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

[cerberusalert]

UK law firm Ralli Solicitors LLP claims letters sent from ACS: Law Solicitors (ACS Law) to people suspected of illegal file sharing may constitute unlawful harassment, and the recipients may be entitled to compensation.

 

The law firm is now urging people who have received these letters to contact it as it now seeks to pursue group action for harassment on their behalf against ACS Law. http://www.ralli.co.uk/news/recipients-of-acs-law-copyright-infringement-letters-urged-to-come-forward

[8of9]

hey everyone has anyone tried to get on acs website i keep getting the server down notice.

 

 

All explained here

 

http://torrentfreak.com/new-4chan-ddos-targets-hated-anti-piracy-law-firm-100922/

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11371315

 

http://torrentfreak.com/4chan-to-ddos-riaa-next-is-this-the-protest-of-the-future-100919/

[8of9]

Looks like the Domain has been suspended now

 

[url=]http://www.acs-law.org.uk/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi[/url]

[Sussex65]

Anyone else sent a letter to to CMW as suggested ?

[captain-123]

People wishing to write a letter to CMW could take a look over at the Slyck forum their is an excellent post on page 388 by a user called Renegade with a link to a Google document written by the being threatened team.

 

 

This document will help everyone who would like to write a letter to CMW and is an excellent resource. Please take the time to contact CMW. Lets all take a stand remember united we stand divided we fall.

 

Chief Master Winegarten

Chancery Division

Room TM 708

The Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London

WC2A 2LL

 

It's now or never people, we have a shot here at giving CMW some amunition to fire back with as it seems we are the only people who are fighting as the ISPs don't seem to care.

[car2403]

purple lavender - Its a pain,but you need to send One LOD which stops the chance of them getting a default judgement.

 

Erm, ignoring court papers is what gets a person a default judgement, not whether a LoD is sent or not. If you don't bother to send an LoD, they have no idea whether court action would be defended or not, which potentially might mean that they would be more likely to chance court. But you would still get the court papers, and get a chance to defend. IMO they would the withdraw at the speed of greased lightning. If they lose in court, and it's hard to see how they could win, then it puts an end to the [problem].

 

The whole point of this is that it is an abuse of the Court process - they send you an accusing letter, you send a letter of denial, it's then up to them if they take you to Court or not. If they do, they will show that they've tried to resolve the issue informally, (a pre-action protocol requirement in all cases, not just specific to these types) but that will only be relevant on the issue of awarding of costs, should they go on and win. **Should** is an important point, there - they probably can't win, for the reasons stated in these threads.

 

The only ways to get a Judgment against you by default is to, either, ignore a Court claim form completely, or to enter a statement of defence that is struck out because it fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rules - in either case, you **will** need to have received a Court claim from them, so all this really is a moot point on here until that happens to someone.

 

What we all do need to do is make sure we get our facts right when posting - you can't say you will get a County Court Judgment against you by default by failing to send a LOD, as that just isn't correct, and there are many, many new members coming to CAG to look this issue up, plus some of them probably aren't even registering and posting to ask questions. So, folks, let's make sure that we get the right information, to the right people, at the right time. Or, at least, challenge what think may be incorrect. (Which is what I'm doing... )

[JustInterested]

...you can't say you will get a County Court Judgment against you by default by failing to send a LOD, as that just isn't correct...

 

Quite right car2403. However, the important point is that you must write a LOD to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol.

[baffledbygm]

Quite right car2403. However, the important point is that you must write a LOD to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol.

 

The very same pre-action protocol that GM have already broken by not including it in their letter of claim. Confused? Me too!

[kilotango22]

The very same pre-action protocol that GM have already broken by not including it in their letter of claim. Confused? Me too!

 

Exactly, the code clearly states he has to send you a copy of the code, not that he has to make it available on his website. I think failing to comply with that code, by his own admission on his hilarious claim letters would be yet another reason for him loosing any court case.

[wittzend]

Anyone else sent a letter to to CMW as suggested ?

 

I have. I just voiced my concern that there is no independent validation of the method of harvesting IP addresses.Not mentioned P2P as I'm not to clued up on it.I hope someone with decent IT knowledge will write in

[STC12]

I'm not a legal expert hugglepuff, but what you say makes good sense. You are right to point out that they have never taken anyone to court. But an LOD is part of the pre court action protocol, which we should follow. ACS issue a letter of claim, we issue a letter of denial. Its a pain but best to follow procedure and I think the general view from interested parties such as Which, is send the LOD and leave it up to ACS Law to make the next move.

[JustInterested]

The very same pre-action protocol that GM have already broken by not including it in their letter of claim. Confused? Me too!

 

Yes, I don't think the irony is lost on any of us. This should, by the way, be a point that people should raise in their letter to CMW...you are writing that letter aren't you?

 

There are two ways you can look at this.

 

1. You firmly believe that you will never be brought (for whatever reason) to court to defend the copyright infringement allegation. If this is you then why send a LOD at all? Just ignore all correspondence.

 

2. You believe it is highly unlikely that you will ever be brought to court but want to be as prepared as possible should the unlikely event occur. Then send a single LOD. You have now discharged your duty under the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol and should sleep easy.

Edited September 23, 2010 by JustInterested

[STC12]

I'm not a legal expert hugglepuff, but what you say makes good sense. You are right to point out that they have never taken anyone to court. But an LOD is part of the pre court action protocol, which we should follow. ACS issue a letter of claim, we issue a letter of denial. Its a pain but best to follow procedure and I think the general view from interested parties such as Which, is send the LOD and leave it up to ACS Law to make the next move.

[purplelavender]

Thanks for advice and I will now write what will be a v brief LOD.

[8of9]

Even if you dont write to CMW you MUST read this.

 

Link to the amicus brief which you are more than welcome to send to Chief Master Winegarten along side your letter to him. (It won't send itself).

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B- ... y=CL3JpeIE

 

Politely explain your position and why you believe the Chief Master has a responsibility to protect the interests of justice in the absence of an ISP with enough backbone to provide a counterview to that of the claimant. As ever ensure you keep the language polite.

 

Address as previously posted by Jambo is: CHIEF MASTER WINEGARTEN, CHANCERY DIVISION, ROOM TM 7.08, THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, STRAND, LONDON, WC2A 2LL

[captain-123]

Just to let you know that anyone wishing to write to CMW (hopefully everyone here) there is an update to the document provided by the user Renegade on the Slyck forum which explains the whole P2P process and the flaws associated with the collection of data in a easy to understand manner. This is an excellent document to take pointers from and include with your letter.

 

Regardless of peoples circumstances there is an excellent section on why this process is flawed and how the system cannot prove if a single person shared a whole or significant part of the work involved which is something which is required under CDPA rules.

[8of9]

Developments on ACS Law's website

 

http://www.slyck.com/story2058_ACSLaw_Email_Database_Possibly_Leaked_onto_The_Pirate_Bay

 

(Click torrent link)

 

Frank Sinatra wrote:

Start spreading the news

Edited September 24, 2010 by 8of9

[iaidoman]

Just received my second letter today telling me that ACS will be seeking a substantial amount of damages but will be seeking an interim payment of over £999 towards ‘legal costs’, and they are disinclined to accept at face value my first LOD.

[8of9]

– Email from ACS:Law client which states the following:

 

Andrew,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Our client remains concerned over the accuracy of the data that you provide and the methods used to obtain such data. It has been closely monitoring the recent press that your Firm has attracted regarding complaints to Which, in relation to demand letters that have incorrectly been sent to innocent internet subscribers, accused of copyright infringement. Your letter of 30 October 2009 was not satisfactory, in that it did not fully deal with the concerns raised in our letter of 21 July 2009, save as to state that you and your client disagree. Clearly there are flaws in your data gathering process. These are important and valid concerns that need to be satisfactorily addressed, so as to protect the rights of our client and innocent customers.

 

Just about sums it up

 

More.....

http://torrentfreak.com/acslaw-anti-piracy-law-firm-torn-apart-by-leaked-emails-100925/

[cerberusalert]

The leading case on the matter of authorisation is CBS -v- Amstrad [1988] RPC 567 in which Lord Templeman stated:

 

"My Lords, I accept that a defendant who procures a breach of copyright is liable jointly and severally with the infringer for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the infringement. The defendant is a joint infringer; he intends and procures and shares a common design that infringement shall take place. A defendant may procure an infringement by inducement, incitement or persuasion. But in the present case Amstrad do not procure infringement by offering for sale a machine which may be used for lawful or unlawful copying and they do not procure infringement by advertising the attractions of their machine to any purchaser who may decide to copy unlawfully. Amstrad are not concerned to procure and cannot procure unlawful copying. The purchaser will not make unlawful copies because he has been induced or incited or persuaded to do so by Amstrad. The purchaser will make unlawful copies for his own use because he chooses to do so. Amstrad's advertisements may persuade the purchaser to buy an Amstrad machine but will not influence the purchaser's later decision to infringe copyright. Buckley L.J. observed in Belegging-en Exploitatiemaatschappij Lavender B.V. v. Witten Industrial Diamonds Ltd., at p.65, that "facilitating the doing of an act is obviously different from procuring the doing of an act." Sales and advertisements to the public generally of a machine which may be used for lawful or unlawful purposes, including infringement of copyright, cannot be said to "procure" all breaches of copyright thereafter by members of the public who use the machine. Generally speaking, inducement, incitement or persuasion to infringe must be by a defendant to an individual infringer and must identifiably procure a particular infringement in order to make the defendant liable as a joint infringer."

 

In other words for a person to be found liable for authorising an infringement that person must intend and share a common design that infringement shall take place. If you have no knowledge that another was using your internet connection for infringement of copyright then you do not share a common design that such infringement will take place and therefore you are not liable for copyright infringement.

[WhatToDo1]

Just received my second letter today telling me that ACS will be seeking a substantial amount of damages but will be seeking an interim payment of over £999 towards ‘legal costs’, and they are disinclined to accept at face value my first LOD.

 

How long ago did you get your first letter?

 

I sent my LOD to my first letter yesterday and woke up in the middle of the night and remember i didn't sign it. What will they do, will they just write back and tell me they won't accept it because i didn't sign it? I'm kinda worried about it all again now, even though I know I didn't download it.

[cinderellabigbas]

Ladies and Gentlemen- a commenter on Torrentfreak has stated the creditcard details are part of the big ACS Law leak- if you have paid off Mr Crossley, I suggest it might be good advice to get in touch with your credit card company/bank and inform them of this- if it's a creditcard company, they'll shut your account down and issue you with a new one.

[kilotango22]

Developments on ACS Law's website

 

http://www.slyck.com/story2058_ACSLaw_Email_Database_Possibly_Leaked_onto_The_Pirate_Bay

 

(Click torrent link)

 

I wonder if AC will get a letter of claim from any of these credit card holders whose details may have been leaked after he made them available for upload on the web... OOPS Wasn't me your honour, I sent an LOD but it was a template and got refused.

[wittzend]

If this doesn't finish him,then he's the Teflon solicitor.

Edited September 25, 2010 by wittzend
****e spelling,I've bin't'pub

[wittzend]

Simon Gallant,Your next:evil: