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

[brighton boy]

Has anyone replied to gallant Macmillan yet? If so have they responded? Cheers

Have just sent LOD registered post to Gallant & Macmillan at their Oxford Street address. Post Office were unable to find them at this address on their system, but sent it anyway.

[stupiditto]

I very much doubt they'll be stewing. They'll not have given it a 2nd thought. They'll have just logged who they sent letters to and will check at a later date who has replied and who hasn't and act accordingly.

 

This is outrageous

Filesharing - the legal opinion

 

Which? has been advised by an eminent Queen's Council, a barrister appointed by the Queen, that 'where a third party does manage to use the internet connection of a subscriber without his or her knowledge or consent and infringes copyright, the subscriber will not be liable for copyright infringement'. When told this, Simon Gallant said he disagreed.

'In general, wireless routers are supplied with set-up instructions that password protect the wi-fi connection (unless the user chooses to opt out),' he countered. 'Furthermore, internet service providers require their customers to password protect their connection as part of their subscription contract.

'Gallant’s view is that consumers who fail to secure their connections are acting unreasonably and run the risk of liability if a third party illegally file-shares using that connection. There may be exceptions to this position and we will look at each reply on its merits.'

 

Sounds like we are being judged by the solicitor not a proper Judge lmao.

[stupiditto]

Have just sent LOD registered post to Gallant & Macmillan at their Oxford Street address. Post Office were unable to find them at this address on their system, but sent it anyway.

 

 

3 Greek Street

Soho

London W1D 4DA

 

is what they have on there website - Im saying backstreet and maybe they don't exist in Oxford St, could be to make themselves look bigger, maybe a redirection in the post office.

[brighton boy]

I agree, very backstreet, 77 Oxford Street was the address at the top of their letter, so thats where its been sent. Probably a mail box service at this address.

[stupiditto]

sorry found this on anothoer forum

seems gallant macmillan have several addresses one in oxford street london , one in soho london & one on a business park near bath in somerset -

 

Science house

 

Church Farm Biz park

Corston

Bath

BA2 9AP

United Kingdom

[Goldy001]

Just had a look on google street view, 77oxford street, cant quite see what the sign says as theres a bus in the way!

As for 3 greek street, looks back street!! And its next to what looks like a pub/resturant? Called the - GAY HUSSAR!!!!!!

[Shaggy123]

This is outrageous

 

 

Sounds like we are being judged by the solicitor not a proper Judge lmao.

 

Dear Simon

 

Please feel free to keep clutching at straws in a vain attempt to give your cases some merit. In the meantime please take on board that it is very easy for the security recommended by the ISPs to be cracked.

 

I know the cold hard facts are of no interest to you but I feel you have shown a lack of understanding surrounding the above process and thus a requirement to be be furnished with the above was evident.

 

Thanks

[seymourtitty]

I called them (withholding number of course) to clarify my position, because I seem to be in the unique position of receiving more than one letter.

 

I was told that this was an error, and they are only looking to claim £375/£350 per person, not per infringement. I was told that I had committed 5 infringements in total, but these werent mentioned in either letter to me.

 

Therefore I asked them to confirm this writing before deciding my next steps

[stupiditto]

I called them (withholding number of course) to clarify my position, because I seem to be in the unique position of receiving more than one letter.

 

I was told that this was an error, and they are only looking to claim £375/£350 per person, not per infringement. I was told that I had committed 5 infringements in total, but these werent mentioned in either letter to me.

 

Therefore I asked them to confirm this writing before deciding my next steps

 

Sounds like more scare tactics - They can not possibly be able to blame the person that is the acc holder. Why didnt they say in the first letter these are the titles you have shared we want £350/£375 for compensation. What if say someone had shared ten of there titles. Someone that shared double pays the same. Smollox.

[captain-123]

I called them (withholding number of course) to clarify my position, because I seem to be in the unique position of receiving more than one letter.

 

I was told that this was an error, and they are only looking to claim £375/£350 per person, not per infringement. I was told that I had committed 5 infringements in total, but these werent mentioned in either letter to me.

 

Therefore I asked them to confirm this writing before deciding my next steps

 

What do they mean '5 infringements in total' are these 5 different times? If so why didn't you recieve 5 letters instead of two or was that an error in their error

[stupiditto]

I called them (withholding number of course) to clarify my position, because I seem to be in the unique position of receiving more than one letter.

 

I was told that this was an error, and they are only looking to claim £375/£350 per person, not per infringement. I was told that I had committed 5 infringements in total, but these werent mentioned in either letter to me.

 

Therefore I asked them to confirm this writing before deciding my next steps

 

Tell them to prove that it was you who shared the infringing items... I see no cameras.

 

I think the reason they only include one title on the list is simply a scare tactic as they have done to you today. A fall back for them. What did the baby say in Meet The Fookers? A$S£HO7E5

[seymourtitty]

5 infringements can be any combination of 1 download, 4 uploads...and with the IP addresses being dynamic, this is what they have tracked.

 

If I can't send a LOD because the file may or may not be on my PC, then I have no other option it would seem. My only recourse would be a smaller fine

[kilotango22]

I've got my 2nd LOD ready to post, it basically says exactly what I said in the 1st, which was a template.

 

Thing is, their evidence is flawed, if they did have the balls to take anyone to court, in my case they have said my ISP have identified me as a subscriber on their network, but the ISP who have apparently identified me are not my ISP. You can just see it when they say to a judge, ISP name XXXX have named the defendant as a subscriber to their network and you provide proof that you are actually in a contract with ISP xxx and were at the time of the alledged offence. I'm not telling them that though, don't see why I should.

 

The whole [problem] seems so amateurish.

[Mattyhatty]

I wonder how long this can really go on for. These waves of attacks seem to just die out as quick as the next. Only unfortunate thing is they thrive off of the ones who pay without questioning and probably are racking up a list of those who didnt reply to use when things get desperate.

[stupiditto]

If they threaten anymore ill start threatening them with a a solicitor who deals with the CWU. Is £3 a week worth the cwu sub. I think so...

[kilotango22]

If they threaten anymore ill start threatening them with a a solicitor who deals with the CWU. Is £3 a week worth the cwu sub. I think so...

 

I don't think you will find your Union legal service cover this type of work unless you pay them, this is from the CWU website:

 

| Legal Services - old page | Personal Injury | CWU Legal Advice Helpline

[stupiditto]

I don't think you will find your Union legal service cover this type of work unless you pay them, this is from the CWU website:

 

| Legal Services - old page | Personal Injury | CWU Legal Advice Helpline

 

 

Then I think it is a case for the cwu solicitors to claim expenses from Mr Gallant - I had a car accident and they were going to take the case on for me.

[stupiditto]

Then I think it is a case for the cwu solicitors to claim expenses from Mr Gallant - I had a car accident and they were going to take the case on for me.

 

 

I saw the thing about accident cover at the bottom so maybe they dont..

[Jamuir]

re Mr Gallant's comments about security.

 

I dont know about anyone elses router but the two Ive seen supplied by Sky both have the access key well stuck to the side of the router.

[stupiditto]

re Mr Gallant's comments about security.

 

I dont know about anyone elses router but the two Ive seen supplied by Sky both have the access key well stuck to the side of the router.

 

I know what you are saying -

 

You can change the password in router settings and also turn the security off all together or even use wep which is a very easly hacked security system.

[Jamuir]

I know what you are saying -

 

You can change the password in router settings and also turn the security off all together or even use wep which is a very easly hacked security system.

 

yeah , with some level of knowledge. But why would a layman? Obviously some folks are now finding out

[stupiditto]

What ever way it doesnt matter I have had parties here with 30 people up, I know of a least 5 people that have accessed and haved logged my passcode. I had a friend who pulled up in the driveway to send a quote off via email lol. I cant see they can make anything stick. Gallant is clutching at straws and hoping people will be stupid enough to pay up. Its all scare tactics - They say thier letters aren't threatening - I would say otherwise.

 

As I said WEP is easily hackable whats saying that you didn't have that security enabled.

[seymourtitty]

ok guys

 

I've spoken to a few people on here and off...it sounds like my best position is to make an offer to GM because their current demand is disproportionate...

[stupiditto]

ok guys

 

I've spoken to a few people on here and off...it sounds like my best position is to make an offer to GM because their current demand is disproportionate...

 

Why are you owning up? They have nothing on you! How much are you thinking about paying these people?

[seymourtitty]

Im not saying that I've owned up - but they've got 5 infringements against me - 1 download and 4 subsequent uploads through utorrent.

 

My situation is different to most on here it would seem. Don't get me wrong I'd love to avoid paying out but as advised on here, sending a LOD isnt an option, neither is ignoring...so what else can I do?