@blashley Check your PM

Having admitted it does preclude you from taking the action of sending a letter of denial. However, you are well within your rights to respond to their claim in writing offering a smaller amount, an amount that is more proportionate to the potential losses incured by MOS. This is what the pre action protocols are all about - "It aims to keep the costs of resolving disputes subject to this protocol proportionate." Do a search for the Code of Practice for Pre-action Conduct in IP Disputes and have a read, esp annex B. My suggested "plan of attack" would be: Respond to their letter saying that you are writing in acordance with the Code of Practice for Pre-action Conduct in IP Disputes, and make an offer that you think suitable. Don't phone them anymore - they will have a record of the conversation, you probably won't. Wait for them to respond - if they accept your offer, all is good. If they do not, write back asking why they don't accept, quote part 3.6 of the Code - "In formulating both the Letter of Claim and Response and in taking any subsequent steps, the parties should act reasonably to keep costs proportionate to the nature and gravity of the case and the stage the complaint has reached" re-asert your offer. If they still reject your offer, write back again asking them to provide a detailed and comprehensive break down of their claim, including evidence showing how much of the "work" was shared to other users. They will be unable to this and therfore unable to substantiate their claim fully. Lastly if none of this works, seek legal advice. This way, at least you can buy some time in which to save up some money (the letter ping pong can take months, and there is no time limit governing the process as long as you are responding within the times specified in the letters) and if they accept your offer, you'll will have saved the costs of legal representation, which is not cheap. Don't worry about what you have said on the phone too much, as yet you have not made any written and signed submissions admitting guilt or offering to pay. Keep a copy of everything you recieve and send. I hope this helps

Billpayerr, You are absolutely correct. In the case below: A MOTHER says her life has been made a misery by claims her computer has been used to illegally download copyrighted pornography. The original copyright for this film was owned by Pumpkin films who produced it, Darker Enterprises aquired part or all of the copyright who then granted distrubution rights to the "Monitor". I believe the role of MEDIA CAT is to orchestrate this process. ACS Law deal with the legal aspects of the operation and of course, send out the letters.

Gallant Macmillan - Interesting! Last week, Annsley Merelle Ward was a Trainee Solicitor with the firm. This can be seen by looking at the cached version of their website: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:N_BPB2XX2doJ:www.gmlegal.co.uk/peopledetail.aspx%3Fselectperson%3D4+Annsley+Ward&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk “Annsley specialises in Intellectual Property with particular emphasis on the fashion and cultural heritage sectors. Her work often involves multi-jurisdictional copyright, design right and trade mark law […] Annsley received her law degree from University of Bristol, LL.B (Hons) and Masters of Laws with a Specialisation in Intellectual Property at UCL, (LL.M) under Sir Hugh Laddie QC. Sir Hugh Laddie, Royal Courts of Justice, was one of the Committee members responsible for producing the pre-action protocols. http://www.cipa.org.uk/download_files/code_of_practice.pdf It appears that Annsley Merelle Ward has since left Gallant Macmillan, and been removed from the website. Perhaps as an intelligent and promising young solicitor trained by a QC held in such high regard in this field and who sat on the committee that produced the pre-action protocols, she felt that she did not want her career to be tarnished by these unsavoury bulk litigation practices!? (Just my thoughts)

The exclusion of this information does not make the claims illegal, it does however, mean that ACS:Law are themselves failing to comply with the very code of conduct they claim to operate within. This is something the courts would take a very dim view of esp as the information was omitted for the purpose of making their case appear stronger than what it is. I am sure you could ask them to provide this information, but convinced that they would be unable to. (cheers Caimbeul)

Hi I'm new on this forum but recieved a letter from ACS:Law in April wrongly accusing me of copyright infringement. I replied with a letter denying it and got another demand including a part 36 offer. Again I wrote in June denying it and have not heard anything since (yet) Anyway, I posted somthing in relation to this on the Slyck forum as mentioned by 8of9 (link above) and thought it appropriate to share it here as well. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Part1, Chapter 1, Section 16 says: (3)References in this Part to the doing of an act restricted by the copyright in a work are to the doing of it— (copyright infringement) (a)in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it. Also, The Code of Practice for Pre-Action Conduct in Intellectual Property Disputes, specifically Appendix B, which deals with copyright, dictates what the contents of the letter of claim should include: (ACS:Law claim to write their letter of claim in accordance with this code) (n) Identify as clearly as possible the relevant part(s) of the claimant’s work which have been or will be copied. ACS:Law are aware that only minute parts of the work are shared using P2P sites and as such, a “whole or any substantial part of it” (the file) is NOT shared (by any one person) and therefore, under the conditions of section 16(3)(a) of the act, it may not constitute copyright infringement. This is why the letters of claim do not “identify as clearly as possible the relevant part(s) of the claimant’s work which have been or will be copied” as required by the Code of Practice for Pre-Action Conduct in Intellectual Property Disputes, annex B – Because it would draw attention to the fact that there is possibly no case to answer. IMHO this is yet another reason for their reluctance to test a case in court. Regards D0nkey