Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About sek

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I hope so. I've been reading this blog (plus p2pfreak and DigitalSpy) and there are soooo many people who've been hit with this letter from ACS Law. I can't see as they can take us all to court. It's ridiculous. I'm furious (I think I have steam coming out of my ears) they have the nerve.
  2. OK, I'm also following another blog - p2pfreak.com - discussing this letter from ACS Law. http://www.p2pfreak.com/forum/torrent-sites/1581-infringement-copyright-notice-two-worlds.html Bloggers from p2pfreak.com have contacted BBC Watchdog and done some similar digging to that of CAG members. They're suggesting banding together to fight this. ACS Law don't have a good case anyway and there's no way they can fight all of us - must be hundreds if not thousands of us. We should make contact and really kick some ar*** together. What I have just found out from p2pfreak (from 'Leebones' to be precise) is that Virgin Media have given people's details out. Virgin staff weren't aware of the case yesterday or earlier today when some of us were ringing them. But clearly it's come to their attention and their customer service staff have been briefed by their managers that they have had to give customers details out because they've been given a court order to do so. This is what Leebones had to say: "The first call I made to virgin media explaining the letter revealed nothing. The rep said that nothing was noted in my account so she said to ignore the letter and leave it. I decided to call them a second time and explained to a different rep.he put me on hold to speak to his manager. After a few minutes he came back saying that indeed they had a court order and had to give over my details although they "didn't like it". The thing is I didn't even get a letter from virgin telling me my details were requested. But it seems virgin managers are now informing the phone reps of this. This is a genuine case, the only thing we can do is respond by letter to acs:law and deny these claims. I will also be contacting michael coyle who fought against davanport Lyons and seek his advice." So, it seems ACS Law have got people's details legitimately, but this still doesn't mean they have a good case and certainly the way they've gone about trying to get people's money isn't legitimate which is probably why they are worried (according to how their anxious secretary sounds). This isn't surprising since a lot of us have notified OFT, the Police, etc who appear to have been in touch with ACS.
  3. Essentially, when it comes down to it ACS have no foundation for a case and the list of reasons (all posted by CAG members - what great folk!) is endless. To summarise just a little of what members have helpfully pointed out: 1) No court authorisation (ie innocent until proven guilty - letter assumes guilt) 2) Only proof is based on IP address (these can be faked, they can change - often as frequently as every 24 hours - and lastly Wi-Fi security can be compromised. The last point is not supposed to be a defence but this is thorny issue and can be debated either way. If someone steels your car and has a crash - you wouldn't be liable, so why would you be if someone decides to hack into your Wi-Fi connection!) 3) The receipt of people's personal details from IP addresses without permission from the internet provider (in this case Virgin(NTL) is illegal in itself - (1998) Data Protection Act. 4) Permission to obtain personal details from IP addresses would only be given in criminal cases (court orders) not in civil. ....the list goes on.
  4. In response to Mr Ton. I'm not trying to dress it up! It's simply a matter of semantics. The letter is genuine as is the law, but as per my last post - there's no foundation for a case. And in trying to pursue the case, ACS have themselves broken the law by obtaining people's IP addresses illegally, breaking the 1998 Data Protection Law. Did you read my whole post, erh?? It was supposed to be helpful!
  5. It's real in that solicitors will try to get money out of you using the existing law, but they don't, and won't ever, have a case.
  6. Yes, the word '[problem]' isn't strictly accurate in this instance. The 1988 Copyright Act is legitiment law and any infringement of it is an offence. That part is true and makes the letters look authoritative on first glance. But where the case falls down is that the law is only inforceable once guilt is proven. It cannot be enforced by a letter which claims people are guilty on the basis of VERY flimsy evidence. Evidence which has been obtained itself unlawfully(!) since Virgin (NTL) have not given permission for people's IP addresses to be used in this way and are themselves unaware of the cases ACS are pursuing. Personal details from IP addresses can only be obtained in criminal cases (not civil such this). By obtaining personal contact details from IP addresses without permission or cause is breaking the law itself. It is against the the Data Protection Act (1998) to obtain individual's personal details without proper permision. ACS - you are breaking the law - naughty, naughty! So, to be accurate, this isn't a [problem] as such. Instead is a very clever ploy, which makes cunning use of an existing law to get money out of people. This is why the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) need to be notified about this (as well as the others I have already notified). The way ACS have used the Copyright law and twisted it to make money breaks the SRA code of conduct. A cunning subterfuse, which is itself illegal.
  7. I hope, ACS Law, that you are reading this site as this is the one message I really want to you to get: Today I have done the following on behalf of all those who've received your threatening, but groundless, letter: 1) Consulted the police on this matter, giving them the contact details provided on your letter - telephone and address. 2) Reported your [problem] to the Office of Fair Trading. [problem] is what it is since you are trying to solicit monies from people as if they are guilty when you have no proof of this. Innocent until proven guilty - ever heard of that, erhm? Guilt on the basis of IP address is ridiculous. IP addresses change every 24 hours (especially if a moden is switched off); can be faked and can be used by others if Wi-Fi security is compromised. 3) Reported your [problem] to Consumer Direct - a government led organisation. You may now yourself be contacted from any of the above three and I suspect they will be more manacing.
  • Create New...