youtube
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
I really dont know how they sleep at night, lets hope the floods in pakistan subside and land somewhere more appropriate wink wink . I'm thinking directly on somebody's head and then straight out to sea. Lets see if they fare so well with real sharks.
-
"client does consider that you have personally infringed its copyright(or have authorised someone else to do so)" Aload of BS, what info they have on you can in no way shape or form point to you personally for doing either of these actions. As with any of these letters and the content within them is al pure scare tactic to make you pay when 100% innocent as the case seems to be. Although as GM are currently an unknown as these are the first letters they have sent out their actions could be different to what we expect from ACS:LAW although they could just as easily change their approach on the situations. Just remember there is a good reason no contested court cases have been entered into with regards to these allegations. That is because they know their evidence is loose at best. Now no one can really tell you what to do, just give you their advise. My advise is if innocent to NOT pay anything as you haven't done anything wrong. Why would you pay for it? would you give somebody £300 in the street because they said they would tell the police on you because they saw you mugging an old lady (obviously you didn't).
-
The advise usually is to send another letter basically saying you stand by your original letter and no further discussion will be entered into on the mater. Any further correspondence will be deemed as harassment.
-
from the link above quoting Crossley. " ‘From a legal perspective, there was no case to answer. There was no DNA evidence to prove sex had taken place. No witnesses were called at court and my client refused to sign the confession the police had drawn up. ‘The process was not fair, but the ultimate outcome – a relatively small fine and deportation – was about right.’" LAUGH MY ASS OFF. A Crime serious enough to face three months in prison in Dubai and he says a relatively small fine "£170" is about right. So how come he deems an offensive which is completely unprovable (uploading of copyrighted files) and lacking any evidence what so ever which doesn't carry any prison sentence time at all even if its proven to be you who committed it, worthy of £300 - £1000 fine. The guy is completely off his trolley. Some one call the men in white coats, this guy needs some serious help. A true menace to society, infact I would argue a terrorist.
-
No mate, changed again, wont post any more info on it as their schedule changes from day to day and don't want to give any more dates out in case they change again. Infact I haven't actually heard when it will be shown after it was obviously cancelled on the 22nd. We will be able to watch it on iPlayer when its been shown. Sorry for any inconvenience it may of caused to anybody if you stayed into watch it and it wasn't on.
-
I guess yes, cant say for sure as im not an expert. I know its not what your after but proving it is next to impossible so if it gives you some comfort knowing this and bolstering you about how bad their evidence is go with it. Grab anything that gives you more and more confidence to NOT PAY them. I say this because innocent people are paying up, or paying up for on behalf of somebody else who abused their connection.
-
No idea mate, that's quite technical. Somebody like the guy at LAWDIT could potentially answer it. Im guessing if the Rights holder has given permission for it to be Uploaded to ACS then yes. But ACS claim their monitors actively track torrents already available, which is BS. We all know they placed them and have no intention to try and remove them as they make more money with this scheme than actually selling their product. Why are the same torrents people were accused of downloading over two years ago still active? the rights holders can have them taken down in a day. What goes around comes around and these people are in for a WHOLE LOAD of terrible stuff if this old adage is true. I for one cannot wait.
-
It would be just as hard to prove this as it would be to prove any individual shared the file they claim. Too much thought is going into these things now, their system is hugely flawed. They present "evidence" that could of been completely made up. ONLY THEY have logged an IP ADDRESS, (somebody has paid for this service, and results make money) If the IP address was in fact ever used in the sharing they claim is impossible for them to prove. If they could prove it then they would have to prove it was "YOU" who downloaded it, again impossible. (IP addresses can be harvested so easily. Even random number strings that fit standard IP address numbering by an automated program put into a whois type site would yeild hundreds and hundreds of UK ips on a daily basis, LOG, TIMESTAMP, "insert file name of choice here", get court order, send threatening letters, Profit) Its a sure fire loss in court. ACS "I represent my client who has paid this monitoring man to catch people distributing my clients copyrighted files and he says they did" Judge "Please show your evidence" ACS "here are some numbers and a file name" Judge "Thats nice how do I know it actually happened" ACS "because my monitoring man says so" Judge ".......?????" etc An independent monitoring company would have to be used who have nothing to gain from this, only then can their evidence be trusted. Their monitoring company are probably getting a % of every payment received. So the more ips they produce the more profit they potentially make and the more potential for forged evidence.
-
Ok, here something intersting I never thought about when I received my letter a few months ago. On the agreement they want you to sign it says something along the lines of "if a minor committed the infringement they should also sign" Basically they fully admit just by saying this they have not a single clue who has committed this offence. They are a joke. Even after a few months i still get that sick feeling when checking the post when I get home from work. I absolutely detest this excuse of a man, grow some balls and stop bullying. He will get his cumupense, hopefully very soon. The one show moved the show to this Thursday, blame Will Smith for being on on Friday. (This show will host the article about all these file sharing allegations)
-
Well yes you can but it can indicate you potentially have no understanding of the content and can be seen as weak by them and cause them to pursue you more. (This is only where a solicitor can really help who specialises in IP law. If they receive a letter from them they know they are up against somebody who has had alot more education than their selves in this field) Its best you research all the flaws in their evidence and put it in your own words why its terrible. Do not include any personal information or excuses as they mean nothing. Unless ofc you don't have a phone line to your house and some crazy mistake has been made by the ISP. A letter written by yourself will indicate knowledge within the area and potentially will make them more likely to leave you alone in the future, you need to prepare you self for a 2nd letter at least though as no mater how good your initial letter you will almost certainly get one, maybe even a 3rd and 4th.
-
I do not know if its been mentioned here or not but The One Show is running their piece on ACS:LAW on friday 16th July apparently. Tune in.
-
Scare mongering, lets hope they do try and sue some one. Immediate loss game over for all cases remaining for all solicitors. Not a chance in hell of it happening. Well it could happen when the money starts to dry up and they are desperate for a win, they will look over all previous cases where clients have declined to pay and choose the case with the most chance of winning, just one last shot in the dark at keeping the scheme running. My view on the mater anyway.
-
When they produce the evidence to the judge they pretty much say its not a direct accusation to the owner of the internet line but the release of addresses would help with their enquiries. If there was 100% accurate method then illegal file sharing would shut down instantly, unfortunately there isn't. That is why this method is called speculative invoicing. There is a chance the person accused has downloaded the file and the threat of court action makes them pay up. It even says in their letters they send out that they are not directly accusing you but word it very very well so it sounds like they are. Its a get out clause.
-
lol your memory must be amazing. If they are just randomly bashing IP addresses into WHOis and finding UK ips then accusing them of downloading some low budget production, then no its no accurate and highly illegal and they would probably end up with long prison sentances. I am 99.99999% sure they wouldn't do this though and their methods are a little more accurate. For some reason when routers are issued to customers they do not come with high security levels and are very vulnerable to attack, there are tutorials freely available just do a google search, also there are hardware dongles that can do all the password cracking you would need to enter somebody's router. This vulnerability is the probable cause of an allegation aimed at yourself (if you are innocent) it is impossible to prove this has happened / didn't happen on the time/date. A quick search of networks in my area reveals around 11 wireless routers/connections, 3 of which have no security and I could access if I pleased (mine now has full WPA2 to stop anything like this happening again to me, although even WPA2 is not completely safe).
-
Its impossible for them to intercept a transfer mid flight between two computers to examine the packets without some seriously powerful software and if they did this with out a proper legal consent I am quite sure it would be a highly illegal practice, and would also require direct access to major internet backbones / isp's networks (or they plant viruses but that is all getting a bit xfiles and way over their capability). This is why ISPs usually only use DPI as all of their customers traffic has to travel through their network at some point, allowing them access. ACS:LAW's / GM's monitoring company would have no data transferring over their network/internet unless they are directly connected to a computer this is why they have to connect to the P2P network, then what would the point of having DPI be as they already have the complete packets entering their computers. What it is thought they do is enter a P2P network and broadcast they want certain files from the company they are acting on behalf of, any uploads to their computers are logged (ip address, client software and time stamp). a "whois" is done on the IP immediately and the Isp logged. If it is a uk ip then they keep it, other ips that are not from the uk are binned. ISP's use DPI from my understanding to help with traffic shaping, ie they will find out if your using p2p and throttle your connection to allow other users more bandwidth to watch iplayer or browse etc. Usually happens when your exchange suffers from contention. Maybe the police use it also to help catch terrorists etc that's just pure speculation though. If you are interested in whois check out this site. http://cqcounter.com/whois/
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS