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

[STC12]

Thanks for the link - I have contacted Ralli and see what happens. I agree ( and hope) that the Info Commisioner will go after Andrew Crossley but suspect by that time, he will have no cash to pay and go for IVA ( AGAIN !). At least it stops him - big woop !

 

The next target has to be CMW and getting him to stop issuing NPO's as we all know that the IP address does not identify the person who may have done the illegal download - and getting him to understand that ACS LAW and lets not forget we still need to go after Gallant Macmillan, have not taken anyone to court and are conducting a speculative invoicing exercise.

 

If we stop the NPO's we hopefully stop the whole business model being taken up by another solicitor group ?

[ACS-won't pay]

Has Andrew Crossley actually issued a statement about the dataloss yet (other than saying we are open for business etc)?

You would expect their website to be up by now, just displaying a brief statement about the whole situation.

[Mattyhatty]

May be this link might be of use to some people,

 

http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?cat=other&file=British_Sky_Agreement_Andres_Gunnar_Ballinas_Olsson__signed_.pdf

 

Part 3.1 looks interesting

 

 

 

Hmmm very interesting segment.

 

Is this to say that SKY have indirectly been selling our IPs and personal details to the law firm?

 

Sky will probably say the costs are 'administrative' etc but by the looks of it, they were in it for the money.

[cerberusalert]

UK ISPs Respond to ACS Law Confidential File Sharing Details Email Leak http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/09/29/uk-isps-respond-to-acs-law-confidential-file-sharing-details-email-leak.html

[cerberusalert]

BT embroiled in ACS:Law porn list http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11434809

 

Oops... another £500K coming to the ICO?

[unclebulgaria67]

If the ICO were to impose fines and others were successful with legal action, there must only be one outcome from this, unless they carry Insurance to cover such losses of data.

 

If you were an ISP, would you hand over more data in the future ? Any such requests in the courts, will be met with much more resistance, using this incident as a reason why they shouldn't be required to do so.

[Mattyhatty]

For those who havnt access to the leaked files and dont want to download the link.

 

can any one explain this to me?

 

I know its border line 'legal' but a little cheeky yeah?

 

[cerberusalert]

The ICO wanted a test case to implement their new powers, now they've got one gift wrapped with this fiasco.

 

Have a read through these four pages, it gives a synopsis of what has been revealed + plus an insight of more to come. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/amounts-to-blackmail-inside-a-p2p-settlement-letter-factory.ars/

[andydd]

I already made reference to the above PDF, thats how came up with the 17 grand figure in my earlier post (i.e 8040 users x £2.20), nice lil earner for Sky !

 

Andy

[Mattyhatty]

I already made reference to the above PDF, thats how came up with the 17 grand figure in my earlier post (i.e 8040 users x £2.20), nice lil earner for Sky !

 

Andy

 

Yeah i copied it all from yourself and the link. I thank you for it !

 

An amusing thread post buddy.

 

Im intrigued to wonder why its not been highlighted yet amongst news groups. Now with BBC not protecting the data its just scary how the top firms just couldnt give two hoots about their customers.

 

No one is safe and its all about money. Its justice that theyre all being founded out now though.

[Caimbeul]

I wonder if the SRA are allowed under their rules to use this information. Potentially damaging or makes no odds, as they would have had this insight into the business anyway?

 

Another thing, during the SRA investigations certain documentation was requested.... obviously any documents which could have been detrimental would have been witheld.... so now the SRA will be able to see the full picture.

 

I will also need to check if i am on this spreadsheet. I know the company are potentially being sued, but if our names and information are on these emails/spreadsheets then do we have the right to claim compensation as individuals? If so what is the best place to start?

Spoke to the SRA about it all yesterday. They have washed their hands of the matter now that it has been referred to the SDT. All down to them now and the ICO - i think we should all write and complain. I think they keyu is for whoever to highlight/prove that whilst the initiall DDos attack was a little naughty, the information was made available freely to anyone caring to look and that it was not a direct result of the DDos.

[Caimbeul]

I too would be interested in seeing the list of names. Although I am not with those ISPs mentioned, someone said there were some unknowns on there...can anyone help me out?

[ANDREW CROSSFIRE]

As mentioned earlier, my name and details are on the leaked database. I have made a complaint to the information commissioner, but all they can do is fine ACS LAW : a good start ! But do I have any recourse against ACS LAW for compensation for leaking my private details, damage reputation etc ? I have tried googling ACS LAW Group action but cant find anyone taking this on?

 

I have just spoken to a solicitor via email and this is his response to me asking the same question,

'it does occur to me that in addition to any specific act that could give you a right of action you have a right to privacy under the Human Rights Act and this disclosure is to my mind a clear breach of that right.You might want to ask them for their proposals to compensate you for this breach!'

I'm going to send them a letter proposing that £50,000 should be sufficient compensation and they are open to make a counter offer, unfortunatley for them and us the evidence of our claims is there for all to see, and the lack of evidence for their claim is also there for all to see!

What has really got to me is that SKY have made and announcement saying that the data was encrypted where i can see clearly on the email recieved by ACS law that this is not the case, it is a standard excel document, at least BT have had the balls to admit they made a mistake by not encrympting, I'm definately cancelling my subscription now.

[nickyorm]

im not really sure but thats skys cost for acs law getting the isp address's isnt it

[huggy41]

What has really got to me is that SKY have made and announcement saying that the data was encrypted where i can see clearly on the email recieved by ACS law that this is not the case, it is a standard excel document

 

andrew the data was sent encrypted then acs law decrypted it and stored it as is, they should of re-crypted it then stored it which as it happens was there LOSS

[Mattyhatty]

im not really sure but thats skys cost for acs law getting the isp address's isnt it

 

Yeah thats what it is...

 

but how can you put a price on someones personal details. They call it 'cost' for the work, but its all a load of Bee Ess. Its a hidden way of selling it to them.

 

I expected sky to contact me and ask me how much im worth haha

[Caimbeul]

There is a quote from our mate Andy on this BBC news webpage:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11418970

 

Its says:

All our evidence does is identify an internet connection that has been utilised to share copyright work”

Andrew Crossley ACS: Law

 

So I look forwward to him taking my interent connection to court as I sure as hell didn't download any trashy dance music, nor did I authorise anybody to do so. No offence to any fans of trashy dance music who may be using CAG

 

My favourie part of the quote was just after that and makes me wonder how he can actually make anything stand up. According to the BBC website Mr Crossley was quoted as saying

"All our evidence does is identify an internet connection that has been utilised to share copyright work," he told BBC News when pressed about the BSkyB database.

"In relation to the individual names, these are just the names and addresses of the account owner and we make no claims that they themselves were sharing the files," he added.

Then how than can he demand money from you for the supposed infringement and threaten to take you to court on this flakey evidence? it is utter ball lucks. As well as striking him off from being a solicitor, they should sue him for every penny he has AND he should refund everyone who has paid him AND compensate those he has harrased.

[MrHistory]

Something bugging me,

 

Virgin media have never given out any personal info to ACS Law yet people were getting letters from this firm in 09 who were with virgin BB how did they get this info.

[MrHistory]

Seems Sky will let you out of your contract if your on the list and want to move to another provider,

 

Me I'd be asking for a very large discount for a year but thats me

[richlou]

I am on the list too, don't know what to do, if anything.Do i report this , do i tell sky where to go with their broadband and tv , what i am worried about is that my details are on the list, whats stopping another fly by night [problem] artist getting the list and trying it on with everyone's details that is now widely available wordwide for everyone to read.I personally don't think Sky will compensate anyone or care less if you leave them.

Edited September 29, 2010 by richlou

[gavinwales06]

I said yesterday that a company called "Goldeneye International" sent me a letter last week stating that i infringed copyright laws in December, if sky and ACS has only recently made the mistake of releasing the information, how would i have received the letter a week ago? I thought that the information was only leaked within the past few days so Goldeneye wouldnt have had my information would they?

 

I have also spoken to sky yesterday who said that they were taken to court and Goldeneye obtained a court order for sky to provide my information as i had downloaded a movie. Do you think this is a genuine case and i should settle out of court as there has been a court order against sky?

[gavinwales06]

Also i was not notified by Sky that they were even being taken to court over my account. surely this isnt good practice? if they informed me that a company was taking then to court over my account then i could have given them permission to release my details saving on court costs and the court order

[unclebulgaria67]

It is up to you. But what are the consequences if you paid them, admitting to the allegation they have made against you?.

 

Could they then submit invoice letters for other copyrighted material you have downloaded and could they pass on your details to other companies for them to get their claws into you.

 

I personally think it is a bit dangerous to start paying these companies, when they have very little proof to take to court. My guess is that they would never take to court a person that downloads the odd film or music title. If they are to spend money on legal/court fees, it will be in regard to a frequent downloader/sharer of material.

[Flyyyte]

If the ICO were to impose fines and others were successful with legal action, there must only be one outcome from this, unless they carry Insurance to cover such losses of data.

 

If you were an ISP, would you hand over more data in the future ? Any such requests in the courts, will be met with much more resistance, using this incident as a reason why they shouldn't be required to do so.

 

Put the question another way: if you were a reputable, responsible ISP, would you hand over customer data to a third party unable to credibly demonstrate that the customer was indeed a law breaker?

 

No. You wouldn't. Which is why the ISP Talk Talk never did. Not only that: it told Crossley that whether or not he obtained a Court order, Talk Talk would appeal it so as to bring into open court the "evidence" upon which Crossley based his allegations.

 

Talk Talk's position is simple and straightforward: although it cannot and does not endorse illegal file sharing, it will never expose any of its customers to the kind of pay-up-or-else correspondence mailed out by ACS:Law unless and until such time as the reliability of that evidence has been tested in open Court.

 

Given Crossley's self-proclaimed righteous crusade -- to patraphrase: "I'm not in this for the money, I'm only in it for Justice!" -- you'd have expected him to pick up the gauntlet thrown down by TalkTalk without a second thought.

 

But no. He didn't. In fact, Talk Talk is the one major UK ISP he's stayed well clear of. In Crossley's pursuit of Justice, illegal file sharers are exempt if they happen to be Talk Talk customers. . .

 

As Crossley has now admitted, he does not and never has had the means of knowing that the recipient of his pay-up-or-else letter is a legitimate target for this kind of distressing correspondence.

 

As judge Chief Master Winegarten said recently, he himself does not know nor ever has known what it was that Crossley based his applications on. . . and is concerned to discover that, so far, whatever-it-was has yet to be tested in any legal action brought by Crossley.

 

That the Court has been the unwitting accomplice to a sustained fishing expedition by a lawyer who admits himself he has no idea if the person being contacted is innocent or guilty says much about this squalid, shabby affair.

 

But. . . well done, Talk Talk. A major ISP with guts? Wow. There's a rarity! Hopefully, BT customers as well as Sky customers will migrate their Internet accounts as soon as possible.

[floppydog]

It appears to me no matter what the outcome, these (insert your own expletive here) will be around in one shape or another. The courts could really make it a little more difficult by asking all of these companies to limit the NPO to one name at a time rather than batches. I wonder how that would affect their business model. ?