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

[chelsea2010]

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

 

I think you will find at least with utorrent you can choose as many or as little of the files that you want, so it is possible to download a file called "top 40" etc and download Just numbers 15 and 29 for example, this is because each song is a seperate entity within the torrent.

Edited July 14, 2010 by chelsea2010

[mikeface]

This is one hell of a thread!

 

Thank you everyone for you advise/guidance with this.

 

I received a letter a few days ago asking for £295 for a Cascada album that I had apparently downloaded. I have never downloaded music before. I have checked with my household, and know one downloads any kind of music, except when using iTunes.

 

I rang my ISP (o2) last night and explained that I had recieved said letter, and the woman from o2 explained that they had been briefed on this, and that it is NOT real, and I was told just to ignore the letter.

 

O2 explained that they want to get enough people to report it to them, so they can esclate the problem and get it resolved once and for all.

 

Again, thanks to all that have posted information about the [causing problems] ACS:Law!

[Caimbeul]

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

 

Hi stevo7790,

I agree, was only trying to make the pont that if someone has been accused and they do happen to have a torrent client installed for legitimate reasons then there is no need to panic etc etc. I agree that those using torrents in an illegal sense would be wise to halt all such activities.

[stevo7790]

8of9,

 

I'm not trying to cause an argument, and am sorry if my comments have appeared to challange yours.

 

I think the law on wifi is a bit confusing, I pulled this extract from the hand of history website:

 

It needs to be noted that in the UK it is illegal to use someone else's WIFI without their permission. It may also invalidate the broadband contract if the owner does allow it to happen (just go and check your contract with your broadband provider and you will probably find that you are not allowed to share your connection with others)

 

So by having an unsecured network you are techincally 'broadcasting' and allowing others to potentially download from you illegally.

 

I am sure it is an offence to broadcast intentionally, can anyone clear that up for me? but I am not sure how it works if your not computer savvy and are unaware that being secured or not makes any difference.

 

Caimbeul:

 

Yes totally agree with you, they have to prove you downloaded an illegal file, at the same time it makes you wonder though, you use a bittorrent client and download legitamate files, only to get one of those letters... seems a bit coincedental to me

[johnsmith999]

I have posted the following on the Slyck Forum, but it appears to be relevant to the discussion here, as the offence each of the "Law firms" is accusing you of is "UPLOADING" and making available to others.

Slyck.com • View topic - The official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit discussion

 

Re: The official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit discussion

 

by johnsmith999 » Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:01 am

I have been doing some investigation into P2P as well, When you join a swarm you are downloading bits and bytes from many different people, this is all joined together in the software and you get your Music file, or Video whatever. during this time you are uploading to many hundreds or thousands of people. now ACS Law and other "Lawyers" state that they are accusing you of "UPLOADING" yes you may be, however you are only uploading a very small amount to each member of the swarm. Most people (so as to not appear rude and be called a Leach) will upload until their ratio (ie the amount they upload compared to what they download) is 1:1. this means in real terms you have uploaded 1 copy of said work. not as ACS Law and those "Tossers" in the USA are stating, many thousands of lost sales, from you they have lost (if you beleive that one download = one lost sale) one sale.

 

I think this has been overlooked by the USCG, when they tried to explain how P2P worked, to the Judge before she granted them the equivilant of an NPO. ACS Law also do not mention this fact when applying for NPO in this country.

 

If I am wrong in my interpretation of how P2P works then by all means enlighten me.

[Caimbeul]

Caimbeul:

 

Yes totally agree with you, they have to prove you downloaded an illegal file, at the same time it makes you wonder though, you use a bittorrent client and download legitamate files, only to get one of those letters... seems a bit coincedental to me

 

I agree, it could well be viewed as coincidental with a wink, wink thrown in to emphasise the sarcasm. But the point is that it is certainly not impossible.

[Mr Anonymous]

Hi Newbie here and latest victim.....

Same old story Evacuate the Dance floor, which i'd never even heard of until Friday.

Anyway got my first letter, have written to SRA in complaint and 'The One Show'.

By the way can anyone confirm whether it's on the One show or not this Friday?

 

I haven't got around to writing back yet, but did suffer two nights and days of worry.

Having now had time to think on this, why doesn't Mr Crossley and his expert IT wizards, just sort their download list in upload date / time order and go for the first one on the list. I think this clearly shows this up as what it really is.

Parasitic invoicing.

[STC12]

Hi Mr Anon, you are not alone !

Would advise you to read the long but very good pages about speculative invoicing http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/resources/The%20Speculative%20Invoicing%20Handbook%20-%20bonus%20chapter%20-%20not%20replying%20to%20a%20questionnaire.pdf

Not sure if that link will work but google it.

 

I am holding off sending my LOD till after the One Show but will be sending it soon.

[STC12]

The full pdf of the booklet is here http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/resources/The-Speculative-Invoicing-Handbook.pdf

Previous link is the bonus chapter on the questionnaires they have started sending out.

[Nelly070]

Am I best sending my LOD back to GM by recorded mail or registered mail ?

[8of9]

Hey Stevo7790

No offence. It just goes to show the differing opinions and the confusion that this is all causing not to mention the anguish and sleepless nights!!

 

Dont know if anyone else has done this but has anyone googled the file ID of the torrent they have been accused of sharing. I found that it was still "available". If the rights holder was interested in protecting their copyright then they could have it removed as torrent sites must do this when requested by the rights holder. The fact that these torrents are still there just confirms that they have been created and made available for the sole purpose of extorting money from people. Basically entrapment. Unethical yes but I dont think its illegal in the UK.

[cmg2312]

Hi All!

 

I have just recieved my first letter today from gallant macmillian demanding money which they can forget ill pay since i didnt do anything. I have been considering writting a LOD but dont know if I should I am no longer with SKY and i have moved house since, so they are sending the letters to my old address and a friend forwards them to me so do I send a lod or do i just ignore them since i have moved anyway.

[Mr Anonymous]

If your friends passing them on and it's not officially forwarded then i'd forget it.

[8of9]

Just read this posted on SLYK. It is very interesting.

 

Oh and to asnwer some questions:

 

Yes it is "relevant that ACS Law leave this information [the portion of 'the work' shared] out of their letters of claim".

 

Both the CDPA and pre-action protocol have associated requirements. As samanthaj observed there is a requirement under the CDPA for the whole or a substantial part of the work to have been shared.

 

In the original 'Notes on Evidence' the following statement was included (copied from my saved version of the site at the time):

The Monitors are not only able to monitor activity solely relating to the Work, but also, to filter the results of their searches to IP addresses in a given territory. In the present case, our client asked the Monitors to monitor UK-based IP addresses offering the Work for download during a period of several weeks.

As a conclusion to the monitoring process, a ‘test download’ was then made of Work.

The 'Notes on Evidence' now displayed on ACS:Law's website states:

The Monitors are not only able to monitor activity solely relating to the Work, but also, to filter the results of their searches to IP addresses in a given territory. In the present case, our client asked the Monitors to monitor UK-based IP addresses offering the Work for download during a period of several weeks.

As a conclusion to the monitoring process, a ‘specimen download’ was then made of the Work

from your IP address

.

Note the not-so-subtle revision?

 

Andrew Crossley is very well of the shortcomings of his 'evidence'. I very very very seriously doubt that a transfer of a 'substantial part' or of the 'whole' of the 'work' was made from each of the IP addresses to 'the Monitor'. The sheer volumes of his litigation are evidence against that. If a swarm were large enough to produce the levels of litigation he undertakes then only a tiny portion of each file would be provided by an individual peer to 'the Monitor'. Only where a swarm was tiny would a single peer ever provide a significant portion - and tiny swarms would not result in tens of thousands of letters naming the same title (eg. Evacuate the Dancefloor).

 

You notice that although the sly revision now mentions 'your IP address' he still doesn't mention the size of the transfer. You'd think that might be in his interests if it strengthened his case. Perhaps it's absence says something.

 

In fact, bearing in mind that many of his claims are made regarding a single track that was part of a larger compilation that was allegedly shared - there is a very significant probability that, even if the file in question had been shared and a 'specimen download' made - there still would have been absolutely no part of the work in question uploaded from the recorded IP.

factual Posts: 59 Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:13 pm

[Mr Anonymous]

Very nicely explained 8of9, i was thinking along those lines but would have struggled to explain it.

[8of9]

Thanks Mr A. But its not my work.

I'm still trying to get my head round it and understand it myself never mind explain it!!

If you are interested, then the preceeding and following posts on Slyck make interesting reading.

Slyck.com • View topic - The official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit discussion

[d0nkey]

Thanks Mr A. But its not my work.

I'm still trying to get my head round it and understand it myself never mind explain it!!

If you are interested, then the preceeding and following posts on Slyck make interesting reading.

Slyck.com • View topic - The official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit discussion

 

 

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

[8of9]

Hey D0nkey !!

Saw your post on Slyck. Read with Samanthaj & Factual 's posts it is makes very interesting reading.

You posted here:

 

 

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.

 

Does the exclusion of this information make these Pre-Action claims illegal? Could you request this information from ACSL? (Would they be able to provide it ?)

[Caimbeul]

Am I best sending my LOD back to GM by recorded mail or registered mail ?

 

Either would be fine as they both require signature. recorded could take a couple of days even though it should be next day but registered will be guaranteed next day by 13:00.

 

+

 

@ d0nkey - Nice work!

Edited July 15, 2010 by Caimbeul

[d0nkey]

Does the exclusion of this information make these Pre-Action claims illegal? Could you request this information from ACSL? (Would they be able to provide it ?)

 

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)

[d0nkey]

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)

Edited July 15, 2010 by d0nkey

[cmg2312]

I am just curious to know with all the lod's ppl have sent these lawyers has anyone actually got rid of them or do they just never seem to go away no matter what u do??

 

I just had another look over my letter which they say "since u have been identified as the subscriber associated with the relevant ip address, Ministry of sound believes that YOU have infringed its copyright" I would have thought its illegal to accuse me directly of doing it????

[johnsmith999]

I am just curious to know with all the lod's ppl have sent these lawyers has anyone actually got rid of them or do they just never seem to go away no matter what u do??

 

I just had another look over my letter which they say "since u have been identified as the subscriber associated with the relevant ip address, Ministry of sound believes that YOU have infringed its copyright" I would have thought its illegal to accuse me directly of doing it????

 

Yes you are right, this is much more Threatening than saying that your IP addresses has been identified.

You must report them to the SRA and why not send an email to the CEO of the other clients of Gallant McMillan to let them know what their solicitors are doing.

 

Regarding the LOD, Yes their is nothing to say they have to drop the case, indeed many people on this forum and Slyck have had this hanging round their neck for the past couple of years.

 

So unless we can get "Proof" that this is all a [problem]/Scheme to make money with no intention of enabling anyone to legally challenge them in court, it will continue, and more "Grubby Paracites" (My opinion) will join in.

[queen-peanut]

hi all. i recieve a letter today back from my LOD. its a lovely read there's hearts and kisses all over it ...............yeah........anyway, still tryin to get my letter from sky but with no such luck, GM say its cos i used a bit torrent thingy while i was away fro 2 weeks (which i proved, with old holiday booking etc) but in the original letter it states that i had downloaded it two days after christmas even though i had been in america for 8 days by this time. i'm not 100% sure but isn't it only news groups where you can give something a 'time to start' so to speak, and not torrents? help with this would be fab, and they've specifically told me its not a fine, pardon me for not puttin 'RIP OFF' in my letter!!! its lookin more and more mickey mouse! i think i may just cut outthe middle man letters and they can have my soddin laptop!! bloody sharing.........talkin out they're big fat cat lazy a**es!!! totally lost it now.................

[mos law suit!!!]

@ queen-peanut

 

When did u send ur lod? they got back to u pretty quick, i was expecting to have to wait a few weeks before anyone got a reply!!