tp123
-
Posts
100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by tp123
-
laptop The ip address of the laptop and the one detailed in the letter will be somthing like 82.110.108.xxx The ip address for the router will look somthing like 192.168.0.1 (default)
-
My advice (which does not constitue independent legal advice) is to send a single letter denying it and then forget about it. They may send more letters trying to scare you into paying but ignore them. Once you have replied with one letter, you have discharged your duties as the defendant in accordance with the code of conduct for pre-action protocol. After this you only need to react to an official court order - which is, well, unlikly to say the least! hope this helps a bit
-
@zero_flight How ya doing? Have you heard anything following your 2nd LOD yet? I have not had a response yet - seems they are too busy at the moment! regards tp123
-
Sample Letter of Denial ACS:LAW Andrew J Crossley 20 Hanover Sq, London, W1S 1JY (insert date) RE: Letter of Claim Dated (insert date) concerning “(insert file in question as mentioned in the letter)” (“The Work”) Dear Sir, I am writing in reply to your letter of claim dated (insert date) stating that my connection was used in an infringement of copyright, using peer to peer networks which allegedly occurred on the date (insert date) and concerns the work “(insert file in question as mentioned in the letter)” (“the work”). You assert in your letter that the infringement was apparently traced to my internet connection. I note that I am not personally being accused of the infringement, as you have no evidence to this effect. Nevertheless, I categorically deny any offence under sections 16(1) (d) and 20 of the CDPA 1988. I have never possessed a copy of the work in any form, nor have I distributed it, nor have I authorised anyone else to distribute it using my internet connection. I note that section 16(2) of the act requires a person to either directly infringe copyright, or authorise someone else to do so. I have done neither, and you have not provided any evidence of my doing so. As such I cannot and will not sign the undertakings as provided by you. As you seem to be perfectly aware, it is impossible to link an IP address to a particular person or computer without further detailed analysis, which requires a level of expertise I do not possess. Furthermore the delay in your sending of a letter of claim precludes any such analysis. In your letter you state that “it is unlikely that a simple denial (without further explanation) will change our view of the circumstances”, unfortunately I do not have the expertise to provide a detailed explanation. As such I can only conclude that I have been a victim of foul play. Yours Faithfully (Your name)
-
It is normal for the ip address to be different. It will be a "dynamic address" which means that the Internet Provider allocate you a different ip address nearly every time you connect. The ip address quoted in the letter is the one that was allegedly being used at the time of the infringment. Anyway, it is immaterial what the ip address is or was, as it only identifies an internet enabled device, not an individual. The device in this case is probably the wireless router that the Internet Provider allocated an ip address to - that address can be discovered and spoofed very easily as can the router be hacked and used by a 3rd party.
-
Is this Digirights - the well known German IT company that ACS Law used to employ before they started using a two bit London company called NG3 Systems...before they stopped even naming their IT experts in their letters... Or is it Digiright - a company based in the Costa Del Sol and equally dodgy looking?
-
If you didn't download/upload it, and this company has written to you to make a cliam under the code of practice for pre-action protocol in interlectual property rights disputes (like ACS Law) then you should as the defendant and as a minimum, reply with a letter denying the allegation and explaining why. This is what I did in April. I recieved another letter after that to which I replied, again denying it. I have heard nothing since. Without more details of the contents of these new letters from this new firm it is hard to comment.
-
To all new recipients of letters. Don't panic - this sounds very much like the scheme that ACS Law have been running. If you didn't download/upload anything - DON'T pay anything. If you did download/upload something - seek legal advice but don’t pay what they are asking – it is disproportionate to any losses incurred by the rights holder. Better still don't pay anything until they prove you did, because they can't from just an ip address. Read this forum thread, it will help you make an informed decision about how to proceed. @ davvruss – it would be helpful if you could remember the name of the company used to monitor the ip addresses, or maybe phone up and ask for it again? Cheers
-
Well said. Remember that these letters, however unreasonable they seem, are legitimate claims (although based on suspect evidence) made in accordance with the code of practice for pre-action conduct in intellectual property disputes. This code requires that the "defendant" should provide a written response. It's obviously up to the individual what they do but IMO should one of these claims ever get to court, a dim view would be taken by the Magistrates if the defendant had not , as a minimum, replied with a denial and hence discharged his duties to comply with the code of conduct.
-
Hi, No change in my case - still awaiting a reply to my second letter of denial. It seems that a new channel of complaint has opened up with reports that the BBCs One Show are planning to do a feature on ACS Law. This info comes from a post on the Slyck site which includes a link to the relevant website. I have already complained to Which?, Watchdog, SRA, LCS, MPs etc, and can now add the BBC One show to that list. I would encourage anyone elses to do so, if only to raise public awareness of this foul practice as the post on Slyck also indicates that according to Which?, many people are still paying up.
-
Yeah thats the one mate. personally I chopped out some stuff and added some bits specific to me, but this gives a rough idea. Be prepared however, to get a reply saying they "dont accept your letter as it's a template." This is a standard response and is no doubt for the purpose of keeping the "communications channel" open to try and extract more information from you, and/or to allow them to up the stakes and demand a higher amount of money.
-
Dan, Check out page 107 of this forum - post by rob a.
-
I thought this when I first started investigating this nonsense! I remember reading somwhere (sorry can't remember the source att) that they don't have to prove they sent it as any court "assumes that if a letter is sent, it would have been delivered" Strange, I know, but its probably to do with the balance of probablities again..."on balance, it is probable that the defendant recieved the letter" or somthing like that. Any clarifcation would be welcomed!
-
Although the grounds for their claim are suspect and it's doubful that anything will ever come of it, bear in mind that he has sent his letter of cliam in accordance with the Code of Practice for pre-action protocol. In order that you would be viewed by the courts (should it ever get there!)to have complied with the code yourself, I would advise responding with a letter. This was also the advise of Which? legal editor when I spoke to her. If you google: code of practice for pre-action in intellectual property disputes and check out section 4, it tells you what the letter of response should include. Regards TP123
-
peter_piper316, I received a letter in April involving Media CAT and have had a second letter. It was the standard "we don't accept...based on a template...from internet..." crap, oh, and the claim is now for double the amount! (part 36 offer)
-
I agree - My interpretation of the proposed code, and in particular the following parts; 3.2, 4.4, 5.6 and 7.5 is that it will effectively end the ACS:Law business model as it currently stands. It seems that the whole copyright infringement "business" will be cleaned up - Copyright owners will be able deal directly with ISPs. Allegations of copyright infringement will have to be evidentially robust and accurate, and proven to be so. The process of matching IP addresses to subscribers will have to be proved to be accurate. Provisions for grounds of appeal on which a subscriber may rely. The sooner this comes in. the better.
-
Lol! As far as I am aware it applies in all circumstances unless the company has an excemption. As i am not sure for what reasons a company would be granted an exemption (yet) I am not sure if ACS Law would have one. With the amount of money this guy must be drawing in, I suspect he would just employ someone to handle all the requests! I do hope the SRA pull their finger out...
-
I know what you mean - I found it helpful to keep in the back of my mind the fact that they have NEVER taken anyone to court. Also there is a lot of support for the cessation of ACS Laws activities, from groups like this, the Media and as high up as the House of Lords. You could be right and yes solicitors do charge through the nose! It seems to be the norm for them to increase the fee, although 2.3 of the Code of Practice for Pre-Action Conduct states "They should be [...] However, their preparation should not place an unreasonable or disproportionate burden on either party in terms of cost."
-
...now that sounds like a plan!
-
Thats good to know as thats the stage I'm at! Cheers for the post
-
Lol. Well, that wouldn't be hard! Congrats on your Masters, I'm only half way through a Bsc in ICT and finding it tough.
-
Terrence Tsang left ACS Law about a month ago...
-
An excellent post and an area I had planned to explore. It is my understanding that as "Data Subjects" we have the right under the Data Protection Act, to make a formal request (Subject Access Request?) to the Data Controller - in the case of ACS Law, Mr Crossley as the Sole Principle, to disclose any data he holds on us. I wander if this would also apply to the company(s) used obtain the IP addresses because it handles “data which relates to a living individual who can be identified from that data” I find the following points from your post particularly interesting; Data protection notice – I have not seen this on their website and although we already know the purpose for the processing, I would be interested to see if it discloses “details of any recipients of the personal data (e.g. other companies within the group) and their purposes” Rights of individuals - the right to object to certain processing causing substantial damage or distress. I would be interested if anybody has made a formal request...
-
stanixman, Fair one - It comes across badly. But, in my defence if you read back over your posts you will see that despite several good replies to your posts you continued to make comments such as "they say that iSP info is sufficent evidence and that i cant claim it was someone else etc as it was up to me to secure my routher. also a publican was fined 8 grand as somenone else was downloading music using free wifI SO THIS must of gone to court" and "He says people are paying up and that he will take offenders to court ? Please help as im cacking it here - i cant afford £295 let alone the thousands he says could be awarded if it goes to court? check out the web site?" You then posted a reply with a link to the ACS Law website. With this in mind, do you not agree that; (a) On the face of it and to the many other people who have been involved in this a while and have put time into investigation, research, reporting and advising others like yourself. People who have witnessed on this very forum attempts by ACS Law masquerading as victims to steer people in the wrong direction, that it may have seemed a bit suspicious? (b) Some of your comments may have been interperated as scaremongering and leading - a tacit used by ACS Law on this forum in the past and a tactic that forms the very basis upon which their scheme is effective. Maybe if you had spent more time reading the thread, perhaps even from the begining, your posts would have been worded differently? So I'm sorry "someone like me" took your posts the wrong way and I will endeavour "to be more considerate in future replies" if only so that I may continue to help others that receive these worrying letters. Regards
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS