ACS:Law copyright file sharing claims, Gallant Macmillan - and probably some others along the way...

[cashins]

Well..no..it may actually be stored on another PC in your home or in fact another PC that you have access too.

 

Very good point.

 

I my house it could be one of 2 desktops or either of 2 laptops which all go through the same connection.

 

David

[Huff&Puff]

IMO, even proving that your IP address was used at all will be impossible, as they persistently refuse to divulge the methods used to obtain it. And if they ever do divulge those methods, I strongly suspect that they will be found to have a million holes in them.

[Drexl Spivey]

The only thing they can prove , is irrelevant , it cannot be used on it's own save for the use of establishing likelihood or probability of the further two stages where the question of probability again arises to ascertain your complicity.

[babybear39]

IMHO, the only way that ACS can sue is when the hardrives of the computers have been found to have contained the dowload at some point. They should be paying for this and doing it in a legal way before accusing and demanding money!

[Trevor79]

What to do next?

 

Just received my third letter after returning my first letter of denial which states that they will not accept my letter as it was downloaded from the internet. Also that they are withdrawing their original offer and are now offering a settlement figure of £350 and refer to a part 36 settlememnt which threatens me with court costs!! Should I send the second LOD? or is there a new updated version of LOD?

Edited September 30, 2009 by Trevor79

[cashins]

Just received my third letter after returning my first letter of denial which states that they will not accept my letter as it was downloaded from the internet.

 

You have issued a LOD; if they choose not to accept it that's their problem.

 

I wouldn't waste another stamp on them.

 

David

[vint1954]

Very good point.

 

I my house it could be one of 2 desktops or either of 2 laptops which all go through the same connection.

 

David

Or if your wireless broadband is not secured, which it is not by default, then one of many thousands that could pull up outside your house and use your connection without any hijacking.

[mr.ton]

Keep on sending them letters downloaded from the internet & eventually the balance will get down to £0.00

[Trevor79]

Thanks Mr.ton. Just sealing the envolope!!

[Drew22]

are now offering a settlement figure of £350

Just curious, is this figure lower than on previous letters, as mine was for around £500 on first letter.

 

If so, it shows how desperate they are getting.

[Trevor79]

Original demand was 500.07

The latest settlement figure is 350.

Maybe if I leave it a few more weeks they might start sending me money?

[Trevor79]

Just incase I missed it in previous threads, has anyone received more than 3 letters?

[mr.ton]

I think ACS are now under so much public pressure that they dont know their *rse from elbow anymore & are simply now just making up figures as they go along.

[manka]

had a third letter over 3 weeks ago,no news here.anyone else had anything?

[mr.ton]

The link to the consumer action group forum on the "being threatened" site has been removed because they say this forum contains "mostly wrong information" - cheeky sods

[teaboy2]

lol and who are people more lilkely to believe? lawyers that are attempting to extort money when their is no prove, or members of the public here on CAG that is site proven to give good solid sound advice.

 

theirs no prove that said individual actually commited the said offence, other then their address matching that of the ip address at the time in which they (lawyers) secured access to such data. bear in mind that alot of peoples ip addresses do change so that at the time of the offence the ip address may not have been registered to your connection. they are simply implying (rightfully or wrongfully) that it was, due to it being registered to your address at the time in which they obtained your details from the isp. ie if offence occured on 3/3/2008 yet they did not get your contact details form the ip address to 3/4/2008, then that only proves the ip address was conencted to you at the time they acquired your details and does not prove that it was you ip address at the time in which the offence occured. meaning the ip address could well have been reigstered to some one else at the time of the offence.

 

all they do is use a company to purposefully share or track files and then use software to track the ip address (and note time and date) of those who download the files from them, aswell as use other similar tactics. but in no way does it identify the actual person who commited the offence or the address of said person where the offence was committed at the time of the offence happening. it is for this reason that they are so reluctant to divulge exactly what forensice computer evidence they claim to have that supports their claim, such evidence actually being the core back bone of any claim. they know this too so they try to get round it by using peoples lack of technological knowledge and hope there threats of court action will make people pay regardless of if it was actually them that commited an offence or not. and in most cases the offence was not committed by the person who they are making demands to, and/or it just so happened that your ip address was found due to u simply using P2p programs for other reason. and therefore claiming your use of your internet connection is connected to and allows poeple to then download said material which basically is admittance by them that you yourself may not have actually commited an offence, yet they still demand payment regardless, which is extortion.

 

bascially it is upto them to stait prove that you are the guilty party, also making demands for such payments when there is no evidence or prove (there refusal to divulge there evidence against you) that there is a legal case to answer to is extortion and basically blackmail.

 

Note that this is only my opinion based on my own knowledge and should not be taken as being fact by anyone, and should only be used as a reference to your own research on the subject, as not everyones ip address changes and not everyone will be innocent.

Edited October 1, 2009 by teaboy2

[halfords]

Reply from SRA hopefully everyone has put in a complaint.

 

Dear

 

As you may know from media coverage of this issue, the SRA is already aware of the concerns being raised about ACS Law. Rather than investigate each case individually the SRA is dealing with these concerns by way of a single investigation that encompasses all the regulatory issues raised, which do not vary significantly between cases. The information you have provided will be passed to the relevant team in the SRA to be considered within that investigation.

In the circumstances, I do not consider that further specific action is required arising from this referral although I can assure you that the information has been carefully considered. As such, my file is now closed.

The SRA will keep a record of your report, and where possible the SRA will notify you when an outcome has been reached. As the matter is still ongoing it is not possible to provide you with any timescale at this point as to when that will be.

I have attached some questions that will need to be answered to help in the investigation if you could email your answers back or post them to us at:

Solicitors Regulation Authority

[car2403]

SRA was saying this months ago - still this dubious practice continues, still people are probably being duped in to paying out.

[Wintord]

The SRA are still investigating DL from when this first started that was almost 2 years ago when they started looking at them, I would not expect a quick decision by them on this. All they would be able to do anyway, is give him a slap on the wrist for the mistakes he is making, he is not breaking current UK laws with sending out these original claims (other solicitors dont like what hes doing, has it is against there way of working, but there is not much they can do to stop him sending these out , because he is operating inside the law sending these out JUST) , the problem the SRA will have is what he is doing after he has issued them. If they stop him from doing it because of how hes handled it, someone else will just take over, as ASC did from DL, there will always be someone looking to make money for doing as little work as possible (I bet MR C has hardly touched any of the claims being sent out and hes just the one going to court to get your details).

 

This will be ongoing till the consultation on these matters has been sorted and new laws are sorted to hopefully stop this happening. But at least now those who have contacted there MP's nearly all have there backing in the matter and in the long run they are proberly the most important people we can get suppoting us as it will be them (politicians) that have the most say in future laws regarding this, we cannot sit and do nothing and let them be bullied by the music industry on this, we must keep on there backs.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Wintord

[manka]

Just had response from 3rd lod,stating they now want £350 and my letter was a template from the web.sending response back ,stating take me to court please.

Edited October 2, 2009 by manka

[babybear39]

It's about time someone stood up to these cretins !!!

[Huff&Puff]

It's time somebody did something about the SRA too! However, the point is well made that they probably aren't doing anything which is actually unlawful, or against any actual rules. The practice is undoubtedly immoral, but nobody seems to care about that :(

[mr.ton]

Its time to take this war to a new level.

The Lord Chancellor is the head of the legal/court system in this country - so its about time we took the battle to him

 

UK Parliament - Contact Us

[mr.ton]

0300 123 1212 is the none emergency number for the met police as well.

Its about time as many people started contacting them as possible also & do not stop with them until you get service satisfaction, afterall your taxes pay for them & they are servants of the public

Edited October 2, 2009 by mr.ton

[nwotb]

just recieved my third letter they tell me they will not accept the lod from internet as it is a template although the letters they send out are templates on crappy quality paper. Then they inform me in one sentence i have 21 days to pay up then in another sentence they tell me i have 14 days i dont think they really know what they are doing to be honest may i add the first letter they sent me was 16 months after the alledged offence maybe i have a new pc in that time so even if i did offer them to take it away its not the one i had at the time of the so called downloads in question.maybe they will get fed up of sending out letters one thing is for sure i will fight these bullys till they go away another thing is they will not get is money from me as I have done nothing wrong and its up to them to PROVE not accuse

Edited October 2, 2009 by nwotb