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

[Caimbeul]

Some companies lease lines from BT for example so your ISP may not be directly listed but it is worth investigating though.

[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.

 

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

 

Thanks, I've downloaded this but only had time to have a brief look but it seems useful (though it's feeding my paranoia).

 

The initial letter arrived just as I was going on holiday and it slipped my mind after I got back so I never really gave it the attention that (I now realise) I should have. Quite frankly the whole thing looked amateurish and someone else told me thousands of these letters get sent out and that it was a common [problem] and it was best to ignore it and not get involved in correspondence with them.

[cerberusalert]

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?

Some ISPs such as Torch Communications are known under different names;

 

Grey Street Communications

Kingston Communications

KCOM Group Public Limited Company

Karoo

 

etc., etc.

[Shaggy123]

bugger i didnt realise i wrote on first letter i deleted it then second letter i bought it im in trouble

 

Well what is the true story? Did you download it then delete it because you didnt like it or did you download it, like it then buy a copy?

 

If you cant be consistent and honest with your stories then how can anyone offer help? We dont know what to believe!

[Shaggy123]

 

Thanks, I've downloaded this but only had time to have a brief look but it seems useful (though it's feeding my paranoia).

 

The initial letter arrived just as I was going on holiday and it slipped my mind after I got back so I never really gave it the attention that (I now realise) I should have. Quite frankly the whole thing looked amateurish and someone else told me thousands of these letters get sent out and that it was a common [problem] and it was best to ignore it and not get involved in correspondence with them.

 

Follow what it says in the SIH, adding that if they cannot provide evidence they should desist from contacting you again and any further correspondence not offering this evidence will be ignored.

 

One letter to them stating your position will suffice, do not get into letter tennis and do not give them any more info than you need to.

[dcw]

Recieved today my second demand from acs:law for evacuate the dancefloor

12 days to pay £295 or else, blah blah blah, letter matches template from internet blah blah blah

also a 5 page fact sheet enclosed, 4 months since first letter

[Shaggy123]

Recieved today my second demand from acs:law for evacuate the dancefloor

12 days to pay £295 or else, blah blah blah, letter matches template from internet blah blah blah

also a 5 page fact sheet enclosed, 4 months since first letter

 

Ignore it.

[anotheracsvictim]

HI People in answer to some peoples request. I received this morning a letter of claim from ACS:LAW for infringement of copyright. I shall be contesting the claim once I have managed to get my head around all the information in this thread.

 

Not quite 100% at the best of times, especially now. 'The Work' they claim that I have infringed on is nothing that I am interested in nor have in my collection therefore most certainly am not guilty of sharing. They have sent the usual 'template letter' , which amusingly I have noticed from some posts that they do not like such a format to receive back themselves, so does this make their claim non acceptable too. Anyway, the letter has IP address, time, protocol and related title of works, plus origin rights owner. They also have submitted details of my ISP, a fact sheet and the photocopy of the high court order for last year.

 

I am in pieces about this for obvious reasons so if anyone can help filter down this helpful thread of what I need to do now I would be very grateful

 

Thank you

[Shaggy123]

HI People in answer to some peoples request. I received this morning a letter of claim from ACS:LAW for infringement of copyright. I shall be contesting the claim once I have managed to get my head around all the information in this thread.

 

Not quite 100% at the best of times, especially now. 'The Work' they claim that I have infringed on is nothing that I am interested in nor have in my collection therefore most certainly am not guilty of sharing. They have sent the usual 'template letter' , which amusingly I have noticed from some posts that they do not like such a format to receive back themselves, so does this make their claim non acceptable too. Anyway, the letter has IP address, time, protocol and related title of works, plus origin rights owner. They also have submitted details of my ISP, a fact sheet and the photocopy of the high court order for last year.

 

I am in pieces about this for obvious reasons so if anyone can help filter down this helpful thread of what I need to do now I would be very grateful

 

Thank you

 

Dont worry, dont get upset. They've yet to take court action.

 

Send your letter of denial (you can find details on what to put in this on this thread), stating your position and leave it at that. It's likely they'll reply saying it is an invalid reply but that's rubbish. As long as you apply the template to your circumstances then they have no comeback.

 

As I say, send one response and leave it at that.

[blashey]

i downloaded it and then bought it

[johnsmith999]

HI People in answer to some peoples request. I received this morning a letter of claim from ACS:LAW for infringement of copyright. I shall be contesting the claim once I have managed to get my head around all the information in this thread.

 

 

I have a couple of questions for you,

 

Could you tell us What ISP you are with, and what NPO this refers to, as BT subscribers have not yet had any letters (that i am aware of) and ACS L:aw were granted an NPO on 7 Jul 10.

[Shaggy123]

i downloaded it and then bought it

 

So why admit on the phone to those chasing you, and on here that you downloaded it then deleted it only to change the story later?

 

Dont think you have a leg to stand on to be honest.

[the_shadow]

i downloaded it and then bought it

 

Its not the downloading that is being chased here, its the fact that whilst downloading via torrents it shares the download to multiple people who in all probablility DIDNT go out and purchase it.

 

I know solicitor letters threaten and cause distress but its important to keep everything in writing and to seek advice or consider what you are admitting to before doing so.

 

S.

[Shaggy123]

Its not the downloading that is being chased here, its the fact that whilst downloading via torrents it shares the download to multiple people who in all probablility DIDNT go out and purchase it.

 

I know solicitor letters threaten and cause distress but its important to keep everything in writing and to seek advice or consider what you are admitting to before doing so.

 

S.

 

It's also important to be consistent with the story. Changing the story just gives them a reason to disregard everything you say.

[BARFLY]

:jaw:subhuman ****.

 

it's being reported on slyck that acs have in the past few days sent out demands relating to the November 2009 NPO! for a porn title named pirates xxx. the recipient was a plusnet user, who are normally pretty eager to provide customer details. this might mean that acs have had that particular customer's details for quite a while and have only now sent a demand. this sounds like andy is trying to wring every last drop out of the scheme before it collapses. make as much money as you can and then declare bankruptcy...anyone else had a new demand from acs?

[smithies2a]

I have had a letter today from ACS saying i downloaded a CD on the 1st of April 2009!!

 

well shocked!

[BARFLY]

I have had a letter today from ACS saying i downloaded a CD on the 1st of April

2009

!!

 

well shocked!

 

who is your isp? and what is the date of the NPO?

[smithies2a]

npo date 19.11.09

isp o2.

 

just drafting my LOD now.

i was really scared until i saw this thread!

[BARFLY]

they're going over names gleaned from past npos. most people would have demands from these in the months following the npo. i'd imagine the "evidence" against you is even weaker than normal and that is why you were intially placed at the back of the queue. does it state anywhere when O2 delivered the details to ACS? letter of denial, like you say, perhaps with a little footnote that you have noticed via google that ACS have been sent for tribunal on this very matter and that you will be contacting the SRA. Oh, and that you have also noticed that the Swiss court have found Logisteps actions within Switzerland to be illegal. could they confirm that the details allegedly provided were provided from monitors within Switzerland?

Edited September 10, 2010 by BARFLY

[BARFLY]

A shyster (pronounced /ˈʃaɪstər/) is a slang word for someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law and politics.[1]

[BARFLY]

shyster·ism n.

Word History: Calling someone a shyster might be considered libellous; knowing its probable origin adds insult to injury. According to Gerald L. Cohen, a student of the word, shyster is derived from the German term scheisser, meaning literally "one who defecates," from the verb scheissen, "to defecate," with the English suffix -ster, "one who does," substituted for the German suffix -er, meaning the same thing. Sheisser, which is chiefly a pejorative term, is the German equivalent of our English terms bastard and son of a bitch. Sheisser is generally thought to have been borrowed directly into English as the word shicer, which, among other things, is an Australian English term for an unproductive mine or claim, a sense that is also recorded for the word shyster.

[BARFLY]

would be interesting to establish whether the tone of these new letters has changed since Andy was sent for tribunal..

[BARFLY]

if logistep monitors are based in switzerland and the swiss court has found that they have been acting illegally harvesting IP addresses then surely this applies everywhere. i mean whichever country the ip addresses relate to shouldn't make a difference as the monitors were within switzerland when they harvested them????!!!

Edited September 10, 2010 by BARFLY

[smithies2a]

cheers for the reply barfly. there is no date of when o2 sent my details to acs law.

 

on the letter from them though it says my internet provider is 'be un limited' when it is actually o2.

has any one else had this and do you think it is worth mentioning in my letter??

 

cheer

Edited September 10, 2010 by smithies2a

[BARFLY]

was it be -unlimited at the time of the alleged infringement? pretty sure be unlimited are, or were, part of BT?