8of9
-
Posts
102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by 8of9
-
Sounds good to me. Very similar to my last letter. I'm SURE they dont care, much like the many regulatory bodies who are supposed to care! But hey... "dont let the buggers grind you down!!!":)
-
Just trying to simplify things. Theres much of what these law firms do that is against the code of practice. Why enter into unecessary correspondance with these t**ts when a simple denial will do?
-
Loads of references for LOD templates in earlier pages in this forum. Read them but if you use them you will only get a letter back saying something like "....we find your reply hard to accept as it resembles a Tempate found on the internet..." Although its not illegal to use a template, why give them another reason to enter into a dialogue with you. Take the advice offered on "The One Show" 27th July and reply in your own words. (Check out the show on BBC iPlayer or on YouTube)
-
Just found this. Its a couple of months old (and a bit long)but it makes interesting reading. DigiProtect + ACS:Law = Extortion and Harrassment The bit that interests me is: If this is true why are the ISP's not challenging these court orders?
-
If you missed The One Show tonight, or like me, you turned on with about 2 minutes of the feature left, dont bother with BBC iPlayer..... its not on because "Unfortunately, certain programming, is subject to rights restrictions". Now that surely takes the biscuit !!!!! (Might be able to d/l it from a torrent site though)
-
TalkTalk.... are you sure?
-
I was accused of uploading/sharing the full album. presumably the individual artists licence the use of their tracks to ministry of sound? I'm not sure how it works from a legal point of view I'm not sure of the legalities either but if the individual artists have given MOS permission to use their work then surely they are entitled to their cut? This then doesn't make any sense to me as another dozen or so in the share out wouldnt make it worthwhile.....unless the artists aren't aware what their work is being used for...!
-
Article in The Guardian Draft filesharing code flawed, says Open Rights Group | Technology | guardian.co.uk A little late but at least its now getting some column space.
-
Hi Ozzy MOS Just going back to your post of a few weeks ago, Were you accused of downloading the whole album or just one track, and did the torrent contain the full album? What I'm wondering is that if the torrent contained the whole album then there are many artists that appear on it, most signed to other labels. Ministry of Sound will obviously have permission to use their work on "The Annual 2010 but have these other artists given their permission for their work to be used in this way by MOS & ACSL and, if not, aren't ACSL guilty of making their work available for download themselves? Do the other artists even know that this is happening? and if they did would they allow it? (This has probably been answered elsewhere and if it has I do apologise) 8of9
-
No show again..... ......WILL SMITH last week,TOM CRUISE tonight. Crossleys being "bumped" off the programme by some big names!! From Slyck Forum "by Hickster » Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:38 pm Hi Guys Regarding the "One Show", I am in touch with one of the people involved and I have been told that it has currently been put back due to further investigation. I think they are going to do a bigger story than what was first planned. It WILL happen so lets just wait for it. I am sure it will be a GREAT Piece".
-
I think this would be considered as "Entrapment". "Entrapment arises when a person is encouraged by someone in some official capacity to commit a crime. If entrapment occurred, then some prosecution evidence may be excluded as being unfair, or the proceedings may be discontinued altogether". It would be hard to argue that ACSLaw were acting in an "official capacity"
-
Pirate Bay Tricks Anti-Pirates with Fake Peers | TorrentFreak Does this still happen?
-
No intention of paying a dime. Just trying to look at it from another angle and hopefully give another line of defence when someone is taken to court:lol:
-
I've no idea either. Just thinking "outside the box". The rights holders have the opportunity to have illegal copies of their work removed from most torrent sites. As these torrents have been placed with the full knowledge of the rights holder then aren't they offering their work to share?
-
I was trying to explore the copyright angle rather than the validity if the evidence. So, if a torrent has been placed to harvest IP addresses by ACS Law, then the copyright holder must have authorised it and its placement for download and therefore authorised it for sharing. Does this then imply that anyone who connects to this file has permission to share this file and is not in breach of copyright?
-
Just read a post on the Plusnet forum with an interesting theory. Its a common belief that torrents have been placed to harvest IP addresses. So could there be something in this?
-
If you didn,t do it and you're sure that no one else has done it. Theres no trace of the file on your HD and you're wondering if there is an explaination, maybe..... Flaw could expose 'millions' of home routers ? The Register If it happened to you, can it be proved or disproved?
-
TudorBlue As the firms who are issuing these letters monitor these forums, you can now be identified by your IP which you have posted. I would do as Ozzy suggests. When in a hole dont keep digging!
-
Does he even need to know that you have two daughters? No more information than is needed to deny the claim. All that is known at the moment is your name and address why give more?
-
Dont say anything more than you need to. Stating that your daughter owns a copy bought in Tesco is irrelevant. It might open the door for them to persue this from another angle. Basic information only.
-
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER PLEASE READ THIS. The file sharing war rages on - Copyright Law Articles and News - Lawdit Reading Room This seems like sound advice to me, and from a solicitor. A simple letter outlining why you are denying the claim. No need to follow a template and be accused of doing so (even though it is not illegal to use one) as this gives them another reason to write to you. Send it recorded delivery if you like but if they send you another letter referring to your reply thats it. The advice is 1 LOD.
-
Posted on Slyck Food for thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_ ... s_Act_1988 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/pd%20...%20027_en.pdf Seems pretty black and white to me. Andrew Crossley has always stated that the letters sent by his firm are not demands, but enquiries. It would rather seem to me that's he's broken the law. As an aside, that must be about the shortest Act of Law I've ever seen. Two sides of A4? factual Posts: 61 Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:13 pm If it could be proven that the information collected by the monitoring software was not reliable and AC knew this then would he be in breach of 1(a)(iii)? If so, could all the letters he has sent be considered malicious and is the possibility of thousands of counter claims on this basis a reasonable assumption? Food for thought indeed!
-
Hey D0nkey !! Saw your post on Slyck. Read with Samanthaj & Factual 's posts it is makes very interesting reading. You posted here: Does the exclusion of this information make these Pre-Action claims illegal? Could you request this information from ACSL? (Would they be able to provide it ?)
-
Thanks Mr A. But its not my work. I'm still trying to get my head round it and understand it myself never mind explain it!! If you are interested, then the preceeding and following posts on Slyck make interesting reading. Slyck.com • View topic - The official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit discussion
-
Just read this posted on SLYK. It is very interesting.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS