Hey Stevo7790 No offence. It just goes to show the differing opinions and the confusion that this is all causing not to mention the anguish and sleepless nights!! Dont know if anyone else has done this but has anyone googled the file ID of the torrent they have been accused of sharing. I found that it was still "available". If the rights holder was interested in protecting their copyright then they could have it removed as torrent sites must do this when requested by the rights holder. The fact that these torrents are still there just confirms that they have been created and made available for the sole purpose of extorting money from people. Basically entrapment. Unethical yes but I dont think its illegal in the UK.

stevo7790 dont really know tat any of this would stand up in court as no cases have got that far as yet. Would be interesting to know if GM are using the same gathering software as ACSL

Well Stevo779 The point I was making is that it is not a criminal offence to have an open Wifi connection. If it was then "the information Police" would be doing their rounds in the footsteps of Google Street Maps Google WiFi privacy row: Eric Schmidt admits search engine 'screwed up' - Telegraph because its that easy. I didnt mention anything about "piggybacking" etc but seeing as you have brought the subject up.... Ordinary people might not waste their time trying to bypass someones security but the world is not just full of "ordinary" people. How many "ordinary" people do you know who sit outside somebodys house using their wifi connection because thet are bored or dont want to pay for downloading or who want to hide their identity???

About the Software used to identify IP addresses. This was posted back in April. Cheers Whereswally (Page 118 # 2350) You dont get a lot for $750 these days, no mention of Deep Packet inspection here. The question is have they moved on from this?, because Terrance Tsang certainly has. Who would be their UK expert now? posted by Terrance Tsang (TT) way back in 2008. So much for the "evidence" ... I have quoted from their templated letters: ACS:LAW's "client" has retained forensic computer analysts (Advert above??) to search for and identify internet addresses from which our clients members' copyright works (including the Work) are being made available on so called "peer to peer" networks which are then able to be downloaded by third parties with out our clients consent or license." "The processes and methods employed by our clients IT experts (Advert above??) to produce the evidence which is then submitted to the ISP's (to get our details), has been the subject of a number of detailed investigations and reports prepared by a qualified information technology consultant including a UK expert (Terrance??) Also check out the previous page (117 #2326) for info on NG3 Systems.

Didnt realise that not having password protected security was a criminal offence. It might be contrary to most ISP's terms and conditions, but how many have read these? Also, how many have been informed by their ISP's of wifi security and have advised them to change their passwords on a regular basis? Wouldn't this be admitting that their security was c**p.!!

Just found this on "What Do They Know" http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/35054/response/98514/attach/html/3/Fletcher%2065669.doc.html If you have been falsely accused, contact the SRA

No I dont think that they did. They received, along with other ISP's, a request from ACS Law informing them that they were applying for a court order for them to reveal the identities of "infringing" IP adresses. This is based on a procedure called the Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO). At this point an ISP can inform the applicant that they will contest this order, as TALKTALK (did leading to no actions against their customers). All other ISP's who would not contest the application then received a court order for them to provide the data requested. I asked Sky about this order and they confirmed to me, by E-mail, that they received such an order. Whatever you might think about Sky and the other "tame" ISP's, they would not reveal personal details without the correct applications. Its all covered in the Data Protection Act. Try it yourself. Ring them up with a friends or your own IP number and ask who it belongs to and see whether they give you the information. They wont even give you your own Internet History (addresses contacted etc) witout you applying for a SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST (Data Protection Act 1988 ) and you would have to pay for this. It is rumoured that some of the ISP's who provide the information are paid up to £50 for each one. Now, do you think that they will give this information if you just ring up and ask??? I would still recommend that recipients of the latest batch of letters go back and read the previous posts, not just 10 or 12 pages but from the begining if you can. Many of your questions have been asked before and there is a lot of sound advice to look at. It will also give you more of an idea of the wider picture and how long similar things have been going on. Remember the law has not changed .. yet.

Hi EtAB It took me a long time to get through to someone at Sky who actually knew what was going on other than getting directed to "co-enquiries" and an automated reply. It does not matter whether you did or didn't do it. The fact of the matter is that an ISP cannot reveal the identity of a subscribers IP address without a court order. Sky confirmed to me that they have received such an order and that their policy is to comply with it and supply the identities of their subscribers based on the IP addresses provided. To simply provide the information over the 'phone is not only unethical it is also illegal (Data Protection Act). If you have taken the name(s) of the person(s) at Sky who told you this I would make an official complaint about them. I wouldn't have thought that your case is unique just because you admit that you downloaded file but not as they claim you did. Its your call. Pay up or send an LOD. But before divulging any reasons to ACS Law in your defence I would strongly advise that you seek legal advice. 8of9

WRONG WRONG WRONG SKY received a court order (NPO) from ACS Law to provide the IP address identity. No ISP will reveal this data witout a Court Order. I suggest that recipients of the latest batch of Letters of Claim spend some time reading all the previous replies as this will answer most of your questions. Even though they're from a different company the same laws apply.

Dont think that this will help people who have received letters of claim as they have been obtained through a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO). The NPO is what the ISP's need to challenge. The Digital Economy Bill only received Royal Assent on 8th April 2010, some of it it became law on June 8th 2010, the full process comes into force once OFCOMS regulatory code is approved by parliaiment. Part of says: Obligation to notify subscribers of reported infringements Show EN After section 124 of the Communications Act 2003 insert— “Online infringement of copyright: obligations of internet service providers 124A Obligation to notify subscribers of copyright infringement reports (1) This section applies if it appears to a copyright owner that— (a) a subscriber to an internet access service has infringed the owner’s copyright by means of the service; or (b) a subscriber to an internet access service has allowed another person to use the service, and that other person has infringed the owner’s copyright by means of the service. (2) The owner may make a copyright infringement report to the internet service provider who provided the internet access service if a code in force under section 124C or 124D (an “initial obligations code”) allows the owner to do so. (3) A “copyright infringement report” is a report that— (a) states that there appears to have been an infringement of the owner’s copyright; (b) includes a description of the apparent infringement; © includes evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the subscriber’s IP address and the time at which the evidence was gathered; (d) is sent to the internet service provider within the period of 1 month beginning with the day on which the evidence was gathered; and (e) complies with any other requirement of the initial obligations code. (4) An internet service provider who receives a copyright infringement report must notify the subscriber of the report if the initial obligations code requires the provider to do so. (5) A notification under subsection (4) must be sent to the subscriber within the period of 1 month beginning with the day on which the provider receives the report. (6) A notification under subsection (4) must include— (a) a statement that the notification is sent under this section in response to a copyright infringement report; (b) the name of the copyright owner who made the report; © a description of the apparent infringement; (d) evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the subscriber’s IP address and the time at which the evidence was gathered; (e) information about subscriber appeals and the grounds on which they may be made; (f) information about copyright and its purpose; (g) advice, or information enabling the subscriber to obtain advice, about how to obtain lawful access to copyright works; (h) advice, or information enabling the subscriber to obtain advice, about steps that a subscriber can take to protect an internet access service from unauthorised use; and (i) anything else that the initial obligations code requires the notification to include. (7) For the purposes of subsection (6)(h) the internet service provider must take into account the suitability of different protection for subscribers in different circumstances. (8) The things that may be required under subsection (6)(i), whether in general or in a particular case, include in particular— (a) a statement that information about the apparent infringement may be kept by the internet service provider; (b) a statement that the copyright owner may require the provider to disclose which copyright infringement reports made by the owner to the provider relate to the subscriber; © a statement that, following such a disclosure, the copyright owner may apply to a court to learn the subscriber’s identity and may bring proceedings against the subscriber for copyright infringement; and (d) where the requirement for the provider to send the notification arises partly because of a report that has already been the subject of a notification under subsection (4), a statement that the number of copyright infringement reports relating to the subscriber may be taken into account for the purposes of any technical measures. (9) In this section “notify”, in relation to a subscriber, means send a notification to the electronic or postal address held by the internet service provider for the subscriber (and sections 394 to 396 do not apply).” READ IT IN FULL Digital Economy Act 2010 (c. 24) There might be a "Bandwagon" here but it isn't on our behalf! It seems to me that this bill puts the onus on the ISP's to act on any alleged copyright infringements from rights holders who provide evidence that their copyright has been infringed. This should stop (I think, as I aint no lawyer) individual consumers and IP addresses revceiving letters of claim from the likes of ACS Law. So its very gallant of BT to join TALKTALK challenging this bill now when it is going to effect them directly. Where have they been since this all this started?? Where have they and all the other ISP's been when their customers have been threatened?? Why has there been no challenges to any court orders by any ISP until now? (TALKTALK excepted who have resisted throughout) I can imagine that the other ISP's will crawl out of the woodwork and also challenge this bill now it means that it is they who will have to police this. What would be interesting to find out is what part of this bill is being challenged, and why. And if successful what effect this has on the situation now and in the future.

So, does this mean that the other ISP's are? Have any of them received a report as to how many have been taken to court? Have any of them confirmed that they have even asked for the information that is legally obliged to be provided? It does seem to be curious that only BE Unlimited are being targeted on this NPO as all the others were targeted on the February order. Could it be that they have, after all, been working together on our behalf, quietly and unassuming in the background, collecting their evidence, not wanting to alert Mr Crossley of their intentions, waiting for the right time to strike back to champion the innocent .......OOOPS, so sorry... I got a bit carried away!!!!!! Anyway... it still goes on

The claims in th USA regarding "The Hurt Locker" were only issued a matter of weeks ago, but already civil rights groups are in the courts challenging these claims. Here in the UK where this has been going on months (or years if you include Davenport Lyons similar claims), Consumer watchdog, Which, are still "highlighting" and "Reporting". The SRA are doing .... don't know - what are they doing? ISP's are doing nothing. There have been speeches made in the House of Lords. There have been many complaints to MP's and Government Departments have exchanged correpondence on the subject. All these, and probably more, know whats going on and yet no attempt has been made to sort this out! Meanwhile ... it goes on.

Yeah. Well said. It is obvious that what is going on is widely known about in government, ISP's, SRA etc. What is strange however is that NOT ONE of these official and regulatory bodies is doing anything about it, or at least publically they're not. We know that the SRA are investigating ACS Law, as they did with Davenport Lyons before and from whom ACS picked up when they got out. How long do they need? Surely the SRA have enough evidence to put a stop to this. Perhaps it needs a "name" or a "celebrity" to be accused to bring this into the public domain. (or do ACS Law filter the names and addresses supplied and deliberately exclude those who might attract unwanted publicity??) Meanwhile it still goes on.....

As parliamentary under secretary of state? If so, Does Heidi agree with her predecessors comments regarding ACS Law? And as she has taken over, What is she going to do about this debacle that the previous government left?

EVERYBODY WHO HAS RECEIVED A LETTER FROM ACS LAW SHOULD READ THIS. A part of a letter from Bridget Prentice MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, dated 8th February 2010. "....The Ministry of Justice recognises the distress that has resulted from the conduct of ACS Law and shares the concern expressed by the Lords in this matter. It may be helpful to say to recipients of a letter from ACS Law who are satisfied that they have no liability whatsoever in respect of the issues raised, that it is open to them to inform ACS Law that they are not liable and do not intend to reply to any further correspondence save to defend a claim should one be brought. ACS Law's clients then would have to decide whether or not to proceed with a formal claim." The full letter appears in an article on ACS Bore Received a letter from ACS LAW? Ministry of Justice: “ACS:LAWs conduct has caused distress” So, ACS Law... put up or shut up! Throw it back over their heads to the "Copyright Holder" as it is they who must decide how to proceed once ACS Law's uncontested gravy train dries up. Reply to them in this manner but be careful not to use the exact wording or you might be accused of using a template!!!

Only been with them for a short time but they handled my migration from SPINELESS_ISP.COM efficiently and so far they have been OK. Time will tell as to whether they are a goog provider or not but I do prefer to be with someone who is on my side.

There are requests to the Information Commissioners Office on this subject. View one such request at Compliance with Data Protection by ACS:Law - WhatDoTheyKnow There is an interesting paragraph in one of the pdf documents, the ICO's line on P2P disclosures..... ...."However, like many of the individuals who have contacted us on this issue we see that there are privacy risks in sharing data where no justification for the sharing is apparent. Subscribers and users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the context of whether their ISP should disclose data to third parties. In addition, the context of the user's activity is also relevant here: a `serial' uploader who is well aware of the illicit nature of his activities clearly has limited scope for arguing that his privacy rights have been infringed; however, the fact that an IP address has been allocated to someone who appears to have used filesharing software is not enough to guarantee that the subscriber has committed an offence. " As this appears to be a common view, why are the ISP's not challenging these applications from ACS Law. TalkTalk are the only ones who said that they would challenge the application and they have not been included in the court order. It would seem that ACS Law are taking the path of least resistance. Any challenge would result in a court appearance which would not only prove costly but would expose their dubious intentions and the accuracy of their data. It is also stated on the court order dated 17th February that within 6 months ISP's BT, PLUSNET, O2 & BE UNLIMITED (Why aren't SKY in this list I wonder???), SHALL be provided with a written report stating precisely from the relevant names disclosed (1) how many of those persons were sent letters of claim, and (2) against which persons legal proceedings were issued. 6 months is up on 17th August for this order. Check your court order and ask your ISP if they have received this report if it applies. It may start to throw some light on the claims that no one has yet been taken to court, and show the ISP's that this is a money making [problem] and that they should show some responsibility and challenge these applications to ensure that the data that they are revealing identities upon is lawful and accurate. Sorry to go on about this but it really annoys me that the ISP's that we pay for our Broadband connection and entrust with our personal information readiliy gives it to a third party without questioning the validity of this data. Surely they have a duty of care? (or a backbone) Anyway long live TALKTALK the champions of our online freedom!!!

There was a mention of ACS in the Lords recently. Things are moving, but as usual... VERRRY slowly. Lords Hansard text for 9 Jun 201009 Jun 2010 (pt 0001) As ACS law applied for the IP address information using the Norwich Pharmacal Order, by the terms of that order they are obliged to provide information as to how many of these have resulted in court proceedings when requested by the Data Owners (ie your ISP). As it is now over a year since ACS first applications, the ISP's should be asking this question. If they haven't then they should be reminded of this by everyone whose personal details have been given to a conman and a bully, and the fact that not one person has been taken to court on the information that they have supplied demonstrates that this is a complete [problem] and a bluff, and this might just give them a reason to contest the order. IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE IT ALREADY, DEMAND THAT YOUR ISP OBTAIN THIS INFORMATION FROM ACS LAW.

Oh Sky, BskyB, Easynet. Which one art thou? All p*****g in the same pot of no information. IP adresses are harvested and ISP's identified. ISP's are contacted and informed of the intention of applying to the court for the details of IP address (Norwich Pharmacal Order), and if they will oppose the application. The court order is then obtained and ISP provides the details. Of course Sky knew (or at least someome knew, depending on which department you got through to). Did you get referred to "coenquiries" - the all new fully automated Sky information service that advises you to "contact ACS Law". (Yeah did that!) They are a complete and utter waste of time and offer no help whatsoever If you push them they will tell you when they recieved the court order. (but you already knew that because you have a copy too!) What they wont tell you is when they were first notified, of course, because that would have been helpful. .......Oh by the way, we (Sky) have noticed that your downloads have gone over the monthly allowance, again, so we are automatically upgrading you to our "unlimited " package so that you can carry on.... there's nothing to worry about. The increase in your monthly subscription will automatically be applied. I am no longer with Sky Broadband

I agree but there is still one major stumbling block - "The process of matching IP addresses to subscribers will have to be proved to be accurate". Wireless connections can be compromised ie: unsecured network or hacking for example. How can any "process" be completely accurate in these circumstances. Moreover, how can an innocent person whose IP address has been identified as a copyright infringer prove otherwise.

ONE. That's a start.

I notice that the ISPA (Internet Service Providers Association) has just announced their finalists for Internet Hero/Villain of 2010. UK ISPA Awards Reveal Internet Hero and Villain Finalists for 2010 − ISPreview UK If they recognise ACS law as Villains, why aren't they doing something about it rather than wasting their time on meaningless "awards"

If there's a mischevious devil out there who is confident enough to call Crossleys bluff and take it to a courtroom, then there is an offer from a solicitor at Lawdit to represent them for free. Check out the comments made by Michael Coyle in this article Will you get caught file-sharing? | Analysis | Features | PC Pro So... Is Michael Coyles offer still on the table? Is there someone out there with the balls to take ACS to court and end this for good? If there is , then there are potentially hundreds of people who would support them in any way they could.......isn't there?

It would also be interesting to see what data they really had, other than that divulged to them by our ISP's. Perhaps that is why they are apparently sending out questionaires for people to give them what they are missing! As ACS Law must be a "large and well respected law" firm using the "Law" to make a legitimate living then a mass request for this information could overload their resources (and they might have to buy another photocopier!) Sounds a good idea but does an application of this sort apply in these cirumstances. If you make such an application are they obliged to reply and if so what time frame are you looking at. Could be a tactic to delay current proceedings until the SRA, or someone, finally puts an end to all this.

As I see it, ACS procedure is as follows: 1) Identify copyrighted file ID/ Tracker. 2) Use automated harvesting program to gather IP addresses 3) Identify ISP of these addresses. 4) Send the Data to ISP's, stating intention of applying to the court for an order to reveal the identity of IP address and asking them if they would oppose application. 5) Obtain order from court for ISP's, but only the ones who will not oppose the application. 6) ISP reveals IP address identity to ACS. 7) Get some paper in the photocopier! In the mean time, ISP does not inform IP user that this request has been made How does this lie with the Data Protection Act?