captain-123
-
Posts
45 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Just to let you know that anyone wishing to write to CMW (hopefully everyone here) there is an update to the document provided by the user Renegade on the Slyck forum which explains the whole P2P process and the flaws associated with the collection of data in a easy to understand manner. This is an excellent document to take pointers from and include with your letter. Regardless of peoples circumstances there is an excellent section on why this process is flawed and how the system cannot prove if a single person shared a whole or significant part of the work involved which is something which is required under CDPA rules.
-
People wishing to write a letter to CMW could take a look over at the Slyck forum their is an excellent post on page 388 by a user called Renegade with a link to a Google document written by the being threatened team. This document will help everyone who would like to write a letter to CMW and is an excellent resource. Please take the time to contact CMW. Lets all take a stand remember united we stand divided we fall. Chief Master Winegarten Chancery Division Room TM 708 The Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London WC2A 2LL It's now or never people, we have a shot here at giving CMW some amunition to fire back with as it seems we are the only people who are fighting as the ISPs don't seem to care.
-
Not sure if I've read this right but I don't think they (ISP) provide ACS with any information (sites visited, times etc.) other than who had the IP address that is related to said infringement at said time.
-
@iaidoman I can't really answer that it is down to each person as only they know the true situation. If it was me and I hadn't done it then I would never pay them a peny. If I had then the options are to deny completely and never change your stance or give them any further information other than LOD and see how that goes or to speak to some one like xxxxxxxxxx and ask them to deal with ACS to try to reduce your settlement figure. You could always give xxxxxx a call and see what they think I'm sure they will give a bit of free advice. I've read somewhere that they charge £150 to deal with this so it depends on how much they could negotiate, either way its worth a call to see what your options are.
-
32 GB what the bloody hell was it? Was this in the name of MediaCat?
-
why so much? I thought that the sum was normally around £500 pounds
-
I know that people are being accussed of uploading rather than downloading and I can understand why that is because they can charge more by saying that you allowed x amount of people to get a copy but can I ask if all someone did was download would that still not be a copyright infringement?
-
Who does the claimed work belong to, MediaCat or Digiprotect? If you haven't done it then it doesn't matter if they say you have downloaded it one, twice, etc. etc. send a letter of denial. I'm not sure how they could make two claims for the same work anyway, surely if the claim is that you have made it available for worldwide distrabution via the net then that's the claim. Hypothetically what if someone had a slow connection and took a long time for the download to complete, it is still only one infringement regrdless of how long it took.
-
@Silverwood Can I ask would people be able to use your internet without your knowledge, unsecure wireless etc? I can understand people getting letters if they have downloaded or if they have unsecure wireless but if people are getting letters just because they have used torrents then that would leave most of the open source comunity open to these letters which are legal uses for torrents. This would be a very scary situation as it would mean that there is no checking of data. I've read somewhere that they are supposed to get a list of the IP addresses and then connect to the IP addresses and then download at least some small amount of information. If this is the case then at least it would rule out torrent site admins poluting the IP pool with fake IP addresses as even if someone was using torrent software they would have to connect not only to your machine but also be offered at least a small amount of the file they were monitoring and not just because they could connect to a torrent client program. This would seem to leave the possibility of a) you actually downloading the file b) your connection being used without authorisation / wireless hacked That is of course if they do check that they can connect not only to a torrent client but also to the file being monitored. If not then anyone using torrent software for legal purposes and unlucky enough to have their IP address placed in a pool of IP addresses by a site admin could get a letter despite only downloading Linux distros. Just trying to understand the situation really
-
If I was going to do this without the help of a solisitor I would not sign the form or admit to any wrong doing but say that to remove the stress and hassle of this hanging over me I would be prepaired to negotiate on the cost. Not sure if this would be the right thing to do though
-
Personally, if you have done it and admitted doing it, I would take 15 mins free advice from a solisitor and send the letter. If you were willing to pay the £350 then the worst that can happen is they say no pay the £350 but they might come to a lower figure. You can go down the road of it wasn't me that phoned etc. but it will always be in the back of your mind. Peace of mind has a price too. This is just my opinion and I would take some free advice, maybe send lawdit an email and see what they say, it can't hurt. This is just my opinion in this particular instance please make up your own mind. You have to decide what to do and what is best for you. If you decide to pay then you have nothing to loose by trying to negotiate a lower setlement. If you decide to go with it wasn't me who phoned and it wasn't me then you can't change from this and have to stick to your guns regardless of how difficult things may or may not get. Remember no one on here is an expert not even me
-
If you have admitted it I would say the best you could do is try and make a lower offer but that's just my opinion i'm no expert.
-
nope, your ip address is dynamic and will change over time.
-
If you haven't done it then it doesn't matter if they say 30 thousand downloads and 90 thousand uploads. To have comitted the offence under CDPA rules you have to have done the dead or authorised someone else to do it. If you haven't done either of these things then you are innocent. It is that simple. If you think about it if everyone rings them they will all get similar information, they are hardly like to say nope you called our bluff when we've checked we have nothing on file. I would sugest doing a search for being threatend website and speaking to people over in the chat room they will give you some support.
-
What do they mean '5 infringements in total' are these 5 different times? If so why didn't you recieve 5 letters instead of two or was that an error in their error
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS