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

[youtube]

I do not know if its been mentioned here or not but The One Show is running their piece on ACS:LAW on friday 16th July apparently. Tune in.

[Systorm]

I do not know if its been mentioned here or not but The One Show is running their piece on ACS:LAW on friday 16th July apparently. Tune in.

 

I will be watching that!

[Guest sheriffp]

removed

Edited July 13, 2010 by sheriffp

[benk103]

You say that sheriffp, but its the 'what unfolds' that is frightening people (me included!)

[zero_flight]

I do not know if its been mentioned here or not but The One Show is running their piece on ACS:LAW on friday 16th July apparently. Tune in.[/quote

 

 

I will definitely be watching this, lets hope that they are shown to be complete and utter [problem] artists. The more bad publicity for them the better.

[scooby555]

thats me got my lOD ready to send i shall be popping it into the post tomorrow

[lostinspace333]

just wandering can we use the exact same lod template?

[youtube]

Well yes you can but it can indicate you potentially have no understanding of the content and can be seen as weak by them and cause them to pursue you more. (This is only where a solicitor can really help who specialises in IP law. If they receive a letter from them they know they are up against somebody who has had alot more education than their selves in this field)

 

Its best you research all the flaws in their evidence and put it in your own words why its terrible. Do not include any personal information or excuses as they mean nothing. Unless ofc you don't have a phone line to your house and some crazy mistake has been made by the ISP.

 

A letter written by yourself will indicate knowledge within the area and potentially will make them more likely to leave you alone in the future, you need to prepare you self for a 2nd letter at least though as no mater how good your initial letter you will almost certainly get one, maybe even a 3rd and 4th.

[stevo7790]

Hello Caimbeul,

 

Thanks for your reply to my post

 

I understand your POV and agree, it is the same with newsgroups there is a lot of legitimate files out there and yes you may only use it legally.

 

However, and please correct me if I'm wrong... All these letters are stating the said user has downloaded an illegal file via torrents

Albeit one that seems to have been planted with the view to further potential legal measures.

 

If my assumption is correct, then it has to be said how many of the people who have the letter/s have/are using torrents?!?! I can't recall anybody saying they have not used torrents (I'll have to re-read the whole thread)

 

It is important to understand that this company are not saying you have just downloaded any old file, you have specifically downloaded A file. You don't accidentally download a torrent, legal or otherwise.

 

Furthermore copyright theft, piracy et al are all criminal offences, and whilst the measures and fines might be unjust.. get caught you will feel the brunt of the industry in question.

 

To all people getting these letters, are you, do you have you used torrents in the past? if not send the LoD if yes, still feel free to deny the claim but there is always a chance if you do a lot of downloading

[londonukguy]

thanks tp123

[8of9]

Also any wireless security can be hacked unsecured or not. In the IT world we use terms like piggybacking where your relying on someone elses connection to browse and download. Or you can interrupt data packets and capture logon details. Please also bear in mind there next to no chance of someone bothering with your wifi if it is security protected.

Why target yours when lots of others cant be bothered to secure their connections.

Also I will point out it can be deemed an offence not to have a password as you are deemed to be broadcasting.

 

 

Didnt realise that not having password protected security was a criminal offence. It might be contrary to most ISP's terms and conditions, but how many have read these?

Also, how many have been informed by their ISP's of wifi security and have advised them to change their passwords on a regular basis? Wouldn't this be admitting that their security was c**p.!!

[stevo7790]

8of9 it isn't the responsibility of the ISP I wouldn't have thought, it would be the consumer.

 

Personally I regard having a secured connection being in the same league as having an anti virus/firewall.

 

However let's say someone is piggybacking your connection, the IP of that machine would be different to the IP of your machine.

Also if you had your hdd forensically check tests would prove that the file wasn't downloaded on your machine.

 

But come on, how many people would pull up outside someones house just download an mp3 from a torrent file?!?! but also 7000 odd people all doing the same thing, I don't think so.

In the past when I have done this with my mobile phone was just to check mails and browse when bored, especially if you don't want to pay extortionate hotels internet fees.

I don't see the point in changing your wifi password on a regular basis, ordinary people wont waste their time trying to guess somebody's password, especially if you pick up several connections in the area.

[mr incredible]

Hi I have a question, I have recieved one of the letters. but under the copyright infringement title it states the work I supposibly have been caught torrenting.. which i didnt do.. is for the uk top 40 singles chart... I have no clear indication as to what works I have suposebly infringed is this not a fatal flaw in the arguement from acs?

 

I checked around in regards to who apparently holds the uk top 40 singles chart 27-09-2009 it is not registered to any copyright holders can any confirm this for me?

[8of9]

About the Software used to identify IP addresses. This was posted back in April. Cheers Whereswally (Page 118 # 2350)

You dont get a lot for $750 these days, no mention of Deep Packet inspection here. The question is have they moved on from this?, because Terrance Tsang certainly has. Who would be their UK expert now?

 

posted by Terrance Tsang (TT) way back in 2008.

 

 

 

So much for the "evidence" ... I have quoted from their templated letters:

 

 

ACS:LAW's "client" has retained forensic computer analysts (Advert above??) to search for and identify internet addresses from which our clients members' copyright works (including the Work) are being made available on so called "peer to peer" networks which are then able to be downloaded by third parties with out our clients consent or license."

 

"The processes and methods employed by our clients IT experts (Advert above??) to produce the evidence which is then submitted to the ISP's (to get our details), has been the subject of a number of detailed investigations and reports prepared by a qualified information technology consultant including a UK expert (Terrance??)

 

Also check out the previous page (117 #2326) for info on NG3 Systems.

[stevo7790]

Mr Incredible,

 

I think the answer to your question is as follows:

 

On some websites where torrent files are available to download, some of the downloads will be the current top 40 songs in the charts.

 

This won't be a compilation album you find in the shops as it changes all the time, it will be something somebody has put together by ripping songs from the radio, albums or other means, hence the date.

Each song in the top 40 will be copyrighted to the record label each individual artist belongs to.

 

Does that make sense?

[stevo7790]

8of9,

 

thats interesting, not sure how any of this would stand up in the courts.

[mr incredible]

I get that but in that compilation. the fatal flaw to there arguement would be they have not stated the correct facts in terms of my case? whats to say for example a user downloaded the torrent decided they didnt want a certain song and removed it from the torrent download list?

 

potentially that means the information listed civil suit could have no relevance to the the copyright holders?

 

am I wrong in saying that by just stating a download name and not any specific material there information is/could be totally incorrect?

 

i'd just like to know as I would like to point out there flaw (which im sure they'll refute) In my Letter of denial. as a result im sure the evidence thats supposebly against me is not listed correctly.? which could work in my favour in terms of court rulings etc. i've seen companies lose a case due to lack of provided information in the past

Edited July 13, 2010 by mr incredible

[stevo7790]

Hello again,

 

Not necessarily, it all depends on the file you have downloaded.

 

If the torrent is for the whole uk top 40 then that is what would download, you would have the whole chart, there would be no way to remove an individual song unless you downloaded it track by track

[stevo7790]

What appears to be happening though, is a torrent file has been 'planted' on a or a few sites with the intention of catching people sharing.

This is how bundles of IP addresses are being collected.

 

What remains to be seen though is how accurate this data capture software is and is it accurate enough to enforce further action.

 

Again it appears as though every letter is based around the use of torrents, so if you have downloaded with torrents and got the letter something is working i guess.

 

It would be interesting to maybe have a poll, showing how many people are using torrents and have the letter as oppose to the people with the letter and not.

The IP addresses have to have come from somewhere, otherwise a court ruling for the ISP's to hand over information would not have happened.

[mr incredible]

Ok im an IT Technician and I know you can go through and remove particular parts of torrents as I use them for legal filesharing at work.

 

However the arguement is If i theoretically have downloaded a whole album which isnt registered under copyright? but by some interjection contained the said copyright material?

 

Surely the file I have supposedly infringed upon should have been listed as the infringing copyright file. not the whole album? as I doubt ACS:LAW hold all rights on every song in the said album? would acs's case still stand if the original claim information was and is incorrect and inacurately listed?

 

im not trying to pick holes in things here but I figure if they can't provide the right information that it shouldnt stand?

 

as I say I am an innocent and I am applying examples.

 

Cheers again for all information provided.

[stevo7790]

Snap, I am an IT Engineer, work in a workshop... i'm more hardware based though.

 

Yes I see your point, and it is an interesting point however if the user who added the torrent always had the intention of using the torrents against the users that shared it, just to prove you did in fact share and download it would you not be at risk of copyright theft regardless, as the intention was there when you clicked download?

It is for the to prove it though.

[8of9]

Well Stevo779

 

The point I was making is that it is not a criminal offence to have an open Wifi connection. If it was then "the information Police" would be doing their rounds in the footsteps of Google Street Maps Google WiFi privacy row: Eric Schmidt admits search engine 'screwed up' - Telegraph because its that easy.

 

I didnt mention anything about "piggybacking" etc but seeing as you have brought the subject up....

But come on, how many people would pull up outside someones house just download an mp3 from a torrent file?!?! but also 7000 odd people all doing the same thing, I don't think so.

In the past when I have done this with my mobile phone was just to check mails and browse when bored, especially if you don't want to pay extortionate hotels internet fees.

I don't see the point in changing your wifi password on a regular basis, ordinary people wont waste their time trying to guess somebody's password, especially if you pick up several connections in the area.

 

Ordinary people might not waste their time trying to bypass someones security but the world is not just full of "ordinary" people.

How many "ordinary" people do you know who sit outside somebodys house using their wifi connection because thet are bored or dont want to pay for downloading or who want to hide their identity???

[8of9]

stevo7790

 

dont really know tat any of this would stand up in court as no cases have got that far as yet.

Would be interesting to know if GM are using the same gathering software as ACSL

[Caimbeul]

Thats why I said lose the bits?

 

Anyway we are getting away from the main point I was trying to make, which was that as this is a civil case, people don't need to worry about destroying/formatting drives.

 

Indeed.

[biggeorge]

What a thread to read through.

 

Everyone who has had a letter stop panicking and do not pay them any money or this will never stop.

If everyone has a wireless router you have your ace card, Open network and someone must have used your internet connection.

Last year 90% of routers came with unsecured wireless networks configured and about 80% of people who bought/received a router didn't/don't change the security unless the internet provider is installing it for them.

 

I know as I work in IT and the amount of times I have to change router settings for people is amazing.

 

One word to everyone: USENET

 

George