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

[pridewat]

Reply from SRA hopefully everyone has put in a compl.

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

 

i had a reply with same wordings from them back in july except above three lines. i think their investigation will take indefinate time. As i said before and say again most of these regulatory authorities are no more than toothless tigers in my opinion.

[pridewat]

the most effective things that can help our cause is if significant number of MPs take intrest and the mainstream media .

[Huff&Puff]

Maybe that should be a reply to ACS? That you will give a response to their demands after the SRA has given a ruling. Everyone will be dead and buried before that happens

[cashins]

Maybe that should be a reply to ACS? That you will give a response to their demands after the SRA has given a ruling. Everyone will be dead and buried before that happens :grin:

 

A reasonable view!!

 

David

[mr.ton]

ACS really are in total chaos by the sounds of it.

The amounts they want vary from 1 day to the next & the number of days they give people varies from 1 day to the next as well seemingly.

I think the pressure they are under is getting to them & we are witnessing the dying howls from a wounded animal.

[babybear39]

Using a template IS NOT a crime ffs! They do it so why shouldn't you???

[mr.ton]

I really have never heard of a more shoddy & unprofessional outfit than this lot.

[mr.ton]

The fatal mistake they made is that they thought they could get away with it.

They underestimated people power/the power of the internet etc...

Years ago..something like this would have easily succeeded before the internet was ever invented.

In this age of mass communication at the press of a button - they really were up against it from the start in my opinion.

[dippycat]

Hi,

I just got my third letter saying that because I sent a template letter they are "disinclined to except at face value what I have said as it is simply a generic response". Yet they expect us to take their word that we did what they say we did. They have withdrawn their original offer and are going to pursue this matter against me further.The other pages of the letter says if I pay £350 within 21 days our client will waive any claim for costs.

So what do I do next send them another copy of the letter template or write one out myself which wont be any good as I won't know what to say only that I did not download the song.

[car2403]

Just reply and refer them to your previous correspondance. This time, say no further correspondance will be entered in to, plus you'll charge them £25 for each letter that they send from this point on - call it an administration fee, or something.

[mr.ton]

Thats a good point that is Car....i wonder how many of the public are charging them for each letter ACS send

[Yorky2008]

Thats what I suggested earlier, tell them that the next letter should either be your court date or an apology, anything else will attract a £50 admin charge for dealing with sh1te!

 

Yorky

[car2403]

Ah, but is £50 a penalty and £25 a service fee, though?

[babybear39]

Thats what I suggested earlier, tell them that the next letter should either be your court date or an apology, anything else will attract a £50 admin charge for dealing with sh1te!

 

Yorky

 

Go for it

[mr.ton]

I would be cheeky enough to say that i was deducting a certain fee from the balance for each week that they didnt take me to court

[kiptower]

both bottom links return

 

This video has been removed by the user

 

ignore cant find the post now

[car2403]

I would be cheeky enough to say that i was deducting a certain fee from the balance for each week that they didnt take me to court

 

Don't forget the 8% interest! Eventually, they'll be paying you for your service!

[Wintord]

what you should be doing is logging all your time spent researching to reply to him and put a charge on the letters, I think legally it is a max of £50 per letter (but that would be decided in court) you have to inform ACS that you are doing this.

 

That way if you ever recieve court papers you fill it in saying you want to counter claim for your time and expences against him, the court will decide how much he then has to compensate you if you win. (Sorry when you win)

[mr.ton]

I think its about time someone actually sued ACS law.

If successful, it would open the floogates & would create such an aftershock within ACS.

[Wintord]

I think its about time someone actually sued ACS law.

If successful, it would open the floogates & would create such an aftershock within ACS.

 

The problem with taking them to court is that the evidence is based on proberbility as would be any defence you put up due to it being so long after the alledged infringement.

 

They know full well these facts, thats why they dont take people to court because it could go either way if they took someone there, they could lose alot of money, as could someone if they decided to counter claim against them and get the matter to court.

 

I looked into taking it to the small claims court to force there hand not long after my second letter and my solicitor advised against it, has he said it would be 50/50 if I won or not, due to its a civil case, they do not have to prove beyond resonable doubt (like if it was a criminal case), just that you proberly did it.

[andydd]

The problem with taking them to court is that the evidence is based on proberbility as would be any defence you put up due to it being so long after the alledged infringement.

 

They know full well these facts, thats why they dont take people to court because it could go either way if they took someone there, they could lose alot of money, as could someone if they decided to counter claim against them and get the matter to court.

 

I looked into taking it to the small claims court to force there hand not long after my second letter and my solicitor advised against it, has he said it would be 50/50 if I won or not, due to its a civil case, they do not have to prove beyond resonable doubt (like if it was a criminal case), just that you proberly did it.

 

..but you of course refers to the ISP account holder but using that connection maybe mum, dad, lil jonny, baby sue, lodgers, flatmates, friends, gran, the neighbour who hacked into your wifi, etc

 

Andy

[Wintord]

..but you of course refers to the ISP account holder but using that connection maybe mum, dad, lil jonny, baby sue, lodgers, flatmates, friends, gran, the neighbour who hacked into your wifi, etc

 

Andy

 

I was refering to the account holder and yes your right it could be anyone but you would have to prove that someone else did it, same as they would have to prove it was proberly you who did it, but thats the thing they only have to convince the civil court judge 51% that it probably was you who did it and you have lost, if it was criminal cases they would have been stopped along time ago. I dont even live at the address where the alleged infringment took place the bill is just in my name, but the solicitor still turned round and said if you get a judge that is supportive of the music/games/porn industry methods (bit like the one allowing the NPOs in the first place) you would have a hard job convincing him/her you did not do it.

 

ACS know full well there evidence would not stand up in court without something to back it up, But has my solicitor said what actual evidence do we have to prove we did not, the alleged offence happened to long ago for our hards drive to be of any use to anyone (for evidence or defence).

 

Thats the main reason ACS wait months before they issue the claims, they can base there whole case on probability if you did the offence or not, so they know people are not going to push this matter for fear you might get the wrong judge on the wrong day and it goes horribly wrong for you, not matter if your guilty or not, the same has he wont push court action because it could go against him.

[car2403]

I was refering to the account holder and yes your right it could be anyone but you would have to prove that someone else did it, same as they would have to prove it was proberly you who did it, but thats the thing they only have to convince the civil court judge 51% that it probably was you who did it and you have lost, if it was criminal cases they would have been stopped along time ago. I dont even live at the address where the alleged infringment took place the bill is just in my name, but the solicitor still turned round and said if you get a judge that is supportive of the music/games/porn industry methods (bit like the one allowing the NPOs in the first place) you would have a hard job convincing him/her you did not do it.

 

ACS know full well there evidence would not stand up in court without something to back it up, But has my solicitor said what actual evidence do we have to prove we did not, the alleged offence happened to long ago for our hards drive to be of any use to anyone (for evidence or defence).

 

Thats the main reason ACS wait months before they issue the claims, they can base there whole case on probability if you did the offence or not, so they know people are not going to push this matter for fear you might get the wrong judge on the wrong day and it goes horribly wrong for you, not matter if your guilty or not, the same has he wont push court action because it could go against him.

 

With respect, Wintord, I think this is worded inaccurately, or is simply wrong.

 

You cannot prove that you didn't do something - you can't prove a negative.

 

They have to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that you did what they say you did.

 

In reply, you can make submissions to show what they've said isn't right, as your defence. In effect, you attempt to undermine their claim so badly that the Judge won't accept it.

 

What we've discussed on this thread is that there are many reasons they may be able to show something happened, but they can't prove that you did it.

[count orlok]

Not sure what your brief is on, but how can you be expected to prove a negative. If you have wi-fi and there are several people living in your home, to say nothing of neighbours or people sitting outside your house in a car with a laptop, on the balance of probabilities someone else downloaded the file. That is provided they can prove that your IP was not spoofed, when on the balance of probabilities a pirate would use a spoof IP.

[mikep22]

Hey - I apologise first of all because youve probably heard this a lot...theres 68 pages here and Ive no idea where to even start looking for the answer.

 

My father first had a letter about this is June (he cant even turn a computer on...)....we sent off one of your templates (which they conveniently did not recognise or choose to recognise at first), so we had to send them another by recorded mail.

 

Dads had another letter today saying what other people have said - "its a template so what your saying is rubbish" - which surely is complete trash??

 

Anyway you know where Im going with this - what are our next steps, do we reply again (are there any template letters available for this?), do we just ignore it?

 

I dont get how they can prove, even 51%, that you downloaded the file if there is no physical evidence, otherwise its all conjecture surely? Especially when my dad cant even use MS Word!

 

BTW - I dont know if theres already one but a general guidance document on word/pdf would be very handy for people.

 

regards

Mike