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

[wittzend]

http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/resources/The%20Speculative%20Invoicing%20Handbook%20-%20bonus%20chapter%20-%20not%20replying%20to%20a%20questionnaire.pdf

 

The chapter about the questionaires

[zero_flight]

I havent had a reply from acs law yet? I got a letter from GM yesterday and its freaking me out. THey say that LODs cannot be accepted and that My reasons were not enough. They say if I cant prove it wasnt me or give good enough reasons it wasnt me then their clients will still pursue the case. I cannot afford the fine let alone court costs if it ever came to that. I am paranoid that my pc was compromised in someway for sky to show me as downloading the said tracks. How can I prove other wise? I was under my gp last year for depression and this is the last thing i need right now. I have written a second lod but havent posted it yet. I have said that I cant possibly prove it wasnt me and that I know nothing of file sharing etc and my health is suffering -and to ask them again to drop their claim> should i send this. I am also dreading anotheer letter from ACS law as its been three months now and no reply to my original lod. Please can someone advise me and help put my mind at rest thanks

 

Have you asked for all the information they have on the case?

 

Without all the info how can you defend yourself?

 

Ask for all of it and see what they say.

[wittzend]

Have you asked for all the information they have on the case?

 

Without all the info how can you defend yourself?

 

Ask for all of it and see what they say.

 

 

You cant defend yourself! Thats how these scemes carry on! They ask forf an amount so small that it makes it unviable to seek legal advice.Send them a LETTER OF DENIAL, then forget about it. They're chancers looking for victims to rollover and pay the initial demand. The most important thing youcan do is complain to your MP. and the SRA.The more who complain the more action that will be taken.

 

COME ON PEOPLE! FIGHT BACK:madgrin:

[stanwixman]

You cant defend yourself! Thats how these scemes carry on! They ask forf an amount so small that it makes it unviable to seek legal advice.Send them a LETTER OF DENIAL, then forget about it. They're chancers looking for victims to rollover and pay the initial demand. The most important thing youcan do is complain to your MP. and the SRA.The more who complain the more action that will be taken.

 

COME ON PEOPLE! FIGHT BACK:madgrin:

 

I am sending my second letter of denial to GM tomorrow - I am really depressed and anxious now. Has anyone had a reply to a second lod yet and what did it say and what did they do? my reply from them said they were still going to pursue me for payment - they seem to know all about lods etc and seem to think that they are not valid. what can I do if I get a third letter from them? has anyone had a third letter?

[mb10101]

I am sending my second letter of denial to GM tomorrow - I am really depressed and anxious now. Has anyone had a reply to a second lod yet and what did it say and what did they do? my reply from them said they were still going to pursue me for payment - they seem to know all about lods etc and seem to think that they are not valid. what can I do if I get a third letter from them? has anyone had a third letter?

 

The letters are designed to frighten you into paying and a small percentage of people do just that. Also when your anxious and stressed this all seems worse than it actually is. Let's put things into perspective.

 

1. Thousands of people have been sent these letters. In ACS's case upto 50,000 (and these are still being sent out). You are not alone!

2. Are you likely to be singled out for court action when they can make easy money from the 10% of people who pay up straight away? Are they interested in court action when all experts who count agree this wouldn't stand up? Can they be bothered with the expense of taking you to court and then losing and paying your court fees? Will their evidence stand up? Will they be laughed out of court? If they did start taking people to court why not go for the easy picks, i.e. the people who don't respond to letters or admit guilt but don't pay? Are you likely to be singled out from all the thousands of people who have denied the allegations? Have one man band ACS law really got the resource and inclination to take 40,000 people to court especially as I'm sure there is plenty of other hassles coming their way involving an SDT to contest and a possible group claim for harrasement. Do these law firms really want all the potential negaive publicity with court cases?

 

You have to get this into perspective and see these models for what they really are.

 

Try not to worry, I know I did at first but the more you read and research about the companies involved, the practices, the law and the 'evidence' then you start feeling a whole lot better.

 

Read the following websites:

slyck

beingthreatened

acsbore

 

all dot coms

[stanwixman]

The letters are designed to frighten you into paying and a small percentage of people do just that. Also when your anxious and stressed this all seems worse than it actually is. Let's put things into perspective.

 

1. Thousands of people have been sent these letters. In ACS's case upto 50,000 (and these are still being sent out). You are not alone!

2. Are you likely to be singled out for court action when they can make easy money from the 10% of people who pay up straight away? Are they interested in court action when all experts who count agree this wouldn't stand up? Can they be bothered with the expense of taking you to court and then losing and paying your court fees? Will their evidence stand up? Will they be laughed out of court? If they did start taking people to court why not go for the easy picks, i.e. the people who don't respond to letters or admit guilt but don't pay? Are you likely to be singled out from all the thousands of people who have denied the allegations? Have one man band ACS law really got the resource and inclination to take 40,000 people to court especially as I'm sure there is plenty of other hassles coming their way involving an SDT to contest and a possible group claim for harrasement. Do these law firms really want all the potential negaive publicity with court cases?

 

You have to get this into perspective and see these models for what they really are.

 

Try not to worry, I know I did at first but the more you read and research about the companies involved, the practices, the law and the 'evidence' then you start feeling a whole lot better.

 

Read the following websites:

slyck

beingthreatened

acsbore

 

all dot coms

 

thanks for the reply but what about GM letters as they seem a little more menacing and detirmined than acs

[8of9]

I am sending my second letter of denial to GM tomorrow - I am really depressed and anxious now. Has anyone had a reply to a second lod yet and what did it say and what did they do? my reply from them said they were still going to pursue me for payment - they seem to know all about lods etc and seem to think that they are not valid. what can I do if I get a third letter from them? has anyone had a third letter?

 

Of course they know all about LOD's and they know very well that they are valid. How else would it work? Yes I did it - Pay up. No I didnt do it - LOD.

Send them the LOD, in your own words, stating why you are denying this claim. You dont need to have all the info to defend yourself at this stage and, if it ever goes to court (which is unlikely as no case has gone to a court as yet), their so called evidence would not stand up to scrutiny ( a risk none of the players have, as yet, been willing to take.)

Tell them that this is your final reply and you are not prepared to enter into further correspondence on the matter. You could also say that any further letters from them could be classed as harrassment.

[mb10101]

thanks for the reply but what about GM letters as they seem a little more menacing and detirmined than acs

 

I havn't been in receipt of a GM letter. However I believe they work with the same digital rights company digiprotect so the 'evidence' is highly likely to be the same as ACS law's evidence which has never stood up in UK court and has been thrown out of several european courts. So will that stand up in UK court? Many experts in Intellectual Property including one of the UK's top QC's Roger Wyand believe it won't stand up in court and this is echoed by the ISPA and other experts in this field. It looks like GM are testing the water at the moment, i.e. sending two thousand mailshot letters. If they get a good response (i.e. 10-15% pay up) they may send a load more out just like ACS did more than a year ago. If they get lots of negative publicity they might just change their direction on this speculative invoicing operation as they have other clients (unlike ACS who have nothing to loose!). Once you get many negative responses on the internet it tends too stick for around for a very long time. It also doesn't help future public relations and effects clients in other areas of their business.

Do you really think Ministry of Sound would really like the negative publicity of this type of scheme going to court and potentially loosing? If GM take this to court then they would have to disclose how their 'evidence' works. Once they do this and potentially loose, the whole scheme collapses and this whole ludicrous situtation comes to an end. I should imagine there would be many a top IP lawyer willing to take on GM/ACS in this case.

GM may seem slightly more professional and 'determined' but It's looks like the same payup or else model that ACS target people with.

 

Personally I wouldn't bother sending a 3rd letter, you've sent 2 letters already and denied. You've responded to the pre action protocol. Why bother wasting postage and time sending another one, for them to reply and bully you more?

Edited September 5, 2010 by mb10101

[stanwixman]

Of course they know all about LOD's and they know very well that they are valid. How else would it work? Yes I did it - Pay up. No I didnt do it - LOD.

Send them the LOD, in your own words, stating why you are denying this claim. You dont need to have all the info to defend yourself at this stage and, if it ever goes to court (which is unlikely as no case has gone to a court as yet), their so called evidence would not stand up to scrutiny ( a risk none of the players have, as yet, been willing to take.)

Tell them that this is your final reply and you are not prepared to enter into further correspondence on the matter. You could also say that any further letters from them could be classed as harrassment.

 

thanks but I still dont know if anyone has received a reply to a second lod or third lod yet?

[panther12]

thanks but I still dont know if anyone has received a reply to a second lod or third lod yet?

 

We’ve not received a reply to the first letter telling them to **** Off! They don’t want to play with me anymore...sob,sob

[BARFLY]

Here's the case law to refute the ACS allegations:

 

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/0024-gallant-macmillan-acs-law-letters-authorisation.htm

 

That's why he won't go to court. Someone else may have used your connection and you cannot be held responsible.:-):-)

[8of9]

thanks but I still dont know if anyone has received a reply to a second lod or third lod yet?

 

I had a reply to my first LOD which said that it resembled a Template so they would not believe it. I sent a second LOD and they sent another letter containing the same demand and further threats. I sent a third LOD which was very short and concise !! and also saying that it would be my last.

I have, as yet, not received a reply.

[car2403]

Eeee, 200 pages and still no progress - looks like there's not much more needs doing on this one

[Caimbeul]

Just got an e-mail form the SRA... The disclaimer says i am not allowed to disclose the e-mails contents but i am sure we are all aware of which particular individuals practices have been referred to the SRA.

 

Have a look here to get an idea: http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/enforcement/intervention-tribunal/solicitors-disciplinary-tribunal.page

 

Not sure what this means or how it will pan out for those of us who have been wrongly accused but at least it has not been dismissed out of hand. Hopefully this will be enought to scare of any of the other firms.

[8of9]

Some replies to OFCOM's questionaire on the DEA

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/08/07/summary-of-key-responses-to-ofcoms-uk-draft-illegal-internet-file-sharing-isp-code.html

If you only read 2, read the responses from BskyB and TalkTalk.

BskyB's response is absolutely PATHETIC.

TalkTalk's response...... naming both ACS Law and Davenport Lyons they say

TalkTalk will not provide CIL's if, as a result, TalkTalk is exposing its customers to bullying

TalkTalk...... I salute you

[Caimbeul]

Sky = (insert rude word of your choice)

 

Also, Sky, Virgin and BT should be excluded from this whole thing as there is clearly a conflict of interest Vs the other ISP's as they all own and provide content and would be supporters of the Digital Economy Farce because it protects their Cash Cows whilst buggering their customers.

[clark72]

This is my first post and I don't want to have to search through all the posts so apologies if I'm asking for info/advice that's already been given.

 

I have received a letter from a firm of solicitors called Gallant Macmillan accusing me of illegally downloading an album by Ministry of Sound . I did not download this album and the only evidence they produced was an IP address (which they say is my IP address) a date and time when I am alleged to have downloaded this music and the name of a p2p network (bittorrent). I have never used bittorent. On the date and time that they say these files were dowloaded I wouldn't have been home as I wouldn't have got back from work.

 

They demanded that I pay them £375.00 as a settlement within 21 days. I ignored the original letter as it looked like a [problem] and I was told if I ignored it they would just go away.

 

Unfortunately, they haven't gone away and have now sent me a second letter threatening to commence court proceedings if I do not respond in 7 days. The wording in this second letter is somewhat ambiguous and I don't really understand it.

 

I don't really know what to do and am concerned and worried about all of this and what don't know what action can be taken to get them off my back? I've now been advised to send a letter of denial and wonder if anyone has such a letter that they've sent that I could see a copy of as I'm not sure how to word it or how much/little information to include.

 

As I said earlier I did not download this album and in fact my wife has the CD so we legally own a copy of it.

 

Sorry if this post is long winded but any help would be much appreciated.

Edited September 8, 2010 by clark72

[Caimbeul]

Considering the amount of effort people have put in to keeping this thread going it would be courteus to at least have read a few pages (nobody would expect you to read all 200! ). You will also find the content VERY beneficial. But to help start you out, I would recomend (and this is in no way legal counsel/advice etc and you should always consider speaking to a professional etc) that you send a letter of denial in response via recorded or registered delivery but do not pay them a penny.

 

Now start reading!

[mb10101]

This is my first post and I don't want to have to search through all the posts so apologies if I'm asking for info/advice that's already been given.

I have received a letter from a firm of solicitors called Gallant Macmillan accusing me of illegally downloading an album entitled Ministry of Sound - Anthems Electronic 80s. I did not download this album and the only evidence they produced was an IP address (which they say is my IP address) a date and time when I am alleged to have downloaded this music and the name of a p2p network (bittorrent). I have never used bittorent. On the date and time that they say these files were dowloaded (Monday 14 December at 16.44 I wouldn't have been home as I wouldn't have got back from work.

They demanded that I pay them £375.00 as a settlement within 21 days. I ignored the original letter sent on 28 July as it looked like a [problem] and I was told if I ignored it they would just go away.

Unfortunately, they haven't gone away and have now sent me a second letter (4 September) threatening to commence court proceedings if I do not respond in 7 days. The wording in this second letter is somewhat ambiguous and I don't really understand it.

I don't really know what to do and am concerned and worried about all of this and what don't know what action can be taken to get them off my back? I've now been advised to send a letter of denial and wonder if anyone has such a letter that they've sent that I could see a copy of as I'm not sure how to word it or how much/little information to include.

As I said earlier I did not download this album and in fact my wife has the CD so we legally own a copy of it.

Sorry if this post is long winded but any help would be much appreciated.

 

 

Reply with a denial in your own words. There are example letters on www beingthreatened dot com

[clark72]

You're right but I've only just found this site and I have a very slow and dodgy internet connection at work so was looking for a potential shortcut, but don't worry I will be looking through the posts. One other question, is it likely that the solicitors concerned are viewing this thread (I've become very paranoid aver the past few days).

[wittzend]

This is my first post and I don't want to have to search through all the posts so apologies if I'm asking for info/advice that's already been given.

 

I have received a letter from a firm of solicitors called Gallant Macmillan accusing me of illegally downloading an album by Ministry of Sound . I did not download this album and the only evidence they produced was an IP address (which they say is my IP address) a date and time when I am alleged to have downloaded this music and the name of a p2p network (bittorrent). I have never used bittorent. On the date and time that they say these files were dowloaded I wouldn't have been home as I wouldn't have got back from work.

 

They demanded that I pay them £375.00 as a settlement within 21 days. I ignored the original letter as it looked like a [problem] and I was told if I ignored it they would just go away.

 

Unfortunately, they haven't gone away and have now sent me a second letter threatening to commence court proceedings if I do not respond in 7 days. The wording in this second letter is somewhat ambiguous and I don't really understand it.

 

I don't really know what to do and am concerned and worried about all of this and what don't know what action can be taken to get them off my back? I've now been advised to send a letter of denial and wonder if anyone has such a letter that they've sent that I could see a copy of as I'm not sure how to word it or how much/little information to include.

 

As I said earlier I did not download this album and in fact my wife has the CD so we legally own a copy of it.

 

Read the speculative invoicing handbook.Everything you need to know is there

[wittzend]

http://torrentfreak.com/static/The-Speculative-Invoicing-Handbook.pdf

[kilotango22]

This is my first post and I don't want to have to search through all the posts so apologies if I'm asking for info/advice that's already been given.

 

I have received a letter from a firm of solicitors called Gallant Macmillan accusing me of illegally downloading an album by Ministry of Sound . I did not download this album and the only evidence they produced was an IP address (which they say is my IP address) a date and time when I am alleged to have downloaded this music and the name of a p2p network (bittorrent). I have never used bittorent. On the date and time that they say these files were dowloaded I wouldn't have been home as I wouldn't have got back from work.

 

They demanded that I pay them £375.00 as a settlement within 21 days. I ignored the original letter as it looked like a [problem] and I was told if I ignored it they would just go away.

 

Unfortunately, they haven't gone away and have now sent me a second letter threatening to commence court proceedings if I do not respond in 7 days. The wording in this second letter is somewhat ambiguous and I don't really understand it.

 

I don't really know what to do and am concerned and worried about all of this and what don't know what action can be taken to get them off my back? I've now been advised to send a letter of denial and wonder if anyone has such a letter that they've sent that I could see a copy of as I'm not sure how to word it or how much/little information to include.

 

As I said earlier I did not download this album and in fact my wife has the CD so we legally own a copy of it.

 

Sorry if this post is long winded but any help would be much appreciated.

 

I think you'll find if you read their [problem], I mean claim letter again they are accusing you of UPLOADING this file not downloading it. If you didn't upload it then in your reply do not mention you own a copy of it on CD, they don't need to know that and they will probably try and use that as evidence that you did indeed make it available for other people to download from you.

 

Just tell them you didn't do it and you won't be accepting their kind offer of settling out of court.

[8of9]

This is my first post and I don't want to have to search through all the posts so apologies if I'm asking for info/advice that's already been given.

 

I have received a letter from a firm of solicitors called Gallant Macmillan accusing me of illegally downloading an album by Ministry of Sound . I did not download this album and the only evidence they produced was an IP address (which they say is my IP address) a date and time when I am alleged to have downloaded this music and the name of a p2p network (bittorrent). I have never used bittorent. On the date and time that they say these files were dowloaded I wouldn't have been home as I wouldn't have got back from work.

 

They demanded that I pay them £375.00 as a settlement within 21 days. I ignored the original letter as it looked like a [problem] and I was told if I ignored it they would just go away.

 

Unfortunately, they haven't gone away and have now sent me a second letter threatening to commence court proceedings if I do not respond in 7 days. The wording in this second letter is somewhat ambiguous and I don't really understand it.

 

I don't really know what to do and am concerned and worried about all of this and what don't know what action can be taken to get them off my back? I've now been advised to send a letter of denial and wonder if anyone has such a letter that they've sent that I could see a copy of as I'm not sure how to word it or how much/little information to include.

 

As I said earlier I did not download this album and in fact my wife has the CD so we legally own a copy of it.

 

Sorry if this post is long winded but any help would be much appreciated.

 

As the Being Threatened Handbook says:

The first step to managing the situation you’ve

been put in is to tackle it calmly. You have

been invited to play a game. This particular

game requires careful thought and rational,

planned actions. It is not best played while

emotions are running high; never do anything in

haste.

If , instead of assuming that it was a [problem], you had done a little bit of research you might might realise that you are not the only one in this situation and there is a lot of advice available. You will find that if you use a template to reply then they will not accept it because it "resembles a template found on the internet". A reply in your own words is better but do not give out any information that you dont need to, ie my wife owns the CD. You do not want to enter into a dialogue with these people, this is what they want. One LOD is all that is required.

One thing that you would have discovered if you had done some research is that no-one has as yet been taken to court. The only "alleged" court case was someone who did not reply to the Letter of Claim, which was your initial response!!!

[clark72]

I haven't even told them that the ISP company which have supposedly identified me as a subscriber is not a company I have ever heard of, I'm with somebody else,

 

Same here, I've never heard of the company who they claim they got my IP address from and they're certainly not my provider. Is this relevant though?

Edited September 9, 2010 by clark72