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 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

DELETE YOUR POSTS!!! you have previously admitted on this thread to have downloaded the work, now you have posted your ip address, you have clearly identified yourself as a guilty party. when they recieve your LOD they will know exactly what you have been saying in this thread!

the letters arent accusing people of downloading the tracks, they're accusing people of uploading them. it would be perfectly feasable for someone who owned a cd, to rip it to their computer and share it with others. telling them you own the cd is just adding more fuel to the fire. tudorblue, you need to delete your posts, you've stated your ip address, when the solicitors read this tomorrow they'll be able to identify you immediately

I think you need to delete those posts tudorblue, you are identifying yourself online to the solicitors by the information you are revealing.

I think thats basically the main problem people are having, this is such a niche area and untested in court, no one knows for certain whats the best thing to do. it's certainly whats stressing me out

See a solicitor, one who's experienced with Intellectual Property cases. I'm not qualified to tell you what to do, I'm just really confused and stressed out by this whole thing.

I have posted a link from The Guardian, not a random site that I, "a rat", have created. I'm just trying to share as much information as possible, and to show this issue is making mainstream news. The article doesn't tell people to pay up, and it could be viewed as arguing against that. It's all very well people giving advice to strangers not to pay up, but when your the one who has actually been accused, and stands to lose a lot if things go wrong, it puts things in a different light. The point I was trying to make in a previous post was that Gallant Macmillan (and Ministry of Sound) are new to this racket, none of us know how far (if at all) they are willing to go. And for the record, Lawdit, who people on this site have recommended for these cases, also recommend to pay up if you have in fact committed the infringement. What to do when you receive a letter of claim - Copyright Law Articles and News - Lawdit Reading Room "(4) If you have downloaded the said work it may be an option to pay up. If you deny the claim now, and further along down the line the other side prove that you have downloaded the said work, you will be liable for a substantial amount of money (mainly due to the other side claiming their solicitors costs for dealing with this matter from you, which can rack up to thousands of pounds). It may be easier to get rid of this at this early stage while the other side are willing to settle for a relatively low sum of money. " I'm not trying to cause an argument, I totally agree that people should not pay if they have not downloaded and uploaded the work, but for others like me, it's not as crystal clear what the right course of action is. Regarding the copyright owners deliberately adding the files to the internet, I agree surely there has to be an element of truth to that. If not directly, then surely they have given permission to the solicitors to do this? Does anyone have a working knowledge of how the tracking system works, would something have needed to be implanted into the file for them to harvest our ip addresses? If that is the case, then would Ministry of Sound (or Gallant Macmillan) be the one's legally responsible for initially sharing the copyrighted work?

File sharers targeted with legal action over music downloads | Money | The Guardian

btw mine is one of the new Gallant Macmillan cases, not ACS Law, so we're on new ground, so to speak

Thing is that I did download the file, after hearing this the solicitor said he didn't think it was wise to argue against it if I had in fact done what they accused me of. Feel like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, I know their evidence is flimsy to say the best, but do I risk sending a LOD only for them to produce some more evidence later that they havent yet revealed?

Have recieved advice from my solicitor to settle with them, it's not sitting right with me tho :-|

Hi, Like a lot of people I have found this site after recieving a letter from Gallant Macmillan on friday accusing me of sharing Ministry of Sound - The Annual 2010 in december, or more accurately I should say the letter addresses and accuses my father. Still trying to work out how best to address this, I admit I did download the file, but my father, who did not download it, and did not authorise me to do so, is the one who the letter is addressed to. Would it be wise of him to send a LOD and deny all knowledge? Does anyone know if it is in any way possible that this software company could have recorded the MAC address of the particular machine the file was downloaded to?