Who knows? But where will it get you - unless you think they'll just give up after one letter. I should think that is extremely unlikely, for obvious reasons. If you continue to ignore subsequent letters then they might decide to proceed to a Court appearance, aiming to get a default judgement, as you will have offered no denial or defence. And if you had already ignored more than one letter, how would you justify that to a judge? If you are NOT guilty, then you should issue a firm LOD (imo), or if you ARE guilty then offer a realistic settlement figure.

Smiler876 From your earlier post, I assume your mother is the acccount holder? Therefore, it is your mother who is the target of ACS claim (not you). If your mother isn't directly responsible for making the file(s) available, nor authorised anyone else (including you) to do so, then she should issue a LOD. I'm sure she will appreciate your help, but it is she the claim is made against. This completely illustrates the total weakness inherent in what ACS are doing. ACS issue letters to Account holders, utterly irrespective of who might be actually responsible (if anyone) for the alleged infringement. Of course, they can do nothing else, because they cannot know (unless you give them the information) who was actually responsible for the infringement. They do not know how many computers may access any given IP address, nor how many users, there may have been, at any time. They have no idea, apart from the named Account Holder who MIGHT be able to access the IP address (legitimately or illegitimately). Even then, it may be that the named Account Holder is not even a computer user - just someone pays for the connection as a parent or guardian, etc. Hardly surprising then, that given ACS cannot even hope to target their letters accurately (because they only have the names of account holders, and do not know who the actual users are), no contested cases have ever come to Court is it?

It doesn't matter if you had 200 lodgers, nor whether your network was secure or not. It's irrelevant. a) Did YOU yourself make the file(s) available for sharing? b) Did YOU yourself AUTHORISE someone else to do so? If the answer to both the above is 'no', then you should deny the claim. If the answer to either of the above is 'yes', then you should (imo) make an offer to settle - not just blindly accept the amount suggested by ACS Law.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

What you say above is true. However, unless the Account holder is PERSONALLY responsible for the 'upload' - or directly authorised someone else to make it - then they are NOT liable under the Act. Under the Act, the Account Holder is not responsible for the activities of others (unless he/she has directly authorised them).

"ACS would use the same arguement in court..." That's my point - ACS are full of arguements, claims, counter-claims and the like - that's their business. That does NOT necessarily mean they are 'right', acceptable, realistic, reasonable, have any basis in reality, or anything else. Just because Crossley has decided to demand £495, or £295 or whatever, does not necessarily mean it is an appropriate figure. Crossley is JUST a solicitor, not some sort of judge, jury and executioner as some seem to believe. Until he is challenged in Court by a Defence, or the SRA takes some action, Crossley can continue making whatever arguements and claims he likes unopposed.

"Ill think youll find... that was then sitting on a P2P site....at least I think thats what they are saying" To be blunt then, I don't think you do know what you're saying at all. With Bittorrent you do not upload data to some remote location and park it there for all and sundry to grab in sequence like a sweetshop - you share it in real time from your drive. If that is the extent of your knowledge, then I would recommend some research if I were you. The reality is that most download far more than they upload. If a 'normal' download of anything is 1 copy - then, on average, a 'normal' upload is likely to be less than one copy. Nevertheless, if you just fall over and accept whatever "they are saying", clearly you should pay up whatever they say too? Which is their whole game, isn't it?

Zero Flight, They make them up. It's outrageous. They're pitched at a level where they guess a reasonable proportion of punters, inexperienced with the law, will pay up hoping it will all "go away", rather than go to the time and expense of employing a solicitor or standing up for themselves and issuing their own denial letters. They have no idea how much (if anything) has been uploaded, so there is no attempt to link the 'damages' to any an actual loss of profit. How could there be? There seem to be a set of pretty standard charges: £495 for movies / pron, £295 for a game, etc. Clearly as the 'guilty' would ALL have uploaded entirely different volumes of data, these charges are not linked any real loss of profit. It's all too much like hard work, even if it were possible. Why should ACS Law care? If people keep paying up, and they never take any (contested) cases to court, they can do what they like - until the SRS or another body intervenes and puts a stop to it.

Probably not. Companies frequently use their solicitors address as their own registered address. Larper could be in any sort of business and may just be clients of ACS. Recently sent a firm LOD myself having received one of the Pron variety demanding £495.00. I anticipate the boringly predictable follow-up with the ludicrous accusation of 'template' usage / and or 'questionaire' in due course. Whilst there seems to be plenty here about LODs, etc, there doesn't seem to be much discussion regarding the level of 'damages' levied by ACS Law on those who may be guilty? In the event you DID upload (say) a film. How many copies would you have uploaded (just a partial copy? one copy? more?). Remember your upload bandwidth will be significantly less than your download. What does that equate to in lost profit? On one £15 DVD - less than £10. Plus costs - a quid or so for the court paperwork, standard letter, etc? So EVEN IF you were guilty - why on earth would you pay these ridiculous amounts of 'damages'? Why not offer, say, £50, in full and final settlement? Obviously ACS would try and extract more, but would they have a leg to stand on if you had offered them an entirely realistic (even generous?) sum?