramer Pelmont has ceased its interest in working with clients in the area of the Digital Economy Act. It continues to work on all other aspects of [Intellectual Property].

(Although I cannot see that quote on their homepage at all – has it been removed?)

I’ll try to ignore that “Brassley” is very similar to ACS:Law’s “Crossley” and I think we can rule out any allegations of an alter-ego since I think Andrew Crossley’s dedication to the p2p world is far more determined than Brassley’s.

So Cramer Pelmont were in and now they are out again?  Could this be as a result of the Ddos attacks by 4chan members on anyone who has a remote connection to this line of “work” or could it be, more likely, that Monday’s adjournment has demonstrated that it’s no longer a line of work where a quick buck can be made? – I’ll let you decide and probably come up with your own reason and more importantly, on whose instructions was it to “pull out”? the clients of Cramer and Pelmont or Cramer Pelmont themselves?

Terence Tsang

And now we look at Mr Terence Tsang.  Its reported that he was to be employed by Cramer and Pelmont to assist in this new scheme of theirs, but now after the u-turn seems to have been shown the door.  Mr Tsang has a past with ACS:Law and is mentioned in the leaked emails from the aforementioned firm.

It’s reported that Cramer Pelmont have already taken his page from their site,  Mr Tsang’s quick name removal is probably a good idea if they intend to pull out of this type of “scheme” and his actions have been reported widely on the net over this whole issue.

Those who have been following this whole file sharing debacle as diligently as me will remember that Mr Tsang advertised for a coder to create a package to log and resolve IP addresses, a package which could be created in Python in a matter of hours (for example)  Im not sure if he ever got a return on that investment and if he’s dragged into any future legal action against ACS:law, I would doubt that it was worth the money.

A good word for Andrew Crossley and ACS:Law?

If there were not reportedly innocent people accused here or breaches of privacy, the whole saga would be rather humorous.  It does bring up a point which I don’t believe has been covered before.

I would like you to put aside for one minute any feelings you may have about the actions of Andrew Crossley/ACS:Law and lets consider TBI solicitors. [1]  Imagine you had instructed a law firm to represent your interests in court only to have them pull out through bad publicity fears or simply just pull out.  I can’t speak for you, but if it was me I would not want to employ any law firm to represent me if they had a background of backing off when things got a little hot.  Whilst TBI Solicitors might be pleased that they have removed themselves from the whole file sharing fiasco, the one thing you can say about Andrew Crossley and ACS:Law is that they are determined – whatever their motives, be it on the grounds on honest held belief in the “wrongs of copyright infringement” or merely after a quick buck.  Can the same be said of TBI?

ACS:Law appears to me now to have passed the point of no return, I think if they are allowed to continue to practice, a retreat from the file-sharing issue would probably do more harm to their reputation than good.  With that in mind though (and no further press releases) one is only left to wonder what’s really going on in ACS:Law offices at the moment and what the future holds for Mr Crossley and his staff.

Here’s something else to consider, could it be the “average” user sat behind their computer screen as a hobby has managed to stop the legal profession?  It certainly seems that way to me and the law firms involved have certainly not had an easy time of it, challenged by, not some legal monster, but the average person.  What ever happens in the future, one things for sure, it would make a great movie and really shows that whilst corporations can use the net as a powerful sales tool, the same internet can turn just as quickly and bring even the large firm to their knees.


[1] TBI Solicitors briefly dabbled (allegedly) in the business dubbed “speculative invoicing”

Goblin –

If you are new to this blog (or have not yet read it) please take time to view the OpenBytes statement, here.

No court order for Gallant Macmillan today!

Posted on Updated on

Filtering through the internet is news that Gallant Macmillan did not walk away from the High Court today with an order for demanding names of IP addresses from BTplc and instead the matter has been adjourned to a later date (whilst the court examines more closely the concerns) .  As reported in the Guardian BTplc said:

We’re pleased that the court has agreed to an adjournment so that our concerns can be examined by the court, this will then act as a precedent/test case for the future……..We want to ensure broadband subscribers are adequately protected so that rights holders can pursue their claims for copyright infringement without causing unnecessary worry to innocent people. We have not simply consented to these orders in the past, we have asked for stricter terms as public concern has risen. The data leak with ACS:Law prompted us to take further action today.


And I strongly recommend you read the rest of that article.

In the meantime one has to wonder, if BTplc had expressed concerns in the past, why is it only now they get an adjournment?  Could it be that in not only damaging ACS:Law, the recent email leaks have also damaged the system which some wished to seek revenue from?  and now Gallant Macmillan has been put on hold, what of Ministry of Sound? their site is still appearing to be down.  How much damage to their reputation with its potential customers has been done?  From some forums, I’m seeing quite alot.

For those interested, Wired has written an article summarizing some of the emails leaked from ACS:Law.  You can read it here.

Torrent Freak is currently reporting a comedy spoof of a certain historical figure finding out about the leak at ACS:Law.  You can find that here:

Goblin –

If you are new to this blog (or have not yet read it) please take time to view the OpenBytes statement, here.

Piracy Bill – Has Ed Vaizey actually considered this issue at all?

Posted on Updated on

The Telegraph is reporting today on how the Digital Economy Act will be met in order to tackle online piracy or copyright infrigement.  You can read the Telegraphs article here. People may remember that its proposed that alleged infringers of copyright are sent a number of warning letters before sanctions and eventually a ban is put on their connection.

Ed Vaizey the minster responsible for these plans had much to say in an interview on this matter, so lets start with:

Protecting our valuable creative industries, which have already suffered significant losses as a result of people sharing digital content without paying for it, is at the heart of these measures


I come from a view of anti-infringement, I always have.  Over the two years of this blogazine Ive always supported a stance of anti-infringement and have engaged in many heated debates with people who don’t agree.  I have not/do not support in any way the infringement of copyright.

So as someone with this stance, I would now simply ask – Avatar a flop was it?

I could be wrong but despite a plethora of screeners, r5’s et al being released, Avatar made a rather large sum of money and if that was not enough, its due for a re-release with extra’s very shortly…for a second sitting if you will.

Ive often said when countering a “pro-piracy”  view that you cannot judge what copyright you should infringe just on the basis of how much money the product has made, but conversely, this loss of revenue does not seem evident in any of the products I have seen touted as a huge success, yet at the same time having trackers stuffed to the gill’s with torrents of them.

Harry Potter suffered significant losses too?  I pick these two titles in particular because I don’t think it can be argued that out of all the infringing material being shared these two would rate rather highly in popularity.  I could also cite many other examples.  I won’t.

The Digital Economy Act serves to reduce online copyright infringement through a fair and robust process and at the same time provides breathing space to develop better business models for consumers who buy music, films and books online.

So this is then going to be instead of ACS:Law and similar firms conducting alleged speculative invoicing is it?  I wouldn’t think so, as far as I can tell, this is as well as.  So ontop of the possibility of a ACS:Law letter popping through your door fishing for evidence, you are also going to have a warning letter on behalf of the DEA telling you not to do it too?  A double whammy of an allegation if you will.

I wonder if Mr Vaizey agrees that the file sharing ethos is a good one, since by saying “provide breathing space to develop better business models” suggests that the ones that are in place (in Mr Vaizey’s opinion) are not good.  And what of this “breathing space”? How long do these people need? p2p tech is not exactly bleeding edge, its been around for a considerable amount of time.   Badly thought out Mr Vaizey, they’ve had plenty of breathing space and I don’t see how this will help at all.

Consumers should not be picking up the tab for the enforcement of copyright laws that will benefit the music industry to the tune of millions of pounds.

Now maybe here Mr Vaizey is making a joke that I don’t get.  If the ISP is to pick up the tab for 25% of the costs for this “enforcement” where does he think the money will come from if not passed onto the customer?  Whilst that may be fair for the repeated copyright infringer, how is that fair on me or anyone else who thinks that the material “infringed upon” is not even worth a download for “free” and on the rare occasion when they are interested in a title, actually goes out and buys it?  – I think far from help enforce an anti-piracy message, many people will just say “stuff it, Im footing the bill, I may as well jump in too”.  Just like in my view, the person who came up with the idea of knock off Nigel, when you get people who really don’t know the subject trying to solve it, you only end up looking silly when it backfires.  (For those that don’t know, Knock off Nigel was an ad campaign against piracy, that turned into a cult classic and even gave piracy a little kudos)

But Mr Vaizey is apparently not finished:

The previous government admitted any extra cost on internet service providers may push up the cost of broadband, making it unaffordable for thousands of vulnerable consumers who need internet access to get vital services and cheaper deals.

And this won’t Mr Vaizey? Come on.  Whether overtly or covertly, this cost will be pushed onto the consumer, it’s not rocket science.

Of course Mr Vaizey probably wouldn’t want to speculate on the inevitable flood of appeals where, as we have seen in the past, people are wrongly accused of infringing copyright and the alleged “free” appeals process.  Another question that needs to be asked, if you are a small company and the copyright holder of material are you going to be expected to foot this bill in the same way as say Warner Brothers should you see your product be uploaded onto a tracker or similar?  It may be an insignificant cost for Warner Brothers to foot some of the bill for this latest scheme, what of the small company with a small turnover?  Are copyright owners to be means tested to find out how much of this 75% they pay?


The idea of the government getting involved in an issue (which to be fair) I believe knows little about, stinks of a repeat of the HIPs scheme and we all saw how that ended in tears.

Unfortunately whilst Mr Vaizey is believing his letter campaign for file sharing accusations is going to solve the problem, has he considered that people may simply switch to Usenet and/or XDCC as a means of obtaining their material….of course he hasn’t, I don’t think he will understand any technology that hasn’t been mentioned to him by companies with million pound turnovers.

Remove the sharing element of obtaining copyrighted material and you keep Mr Vaizey and ACS:Law letters from your letterbox.  Of course the vagueness of this whole scheme and its unanswered questions could encompass Usenet, but surely if the sharing element is removed from the downloader, Mr Vaizey and his campaign is rather a waste of time?

And thats not even including the infringers that know how to hide their identity.

A costly exercise which will serve no purpose.  Copyright infringement needs to be discussed with level heads and people who actually know the subject inside out, not blanket vague ideas and an elasterplast.

Whilst Mr Vaizey plays anti-infringer, people like you and me who don’t infringe copyright foot the bill.  After looking at the takings made by Avatar and similar, maybe the answer is:   Make decent material and people will buy, try to get away with any old rubbish and you can forget making a profit.

And maybe Mr Vaizey should be reminded of a pre-election comment of Nick Clegg in regards to the Digital Economy Act, reported by Techradar:



classic example of what’s wrong with Westminster


Whatever Mr Glegg thinks the Digital Economy Act is, you have until 2011 before its implemented.

I’ll leave you to consider, if , like me your anti-piracy stance has lost its sympathy for copyright holders.

Goblin –

If you are new to this blog (or have not yet read it) please take time to view the OpenBytes statement, here.

NewsBytes – Tuesday 24th August 2010

Posted on Updated on

The 360 for at least another 5 years

Microsoft is reported to have announced that the 360 is going to be around for the next five years, making it 10 years old before it will allegedly be replaced (if at all)  I reported at the time the Kinect was announced (and have been quoted as saying) that I thought the device would be intended to suck a little more life out of a console that achieved notoriety with the Red Rings of Death issue.

Business week said:

The company is trying to lengthen the Xbox 360’s shelf life with new features and services, such as the motion-sensing Kinect device, in a bid to wring more profit from the machine.


ACS:Law held to task again?

We’ve covered ACS:Law here before in regards to the letters sent to alleged file sharers infringing copyright.  Now it appears Andrew Crossley is in front of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal again in regards to complaints received from recipients of letters “enquiring” into copyright infringements.  I say in front of the disciplinary Tribunal again because Wikipedia documents:

The main partner of the company, and its only registered solicitor[3], is Andrew Crossley. Crossley has twice been found guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, in 2002 and again in 2006. [4]


There is to be a followup article on OpenBytes soon which collects the experiences of some of those on the receiving end of ACS:Law and its (alleged) sole solicitor Andrew Crossley.

The Register reports on this latest appearance in front of the SDT, quoting Deborah Prince of Which?:

We welcome this decision because we’ve received so many complaints from consumers who believe they have been treated appallingly by this law firm. We also believe that it’s time for the profession to take action against law firms, and those responsible for them, which behave in a way we believe most right-thinking people would view as both aggressive and bullying.


There is also a good article over at Torrentfreak which can be found here.

Goblin –

If you are new to this blog (or have not yet read it) please take time to view the OpenBytes statement, here.

REVIEW: Amiga Demo’s Volume 1 (DVD-5)

Posted on Updated on

With a thumping menu track, Amiga Demo's Vol1 is a more appealing way to watch some classics of yesteryear!

Here is one DVD you can share and distribute without fear of a threatening letter coming through your door about copyright infringement.  Before reading the rest of this article, if you have no idea what the Demoscene is, then you should read this first.

Those of you old enough to remember the Commodore Amiga range of computers will hopefully look back at those times with happy memories of “Guru Meditation“, games on 3.5” floppy disk and most importantly the demoscene.

At the time when the Amiga was emerging in the marketplace as THE computer to own, many a shop had titles from the demoscene proudly displayed in order to show off the machines amazing graphical abilities.  At the time PC’s were still struggling to produce respectable looking titles and if they did it requried a rather expensive piece of kit.  This is where the Amiga sold.  For a reasonably low price you were getting GFX which would require a second mortgage’s worth of PC equipment if you wanted to make them even near to playable.

Whilst it was true that the Amiga’s eventual failing was its 3d performance (and cheaper PC hardware giving way to far more advanced titles, 2d wise the Amiga could not be matched and the fact that the custom chipset also included a rather advanced sound (for the time) you had no worries about drivers, sound cards, speakers or CGA,EGA,VGA….

So that was the niche in which the A500 (in the main) and other models of the Amiga range found themselves.  True, along the way, we delved into a Spectrum revival (of sorts) with the smaller A600, but the “one stop shop” computing experience of the machines made them desirable and popular.  We even touched on a little Windowseque type incompatibility with some versions of the Kickstart having compatability issues with some software.

I digress (as is often my way) the public domain scene and in particular demo’s were always popular and some people made a very good living from selling disks containing this material, sending it out in shiny new jiffy bags via snailmail.  Oh, the “good old days” before the Internet boom!

So now we look at this DVD-5 release which clocks in at around 110 minutes and showcases some very good titles from the past.  The author J.Tramiel has put everything together very well in order to make this disk a simple case of “push in and play”

There are many demo’s on show here with my personal favourites being the work of the Polka Brothers. Picture quality is good however don’t expect a HD experience since there is a lot crammed into 4.4gb.

You can get a copy of this DVD from The Pirate Bay, but let me assure you, these demo’s are made to be distributed for free, they were released years ago and I expect the creators will be very pleased to see this revival in them.

The demo’s featured on this disk (all via a traditional DVD menu) are as follows, with the running time being approximately 110mins for the entire disk, presented in 4:3:

9 Fingers – Spaceballs

Aphrodisae – Haujobb

Arte – Sanity

Authentik – Skarla

Braincell – Union

Cyberlogik – Sector 7

Explorer – Delight

Friday at 8 – Polka Brothers

Jesus on Cheese – SHITTS

Man on the Moon – Faculty

Mindabuse – Limited Edition

Mindflow – Stellar

Napalm – Floppy

Nexus 7 – Andromeda

Paradisio – Drifters

Radiation – Vertical Syndicate

Reflexity – Sector 7

Rise – TRSI

Roots 2 – Sanity

Symbolia -Access

Synergy – Sector 7

The Breath of the Muse – Chrysis & Poseidon

The Prey – Polka Brothers

Wit Premium – Freezers

or you can find it on Usenet ( here

Please seed this disk when its finished if you choose the Bittorrent option.  Help revive (or keep alive) the Amiga demo scene and just as importantly, this great release from J.Tramiel.

Links of interest

If this disk (or review) has you interested in the demoscene, there are plenty of great resources for more material.  Almost every platform has a demoscene (in various sizes) and you could do far worse than getting yourself over DTV to see a host of old demo’s from yesteryear and the modern ones as they are released, without having to worry about some of the demanding high specs that some of the modern demo’s require.

SLAYradio – Home some great scene music!

DemosceneTV – The Youtube of the Demoscene! – News and archive of scene releases: – More news and scene releases:

I hope these get you interested in a very creative and entertaining aspect of computing.

Goblin –

If you are new to this blog (or have not yet read it) please take time to view the Openbytes statement, here.

TBI Solicitors lost its bottle? – Law firms pulls out of file sharing “venture”

Posted on Updated on

We covered TBI Solicitors in previous articles here.  TBI were the law firm who were the latest crew to enter into the world of warning letters and fines for those suspected of file sharing.

According to Which? TBI, (which was alleged to be pursuing amongst other material, Adult film titles, now appears to have removed itself from the practice making the comment:

We are concerned that the adverse publicity could affect other areas of our practice and therefore following discussions with our clients, we have reluctantly agreed that we will cease sending out further letters of claim.

I am sure they do.  Reluctantly agreed? Er, wasn’t it your decision to leave the file sharing issue?  Did you not decide to remove yourselves from it?Where is the conviction to persue those that are guilty?  as honorable as Im sure TBI’s intentions were in pursuing alleged infringers and presenting them with a rather large fine, it seems strange now that they don’t seem to be interested.

Could it be that it was made public that TBI were acting on behalf of some Adult film companies?  Could it be that TBI were concerned about possible complaints going to the SRA and the matter being looked at more closely?  Whatever the reason, I cannot see any mention of this news on the TBI website.

TBI has not commented as to how many letters they have already sent out.

What they have said is this:

We are currently liaising with the SRA and we are satisfied that we have acted appropriately at all times in relation to these claims,

Which makes me wonder do they consider the allegation that they edited the Wiki entry on themselves as appropriate behaviour?  Torrentfreak reported at the time:

In an attempt to remove this embarrassing information, a staff member at Tilly Bailey & Irvine took direct action – by deleting the entire section ten days after TorrentFreak broke the news of their entrance to this business.

So, how do we know it was TBI doing the editing? Because they were smart enough to edit it from, the IP address registered to their company.

You can find that article here: and these people potentially would have been presenting evidence in court in cases regarding Internet/IT/ISP issues?

Of course it was suggested at the time that maybe this actions was because TBI had already decided to drop their involvement in the file sharing cases.

I think though if TBI had concerns about their image, the damage is already done.

Walking the Plank?

When talking about planks Im not meaning TBI, in this case I mean the pirate kind and since I have a strong anti-piracy stance the filesharers are not getting off the hook either!

Whilst watching this whole affair play out one thing struck me about our file sharing community…up until warning letters were being sent out the file sharing community had nothing really to say about the sharing of adult material.  Looking at various forums it wasn’t an issue until companies like TBI became involved.  Then the issue of Adult material was branded with words like “sordid” and “dirty” and looked like a very bad attempt by the file sharers to demonize the opposite view to their own.

What I would say is that whilst we can laugh at these blundering firms who jump in feet first, we have to remember that the act of sharing material which you do not the have permission to do so is unlawful.  We can argue about the finer points of the flaws in copyright law all day, but until they change, its really a moot point.  In my opinion you don’t break a law merely because you think it wrong and law is not something you can cherry pick the bits you like.

Will TBI ever shed the association it now has with ACS: Law and Davenport & Lyons (in respect of file sharer targeting)?  I’d have personally said that once they committed themselves they should have followed it through.  One thing Ive seen of the online communities – they never forget.

Goblin –

If you are new to this blog (or have not yet read it) please take time to view the Openbytes statement, here.