2 questions 1 - they've got 40 days, working days (mon-fri) or all days (mon-sun) 2 - Report to controller - how, what, when ???????? Cheers
Good questions! As far as I know, 40 days is calendar days, Mon-Sun. But I suggest you follow the link http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/data_protection.aspx - you should be able to find the required information under "Your rights" section. Just a few quotes: "(2) A data controller is not obliged to supply any information under subsection (1) unless he has received— (a) a request in writing, and (b) except in prescribed cases, such fee (not exceeding the prescribed maximum) as he may require. " - means you have to request it and pay the fee! "(8) Subject to subsection (4), a data controller shall comply with a request under this section promptly and in any event before the end of the prescribed period beginning with the relevant day. " (Subsection 4 relates to the cases where your personal data is connected to somebody else's. Not applicable here. "If a court is satisfied on the application of any person who has made a request under the foregoing provisions of this section that the data controller in question has failed to comply with the request in contravention of those provisions, the court may order him to comply with the request." "(10) In this section— * “prescribed” means prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations; * “the prescribed maximum” means such amount as may be prescribed; * “the prescribed period” means forty days or such other period as may be prescribed; * “the relevant day”, in relation to a request under this section, means the day on which the data controller receives the request or, if later, the first day on which the data controller has both the required fee and the information referred to in subsection (3)." - so that have 40 days from the day they receive your request and appropriate fee. And from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20000191.htm "Maximum subject access fee 3. Except as otherwise provided by regulations 4, 5 and 6 below, the maximum fee which may be required by a data controller under section 7(2)(b) of the Act is £10." (regulations 4, 5 and 6 relate to educational, health and credit authority cases - don't apply). So, as advised originally, if you send them a check for 10 quid, they will have 40 days notice from the date they receive the payment and the request, to satisfy your request.
Hi Bad news - i've received a letter today: " Dear Sir Atari Europe S.A.S: The Witcher We refer to your letter of 08 July in which you have made a subject access request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for "personally identifiable information held by yourselves with regards myself". The personal data which this firms holds about you is contained in documents which were created in order to be used in potential litigation against you. As such, they are exempted from requirement to comply with subject access request given in Section 37 and paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 of the Act. Accordingly, we are not require to comply with your request and are therefore returning your postal order. We strongly suggest you seek legal advise and cease copying and pasting often misguided and erroneous advice from internet forums. This only serves to increase the costs which it will be necessary to seek from you, should this matter proceed to trial. In the meantime, we expressly reserve all our client's rights..." ...HELP... What should i do now??? nw104hh@hotmail.com
Sounds like they are shitting their selves a little tbfh. On the whole file sharing thing, we recieved a warning letter from Virgin for a house we rent, and they have warned us because of a single MP3 song downloaded, some Cascada song. Thing is, they say they don't use torrents, so could it be to do with website downloading i.e. Rapidshare? Surely not as your downloading from a server? They are lying right?
Well... I would start with reading Section 37 and paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 of the Act. Just to know what they are talking about. I find it hard to believe that they can withhold any information purely on the INTENTION TO LITIGATE. That's bull, man! That can be said against any information. My believe is, unless they are actually using it to sue you - there's no exemption. But I may be wrong. Check the act carefully! Check out http://www.city.ac.uk/ic/dps/guidan...onal_Privilege_-_FOI_Awareness_Guidance_4.pdf As to their strong suggestion - they can suggest all they want. It's your right to use whatever resources are available to you. It may be worth checking this DPA issue with the regulating authority. Just pass DL's reply onto them and ask them to confirm that that is the case. (Not sure if there is such facility as general help on the act, but worth looking into it.) I haven't sent my letter to them yet, so will do some research as well. Will post here if I find anything. Hang in there, you're not alone!
You can download all you want, man, as long as you're not making that stuff available for download by others. Only then are you breaching the copyright.
Right got it, so they are telling porkies. Oh I download, not so much anymore actually as my PC is broken though.
The downloading of copyrighted material is also illegal, however on this occasion Davenport Lyons appear only to be going after those that have also made the material available to others i.e. seeding via torrents.
Mwahaha! HELLO DAVENPORT LYONS! Man, I want to work for a company in a position where all I do every day is Google for people I'm threatening with court action to see if they're getting help. Additionally: Now, I'm not a lawyer (so assume this information is misguided and erroneous), but I can't see any such exemption in Schedule 7. I'd recommend replying to the letter stating that you do not believe the threat of litigation is a valid reason for exclusion under Schedule 7, and that if the information requested is not provided you will have no choice but to apply for a court order to obtain it. It's bollocks anyway, because if they did proceed against you, you'd get a full copy of all the evidence they've filed anyway. This way you're just getting it earlier.
I agree. I've read the section as well, and all I could find is some Legal Professional Privilege crap. Which could !maybe! apply, if you were requesting communications between Atari and DL, or if Logistep was their client and you were requesting their's. But I see no way how this section applies in this case
The act of downloading copyrighted material IS illegal, not just the sharing. The point you made of of holding a copy so long as you own the original is not legal here in the UK. When you download copyrighted material with the intention of use, you are essentially stealing the product. And as a side note I would appreciate it if you would please moderate your language and tone used on the forum.
Sorry man, I actually did moderate it after awhile. Just don't like when somebody says you're a fool with nothing to support their argument. It's a bit silly, isn't it? We are all here to figure out the best way to defend ourselves against this scam, to share our knowledge. The last thing we need is somebody giving us labels: he's talking crap, he's making sense. By the way, I still don't agree that downloading of stuff is illegal. Or at least they would have a much harder case, therefore they are not accusing anybody of downloading it, only of making it available. Strange, isn't it? If downloading was also illegal. And another point I was trying to make a few pages back - how can anybody know at that stage, that the material they are downloading is copyright protected? Does it say so in the file name? No! Do you see a pop-up window, when you click on the download, asking you if you're aware of the breach of copyright and ready to proceed? No! The only way you know, is when you download it, unpack it and read supporting documents (if any), or otherwise initiate the installation and get to the terms and conditions screen. So how are you supposed to do all that, if it's illegal to download anything in the first place? What if I accidently clicked on the wrong link and the download initiated automatically, and in fact downloaded a few kilobytes before I could cancel it? Do I still get a fine for 500 quid just for clicking on the wrong link? I don't know, maybe I'm not making any sense here, but it seems to me a very grey area to say the list. And I would expect the law to be on my side, unless proven otherwise.
A new Blog Please follow attached link for my blog. See what you think, I'm sure that someone in P.R somewhere will say this is not good!!! http://ihateataridavenportlyon.blogspot.com/
Yes! Sure thing. Section 7 of the UK copyright law which is as follows: I think you'll find that downloading, and uploading, is the act of copying, as confirmed by the UK Government's Intellectual Property Office's website. There's no point in even arguing that point - the majority of people that have been threatened were uploaders, yes, but that's beside the point. Just because you think you were only downloading not sharing it (actually you were sharing, but this all seems to go over your head) doesn't make it legal in any way, shape or form. See above point quoting copyright law. Again, incorrect. (Source - section 8, point 8, emphasis 'computer program') Usually common sense doesn't need explaining Do you just walk into shops and assume that everything is free too? Seriously, just stop posting. You will not be taken seriously when you come out with such laughable, badly thought out posts Edit: i changed my post before i saw your reply Sorry, i've never seen a notice on a mars bar telling me it's illegal not to pay for the item
Dude, read it carefully! Issue copies to the public!!! It doesn't say anything about your personal use! It's all about distribution and making the work available to others. Adapt the work - means using parts of the work of the work in full in your own products. Is it just me who can see this? "Did you ever see a sign on every item in a shop saying it's illegal to steal? " - as a matter of fact such sign is in nearly EVERY shop. Something about shoplifting being prosecuted etc. And don't tell me it's common knowledge. It is. Software isn't. As I said, it's a grey area as far as I'm concerned. Anyways, I suggest we stop this useless argument. We're definitelly not helping anybody here by deviating from the topic. And please don't tell me what I should do. You have your opinion, I have mine.
My bad. Copy the work is not a heading of the section. You're probably right then. I'll just shut up on that point.
So what should i do, write back to them again, saying that i strongly deny all accusations, or just let it go and wait for they next move? Thanks
I'm sorry, that's not a grey area, software has a license which it ships with, this has exactly the same format as UK copyright law, by using the software you agree to abide by said licence. Even Open Source software has licenses which implicitly state you can copy the work free of charge but not for profit or to resell. And as a Software Engineer I do know those rights that we as programmers have to our own work.
Yes... but we're not talking about software that got shipped to you, are we? We're talking about...say... an archive, with some name, that mean nothing to you. Where does it say it's copyright protected? In other words, you would have to spend some time on the internet and google every single file you want to download to make sure there's no copyright protection. Are we expected to do that? I think not. And back to your point, they do ship the software license WITH the product, don't they? Why not just send you their product and have a license printed somewhere on their website? So clearly, they have to make the copyright known to the user, or am I wrong again? I think we need an expert opinion here. I'm just speculating at this point.
