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

[crossleyp]

I sent a LOD off to GM nearly 2 1/2 months ago and they have stopped chasing me, no more letters at all..... Anyone else had this outcome?

 

It took GM nearly 3 months before they rejected my LOD as a template, so I sent a second LOD and have so far not heard anything more. However, I still expect another demand to drop through my letterbox anytime.

[stupiditto]

It took GM nearly 3 months before they rejected my LOD as a template, so I sent a second LOD and have so far not heard anything more. However, I still expect another demand to drop through my letterbox anytime.

 

Really a good firm to get back to you after 3 months when they give you 21 days.. The 2nd letter will be exactly the same if they ever do get back. What a crock of shizzer...

[wittzend]

BT/Plusnet asked for a moretorium for previous NPO's,does anyone know if it was granted,can't find it mentioned anywhere.

[2 pints]

i feel sory for any body who has a letter from acs law . my view on this is never admit anything they just try to scare people . and everybody who works there can kiss my ass

[andydd]

In which case you're not really in a position to offer an informed opinion.

 

 

 

This is why you should have read the thread before offering an ill informed opinion.

 

ACS Law are not pretending to act for anyone. They are actually acting for clients.

 

True..Many of the contract between clients and ACS can now be viewd thanks to the leak.

 

Andy

[televisionuser]

I said my WIFI was hacked and I got a letter back saying thanks for updating your Security but to check to see if others have downloaded the file and Gallant Macmillan will take no more action.

Edited October 8, 2010 by televisionuser

[cerberusalert]

How the blazes are you supposed to know who's hacked into your wifi?

[wittzend]

I said my WIFI was hacked and I got a letter back saying thanks for updating your Security but to check to see if others have downloaded the file and they will take no more action.

 

Who did you get your letter from?

[televisionuser]

Gallant Macmillan

[zarathustra2k1]

but can i take that risk as i admitted it to them

 

 

Fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap!

 

:wink:

[andydd]

How the blazes are you supposed to know who's hacked into your wifi?

 

Well..your router may keep logs, this will identify the IP address that it has given out (assuming you are using it for DHCP, most do), although this will only identify a computer name but this may give you a clue, also if you look at the 'Attached Devices' (or similar tab) it will again list the computers currently attached (either hard wired or via wifi).

 

If you read through the leaked ACS mails you will see that ACS used to drop cases where anyone used the 'wireless defence', whether specifically or by alluding to it.

 

HOWEVER ACS did later go on to reject any form of 'wireless defence' although it is not clear why they did.

 

The thinking behind the wirelss defence is that it has been established in law that a person cant be held responsible for the (unathorised) actions of a third party.

 

Andy

[car2403]

How the blazes are you supposed to know who's hacked into your wifi?

 

Wasn't me...

[cerberusalert]

Well..your router may keep logs, this will identify the IP address that it has given out (assuming you are using it for DHCP, most do), although this will only identify a computer name but this may give you a clue, also if you look at the 'Attached Devices' (or similar tab) it will again list the computers currently attached (either hard wired or via wifi).

If the average computer user knew that + how to access it they wouldn't have had an unsecured wifi anyway.

 

As said previously there is case law which states a person is not responsible for someone hacking into their connection, nor are they liable if they have an insecure wifi unless they knowingly allow them to commit an offence or copyright infringement.

[cerberusalert]

but can i take that risk as i admitted it to them

It depends on exactly what you admitted to, how you admitted and what was said/written.... it could all hinge on semantics.

[postggj]

This is a long thread and a few answers needed me thinks

 

1/ where is this data about p2p etc is being gathered

2/ who has access too this data

3/ who is passing on this data

3/ who is this data being pased to

4/ who is demanding payment and where are they based

 

are we talking eu member states

[ITWASNTMEGOV]

BT/Plusnet asked for a moretorium for previous NPO's,does anyone know if it was granted,can't find it mentioned anywhere.

 

Adjourned until 12th January 2011

[andydd]

This is a long thread and a few answers needed me thinks

 

1/ where is this data about p2p etc is being gathered

2/ who has access too this data

3/ who is passing on this data

3/ who is this data being pased to

4/ who is demanding payment and where are they based

 

are we talking eu member states

 

1. It is gathered by 3rd party 'date harvesting' companies, Logistep, etc. mostly in Germany I believe

2. The date harvesters, the law companies and perhaps the ISP's

3. The data harvesters and ISP's

4. The law compaies and ISP's

5. ACS Law and GM and possibly some others, all based in london, UK..so yes..EU

[panther12]

I sent a LOD off to GM nearly 2 1/2 months ago and they have stopped chasing me, no more letters at all..... Anyone else had this outcome?

Didn’t bother with a LOD, went straight for the FO letter instead. Not heard anything which is quite disappointing as I like a challenge. Harassment claim lodged through ralli solicitors. Don’t think much will come of it though, but as Dale says – you’ve got to be in it to win it.

[STC12]

Got a reply from the information commissioner this morning confirming that on the evidence provided, that ACS LAW breached "the 7th principle"(keeping data safe) and that they have contacted ACS LAW to establish the facts and decide what action should be taken.

We'll see what happens !

[8of9]

A MUST READ

 

Open Rights Group account of NPO hearing 4th October

 

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing-part-one

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing-part-two

 

ALSO.

 

This is an excellent document from "Being Threatened" explaining much of what is going on and the errors that can occur..

 

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-FtXNu_158fOTIxOGMxNzMtNGJmNi00YTcwLWJlMmUtMTJhZDg2NGIwNjlk&hl=en_GB&authkey=CL3JpeIE

 

Sorry if they've been posted before - been busy with leaked Emails

HI YA TERRY

[piglette]

Strangely Andrew Crossley seems to have purchased himself some new domain names http://www.wal-sca.co.uk and http://www.wal-sca.net on 6 October 2010 (wal-sca=acs-law backwards!) if you go to http://www.acs-law.co.uk/ it mentions http://www.wal-sca.com too.

[andydd]

A MUST READ

 

Open Rights Group account of NPO hearing 4th October

 

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing-part-one

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing-part-two

 

ALSO.

 

This is an excellent document from "Being Threatened" explaining much of what is going on and the errors that can occur..

 

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-FtXNu_158fOTIxOGMxNzMtNGJmNi00YTcwLWJlMmUtMTJhZDg2NGIwNjlk&hl=en_GB&authkey=CL3JpeIE

 

Sorry if they've been posted before - been busy with leaked Emails

HI YA TERRY

 

Good ORG stuff, interesting reading, i am really surprised that MOS are still involved, cleraly this isnt going to be the quick n easy cash cow they thought it was and they now lay themsleves open to being charged costs (I see that CMW rejected BT's calim for £52,000 for just a weekends work, but it may well be that in the future MOS are stung with a huge legal bill), I would of thought they'd ditch it all know, it cant be bringing in that much money and they should go back to trying to entice people to buy their shoddy CD's not making money in this dubious way, it can only hurt sales after all.

 

Andy

[andydd]

Something else that has occured to me is that computers do make mistakes, basically you can type in a 1 and it comes out 2, this is why on high end servers, standard RAM memory isnt used, but intstead EEC or registered RAM that performs extra checks, these 'mistakes' (where binary 0 may become 1 or visa versa) can be caused by fluctuations in electricty and suns radiation, etc

 

This could be used in an argument why you have been wrongly identified by your ISP, although more likely causes are probably human error, IP spoofing, etc

 

Andy

[5aday]

Has anybody reading this had a recent letter from ACS or GM? Either a 1st letter or 2nd? If you're reading this but not yet joined the forum, it would be good to hear from you.

 

I've sent off my 2nd LOD to GM in the last two weeks. They sent me the 1st letter in July which i responded to using the template letter. Their response in September rejected my response as a template and asked me to provide evidence of any foul play as alluded to in the LOD template. They also asked me to name others who use the connection so that they can pursue them instead of me.

My 2nd LOD was short and re-stated my denial.

 

I fully expect a third letter but have told them I will consider it to be harrassment.

[cerberusalert]

Strange how their response to template LODs is exactly the same as ACS's.

 

I have yet to find anything in the CPR where it states that template letters cannot be used.... maybe that's just the prerogative of vexatious litigants.