8of9
-
Posts
102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by 8of9
-
A MUST READ Open Rights Group account of NPO hearing 4th October http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing-part-one http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing-part-two ALSO. This is an excellent document from "Being Threatened" explaining much of what is going on and the errors that can occur.. https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-FtXNu_158fOTIxOGMxNzMtNGJmNi00YTcwLWJlMmUtMTJhZDg2NGIwNjlk&hl=en_GB&authkey=CL3JpeIE Sorry if they've been posted before - been busy with leaked Emails HI YA TERRY
-
– Email from ACS:Law client which states the following: Just about sums it up More..... http://torrentfreak.com/acslaw-anti-piracy-law-firm-torn-apart-by-leaked-emails-100925/
-
Developments on ACS Law's website http://www.slyck.com/story2058_ACSLaw_Email_Database_Possibly_Leaked_onto_The_Pirate_Bay (Click torrent link)
-
Even if you dont write to CMW you MUST read this. Link to the amicus brief which you are more than welcome to send to Chief Master Winegarten along side your letter to him. (It won't send itself). https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B- ... y=CL3JpeIE Politely explain your position and why you believe the Chief Master has a responsibility to protect the interests of justice in the absence of an ISP with enough backbone to provide a counterview to that of the claimant. As ever ensure you keep the language polite. Address as previously posted by Jambo is: CHIEF MASTER WINEGARTEN, CHANCERY DIVISION, ROOM TM 7.08, THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, STRAND, LONDON, WC2A 2LL
-
Looks like the Domain has been suspended now [url=]http://www.acs-law.org.uk/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi[/url]
-
All explained here http://torrentfreak.com/new-4chan-ddos-targets-hated-anti-piracy-law-firm-100922/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11371315 http://torrentfreak.com/4chan-to-ddos-riaa-next-is-this-the-protest-of-the-future-100919/
-
OUTCOME OF NPO HEARING 20/09/10 THIS MAKES VERY INTERESTING READING http://torrentfreak.com/judge-warns-of-end-to-file-sharing-cash-demands-100922/ CMW is obviously concerned about these applications and has deferred his ruling until 4th October due to a letter(s) he has received from a member(s) of the public querying the process. Whether or not CMW is fully up to speed on P2P, file sharing and Bit Torrents it wasn't helped by GM' s solicitors description. It could be that they were attempting to pull the wool over his eyes or they are just inept. Whatever was in that letter(s) it has got CMW's attention. Now is the time for some IT professional legally savvy member of the public to write to him and "open his eyes" as to what is going on.
-
No, I dont think I put it down right. They (ISP) only provide name and address. If you want details of you own account you have to use a Subject Access Request, at a cost. They wont just give them to you. Either way BskyB get paid.
-
If COENQUIRIES are still like they were when I tried to obtain information then you are going to have a very sore head. I was baanging my head on that brick wall for weeks and all I was getting was the automated reply advising me to contact ACS Law. You will have to be very persistent and inventive to get anything out of them! BskyB have to reveal your IP details when they receive the NPO. They probably get a fee from ACS Law for every one they provide. If you eventually get through to BskyB and talk to someone they will not provide you with the same details or any other details about your broadband account ie IP addresses, sites visited, dates times etc. What you can do however is apply for a "Subject Access Request" for your details. Thiis will cost you about £10. Yes you have to pay them to provide you with your details that they have already been paid to reveal to someone else.
-
You probably have a Dynamic IP address. This means that it can change every time you access the internet. (If you were to have a Static IP address it would not change). Your ISP should have a log of what your IP address was at any given time. When a NPO is granted it compels the ISP to reveal the Name and Address of the IP that has been identified. No more. If you think that you may have downloaded it then the CAB will probably advise you to pay up. I believe that MediaCat own the distribution rights. Digiprotect are the company used to monitor the work and provide the IP addresses.
-
HM GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON ONLINE INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT (INITIAL OBLIGATIONS) COST SHARING http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/business-sectors/docs/o/10-1131-online-copyright-infringement-government-response TalkTalk's reaction on Cost Sharing http://www.talktalkblog.co.uk/2010/09/14/talktalk-criticises-digital-economy-act-costs-ruling/ All hail the TALKTALK. The ISP with BALLS. :hail::hail::hail::hail:
-
Are you .... Banned in Switzerland ? http://www.cnbc.com/id/39059094 Banned in Gerrmany ? http://torrentfreak.com/german-court-decision-hands-big-win-to-file-sharers-080320/ Banned in Italy ? http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-company-spied-on-thousands-of-p2p-users-080317/ Are you having problems finding work and you feel that the whole world is against you? Are you having difficulty in your crusade to eliminate illegal downloading? Do you feel that you have been unfairly treated by some countries? Then come to the UK where you can take advantage of the NPO. You can use your illegally obtained data to open doors that you never knew existed. No questions asked, as long as you "play the game". Even if your own country has outlawed your activities we will find a way for you to "legally" rob our citizens. Come to the UK. We are here to please.
-
As the Being Threatened Handbook says: If , instead of assuming that it was a [problem], you had done a little bit of research you might might realise that you are not the only one in this situation and there is a lot of advice available. You will find that if you use a template to reply then they will not accept it because it "resembles a template found on the internet". A reply in your own words is better but do not give out any information that you dont need to, ie my wife owns the CD. You do not want to enter into a dialogue with these people, this is what they want. One LOD is all that is required. One thing that you would have discovered if you had done some research is that no-one has as yet been taken to court. The only "alleged" court case was someone who did not reply to the Letter of Claim, which was your initial response!!!
-
Some replies to OFCOM's questionaire on the DEA http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/08/07/summary-of-key-responses-to-ofcoms-uk-draft-illegal-internet-file-sharing-isp-code.html If you only read 2, read the responses from BskyB and TalkTalk. BskyB's response is absolutely PATHETIC. TalkTalk's response...... naming both ACS Law and Davenport Lyons they say TalkTalk...... I salute you
-
I had a reply to my first LOD which said that it resembled a Template so they would not believe it. I sent a second LOD and they sent another letter containing the same demand and further threats. I sent a third LOD which was very short and concise !! and also saying that it would be my last. I have, as yet, not received a reply.
-
Of course they know all about LOD's and they know very well that they are valid. How else would it work? Yes I did it - Pay up. No I didnt do it - LOD. Send them the LOD, in your own words, stating why you are denying this claim. You dont need to have all the info to defend yourself at this stage and, if it ever goes to court (which is unlikely as no case has gone to a court as yet), their so called evidence would not stand up to scrutiny ( a risk none of the players have, as yet, been willing to take.) Tell them that this is your final reply and you are not prepared to enter into further correspondence on the matter. You could also say that any further letters from them could be classed as harrassment.
-
Have GM replied to the letter you sent to ACS Law or have you had a letter from both ACS Law & GM ?
-
You might read this first...... http://torrentfreak.com/wrongfully-accused-of-file-sharing-file-for-harassment-100831/
-
This all boils down to the accuracy of the evidence..... And that is why no one will be taken to court. It would open up their evidence to scrutiny and cross examination. Some really useful stuff here http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/info.php
-
Unfortunately I tend to agree with the previous post by Witzend.. If you have said that you have downloaded it to GM then, what they have from you, is an admission of guilt. I dont think it would be wise to now write them a letter saying something different as I would presume that their calls would be recorded in some way. There seems to be a lot of inconsistancies in what you have said and what you intend to write. I am not a legal person but damage limitation is probably your best course of action now. Therefore, in your situation, it might be wise to seek legal advise. (BTW downloading to listen to isn't a very good excuse as there are plenty of sites on the net where you can listen for free.)
-
@blashey Who did you try to explain to?
-
I suppose that until he goes before the tribunal he is free to carry on. Innocent until proved guilty. (Not a privilage afforded to the recipients of the letters though who are, of course, all guilty.) Whether he carries on, or not, remains to be seen. (His predecessors, Davenport Lyons, stopped when they were in a similar situation) If you've sent an LOD, thats enough. You have no need to enter into any further correspondence. The balls now firmly in his court.
-
http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=16835&c=1&eclipse_action=getsession
-
The threat of the SDT and the bad publicity which accompanied it was enough for Davenport Lyons to give up and pass the baton to ACS Law. Whether this will be enough for ACS Law to give up remains to be seen. Will the same fate befall Gallant McMillan? Chances are that it will. Surely the SRA can see a pattern here... Tilly Bailey Irvine, Davenport Lyons, ACS Law, Gallant McMillan .... All complaints are about the same thing. How many more will have joined the fray before the SDT hearings. The regulating bodies should do something NOW. What will be interesting to see is if any further letters are sent out by ACS Law, and if GM's strategy changes.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS