Thank you! All of that is fantastic to know! I know nothing about debt in general and couldn't see the full implications of your first reply.

Are you saying that my account is still with Aqua and I can deal with them and ignore Wescott? I don't want this to go to court, which is what I expect will happen if I ignore Wescott, who haven't contacted me yet. I'll try and catch the post office before it shuts today, with a registered post letter of nominal offer to Aqua. Thank you for your reply. It's good to know I haven't been sold.

I had a feeling that Wescott were merely retained by Aqua and acting on their instructions. So Aqua could take the account back and accept a nominal offer? Or am I doomed to deal with Wescott? Is it worth sending Aqua a letter and income/expenditure sheet offering a small monthly amount? They might write back saying that I should talk to Wescott. Also, now that it's gone to Wescott, have I lost any tenuous chance I had to get this debt written off? I've paid them far more than the original debt amount, over 8 years.

I rang Aqua again asking for a recording of the phone call I had with the manager who said that Aqua couldn't help. The advisor who answered this latest call told me that they had to open a complaint procedure in order to send me a recording. I pointed that under GDPR laws, no such complaint procedure had to be opened for them to send me the recording I had requested. Subject Access Request? I need that recording (mine wasn't a clear) for my Financial Ombudsman complaint. Can Aqua take the account back from Wescott, if they wanted to? I suspect that they could. I'm about to call Capital, maybe I can stop them going down the debt collection company route.

Aqua sent me a letter saying that they have passed my account to Wescott. They apparently did this as soon as a three month period of frozen interest charges was over. I spoke to Aqua today, the first advisor hung up when they said they were transferring me to Wescott. The second one said that Aqua can't help me at all and I had to speak to Wescott. I quoted the Lending Code guidelines, and asked to be dealt with sympathetically. Could they accept small payments for a few months? The advisor said that they couldn't, so I asked to speak to a manager. I had to repeat this request many many times and after a 12 minutes on hold a manager who said they had no idea what Lending Code Guidelines I was referring to, said she couldn't help either. She said that now that the account is with Wescott, Aqua couldn't do anything. I pointed out that it was within Aqua's power to take the account back from Wescott and asked that Aqua do that. She said she couldn't. I asked to speak to her manager and she repeated the same phrases "Sorry I can't help, speak to Wescott", over and over again along with "No there is no manager here." until she got sick of me and hung up. I have the recording of that conversation for the Financial Ombudsman, if that has any use whatsoever, I have no idea. I rang and asked to speak to a manager again, and that advisor also hung up, saying that he couldn't help me and that I had already spoken to a manager. Do I send Aqua a budget sheet and an offer of a small monthly payment? At this point, am I doomed with Wescott? I was going to ask Aqua to write off the debt, but it might be too late for that now that it's in the hands of a debt management company. I'm in the same situation with CapitalOne, although they haven't sent me any letters yet.

"Raised By Wolves" is being streamed by Youtube TV! Maybe I could lodge a complaint with Youtube after all. On the other hand, Youtube TV might be a wholly different commercial entity. It's also being streamed on AT&T, Charter, Verizon, Cox Communications, Comcast, Apple and Hulu: https://www.androidcentral.com/how-watch-raised-wolves It's likely been viewed many tens of millions of times.

HBO Max alone have at least 36.3 Million Subscribers: https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/hbo-max-subscribers-subscribers-q2-att-1234714316/ "Raised By Wolves" is a hit programme. My music has been played millions of times. I have no idea where I can get accurate streaming statistics for "Raised By Wolves".

I know this is a sensitive subject. A friend of mine had an addiction to casino gambling and eventually managed to kick his habit, only to take it up again many years later. He's currently losing all of his money and more, on the very risky and largely unregulated part of the currency exchange markets. He's lost his big, beautiful house and three of his profitable businesses but he says that he won't give up until he has those assets back. The chances of him making over £500,000 to buy back what he's lost are extremely slim because as in every gambling game: "The House Always Wins". All gambling games are stacked against you. As an ex-mathematician myself, I can tell you this is true. 80% of all retail currency traders (non-banks and hedge funds) lose at any given time. A tiny percentage of a percentage of individuals make consistent profits of an average of 10%. I've asked him if he thinks he has a gambling problem and he says that he hasn't. I did try to talk him into a local support meeting, one of many which you can find here: http://gamanon.org.uk/?page_id=173 ...but as far as he's concerned, he doesn't have a problem, because he's not a gambler - he's a "Trader". Many gamblers will not quit until they have hit rock bottom. He doesn't far to go. My friend is about to lose his wife, she's not happy about suddenly losing her big beautiful house, losing her decent quality of life, and living in a small rented flat with four children. I urge you to seek help. If not for yourself, but for the people who are important in your life. I trust that you don't mind my saying any of this, and apologise if it doesn't apply at all to your life.

I have no intention of doing anything at all until I have some guidance from the esteemed members of this website.

Youtube would take it down if it was a problem. I believe it's entirely legal to call my music anything I like, so long as it isn't actually a forgery of "The Matrix 4 Trailer". Despite the very extensive and expensive number they ran on my music, I recognised it from the very first note. I know my sound. The next 31 seconds saw me becoming more and more incredulous as more and more of the notes of my music played out at me. I couldn't breate by the time the final note played, they had obscured it most with layers of synth, but it was the pitch of my final note. I couldn't enjoy the rest of that episode.

> Does it make it more difficult to prove copying? Why do you keep asking if I'm serious? I do wish it was legal to post both their recording and mine played at roughly the same speed, so that you could hear it. I don't want to be accused of copyright infringement myself, which is why I haven't done so. I don't know what state of the art forensic music copy detection technology can do, but here's what I believe they did to cover their tracks and re-engineer my musical piece: 1. They slowed down my sample to fit a longer time period. 2. They then chopped up their recording of my 12 notes and rearragned them to fit 32 seconds they needed to fill. 3. They added reverb. (This had the effect of blending two very short notes of my 12, which are played very close together, hence 11 notes) 4. They then played my slowed down music and changed the timing of the notes. 5. They then played my slowed down music through a guitar cabinet and re-recorded it using a microphone into a computer. You can hear the untidy noisy sound of the guitar cabinet in the episode fade in shortly before the first note of my music plays. It's a very hissy sound (and very odd to hear in an otherwise well funded and squeaky clean audio presentation) , because guitar cabinets are analogue devices and music producers tend to use very old models to add atmosphere to recordings. This process also makes detection of copying harder because guitar cabinets are not high quality audio reproduction devices, especially the old, unusual and badly built classics from the 60s and 70s which producers like to use. They add character to guitar, which is what they were designed to do. This technique is often used to create the "Wall of sound" effect used by Phil Spektor, and many other producers since, by playing music through guitar cabinets in large rooms with hard walls and floors (a "Live Room") which add reverb (echo) to mix back into the original recording. I know that this process sounds overly laborious, but it's just one of the sonic activities producers get up to. 6. They added more layers of digital effects to some layers (expensive pre-echo and impulse shaping of reverb to rebuild the attack of my notes - they had to do this because they had stretched it so much, which reduces the attack) to produce a smooth sonic experience, but they used the same samples of my music to make those layers, to make sure that they are the same pitch. My 32 seconds of stretched out music has been streamed many millions of times. Apparently, in North America, an artist is paid $0.091 per play in streaming format. 32 seconds is a big chunk of an hour long soundtrack. Therefore could I ask the Small Claims Court to award me £10,000 for the first million views from the UK? The maximum award at Small Claims Court is £10,000. If that works, could I keep going back for the next million etc?

Is the penalty for challenging someone to a Duel still six months in prison? https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/pp937-939

Ridley Scott is making a film called "The Last Duel": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Duel_(2021_film) Can I legally challenge him to one? I must have satisfaction.

It's absolutely insane that they deleted their website hosting - doing so has the effect of deleting their received emails, because their mail server is deleted too. The mail server is part of any hosting package - I sell hosting packages myself and know that when you receive a bounced email after the hosting has been removed, it's because the mail server was operating within that hosting package (it can be separate, it wasn't in this case) and has been deleted. I also know that web forwarding has to be set manually. They have done this on purpose, straight after receiving my ranty email threatening legal action. But it could of course be a coincidence. Why didn't they just change their email addresses?

I would love to upload a copy of their version and mine but to do so would breach their (invalid) copyright. I have a recording with a version of theirs which I have sped up, followed by mine which I have slowed down and they have exactly 11 notes (missed one earlier) - exactly the same notes that are in mine, and in the same order! One note is doubled in exactly the same place. This is deeply irritating. I must have satisfaction. Just a credit would do.