Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi everyone, Apologies for bringing up the same topic regarding these individuals. I wish I had found this forum earlier, as I've seen very similar cases. However, I need your help in figuring out what to do next because we've involved our partners/resellers. I work as an IT Manager in a company outside of the UK. We acquired a license from a certified reseller (along with a support agreement) and also obtained training sessions from them. The issue arose when we needed to register two people for the training sessions, so we used an external laptop for the second user to keep up with the sessions for only a month. During this period, the laptop was solely used for the training sessions. After two weeks, my boss forwarded an email to me from Ms Vinces, stating that we are using illicit software from SolidWorks. Since this has never happened to me or anyone we know, I went into panic mode and had a meeting with her. During the meeting, we explained that we were using an external laptop solely for the training sessions and that the laptop had not been used within the company since her email. She informed us that for such cases, there are demos and special licenses (though our reseller did not mention these types of licenses when we made our initial purchase). She then mentioned that we had utilized products worth approximately €25k and presented us with two options: either pay the agreed value or acquire SolidWorks products. We expressed that the cost was too high, and our business couldn't support such expenses. I assured her that we would discuss the matter with the company board and get back to her. After the meeting, we contacted the company reseller from whom we purchased the license, explained the situation, and mentioned the use of an external laptop. They said they would speak to Maria and help mediate the situation. We hoped to significantly reduce the cost, perhaps to that of a 1-year professional license. Unfortunately, we were mistaken. The reseller mediated a value €2k less than what Maria had suggested (essentially, we would need to acquire two professional lifetime licenses and two years of support for a total of €23k). This amount is still beyond our means, but they insisted that the price was non-negotiable and wouldn't be reduced any further. The entire situation feels odd because she never provided us with addresses or other evidence (which I should have requested), and she's pressuring us to resolve the matter by the end of the month, with payment to be made through the reseller. This makes me feel as though the reseller is taking advantage of the situation to profit from it. Currently, we're trying to buy some time. We plan to meet with the reseller next week but are uncertain about how to proceed with them or whether we should respond to the mediator.
    • Thanks London  if I’ve read correctly the questionaire wants me to post his actual name on a public forum… is that correct.  I’ve only had a quick read so far
    • Plenty of success stories, also bear in mind not everyone updates the forum.  Overdale's want you to roll over and pay, without using your enshrined legal right to defend. make you wet yourself in fear that a solicitor will Take you to court, so you will pay up without question. Most people do just that,  but you are lucky that you have found this place and can help you put together a good defence. You should get reading on some other Capital One and Overdale's cases on the forum to get an idea of how it works.  
    • In both versions the three references to "your clients" near the end need to be changed to "you" or "your" as Alliance are not using solicitors, they have sent the LoC themselves. Personally I'd change "Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept" to "Dear Kev".  It would show you'd done your homework, looked up the company, and seen it's a pathetic one-man band rather than having any departments.  The PPCs love to pretend they have some official power and so you should be scared of them - showing you've sussed their sordid games and you're confident about fighting them undermines all this.  In fact that's the whole point of a snotty letter - to show you'd be big trouble for them if they did do court so better to drop you like a hot potato and go and pursue mugs who just give in instead. In the very, very, very, very unlikely case of Kev doing court, it'd be better that he didn't know in advance all the legal arguments you'd be using, so I'd heavily reduce the number of cards being played.
    • Thanx Londoneill get on to it this evening having a read around these forums I can’t seem to find many success stories using your methods. So how successful are these methods or am I just buying time for him  and a ccj will be inevitable in the end. Thanks another question is, will he have to appear at court..? I am not sure he has got it in him
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4949 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Had a phone call from Watchdog this afternoon (quite quick since I only filled out the online form last night), the researcher just asked whether I was in the house at the time and if they could use my name when contacting ACS:Law.

 

My letter is ready so I'll be sending it this week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Some interesting related stories.

 

BBC NEWS | Technology | Net firms reject 'policing role'

 

The second one has an interesting quote.

 

It added: "Ispa members have consistently explained that significant technological advances would be required if these measures are to reach a standard where they would be admissible as evidence in court.

 

You can add comments to this story, might be worth mentioning ACS on it ?

 

Andy

 

I've had similar doubts Delta82, but the quote above really made me feel more confident that they don't have a leg to stand on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had similar doubts Delta82, but the quote above really made me feel more confident that they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Yeah Ive slept on it now..and with new info ..Watchdog and the like now interested it seems to be gathering a bit more pace.

ASPIRE to INSPIRE before you EXPIRE

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/Legal-row-over-download-claim.5258581.jp

 

Also YOUTUBED !

 

YouTube - ACS:LAW: Solicitors Filesharing Blackmail [problem]

 

Not sure who did the Youtube vid but all links are courtesy of Memor @ Slyck and also posted at TorrentFreak.

ASPIRE to INSPIRE before you EXPIRE

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have just recieved the same letter you seem to be having, has any one phoned your ISP and asked them if they have giving them details i phoned them up this morning and they've not heard anything about it, i've been to the police and spoken to a member in CID and there looking into the case and there going to be ringing me back in the next few days i shall let everyone no whats going on can i ask what game it has ment to be and from who my letter says dopeman n call or jaurez

Link to post
Share on other sites

UK court success against file sharing

 

I would hardly call it UK Court success; the first example never went to court & she settled & the second was won by default because she didn't defend.

 

While this was the first case heard in the United Kingdom of its type, experts believe that it is only the tip of the iceberg in litigation, and many others accused of similar breaches are to follow.

What experts? The same experts that are depending on unproven & unapproved forensic software?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Im honest this whole thing has been a roller coaster.... there's a few more things being dug up to see if there is weight for us "defendants" and one of the foremost issues is Logistep as they are not allowed to snoop on the fellow country men and other countrys ... but not sure how that will pan out for now with the UK law

 

http://www.iaac.org.uk/Portals/0/Evidence%20of%20Cyber-Crime%20v08.pdf

 

Theres a few folk looking through this document but its like another language to me for now lol.

ASPIRE to INSPIRE before you EXPIRE

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think they'll fall at the first hurdle with their "forensic evidence".

 

6 “Good” Evidence

Digital evidence must have all the attributes of other types of admissible evidence. Computer-derived evidence provides a number of challenges for the courts and for forensic procedures in general. To understand some of the issues it is useful to consider what “evidence” is in general terms.

Evidence is that which is offered before a court to persuade it to reach a particular view of events which may be in dispute. In general, evidence may be:

real – an object which can be brought to court and examined on the spot;

testimonial – the eyewitness observations of someone who was present and whoserecollections can be tested before the court;

documentary – a business or other record in any form which, once its authenticity hasbeen proved, can be examined for content;

technical – where a forensic technician has carried out some procedures on original“real” evidence and has produced some results. Technical evidence, in the eyes of thecourt, is not the same as expert evidence, which also includes giving opinions;

expert – the opinions of someone who is expert in a particular field and/or the conclusions of that expert after carrying out a specific investigation;

derived – a chart, video, etc. created from primary evidence to illustrate how certainconclusions might be drawn.

Evidence presented in court has to satisfy tests which fall into two main categories, admissibility and weight.

6.1 Admissibility

For evidence to be admissible, it must satisfy certain purely legal tests of acceptability. This tends to be a function of jurisdictions derived from the English common law as opposed to those based on European civil codes. The best known of the admissibility rules are:

the “hearsay” rule, which excludes reports of reports;

the “fairness in evidence acquisition” rule, which grants discretion to judges toexclude material obtained, for example, in violation of the codes of conduct in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Police Act 1997; and

the “broad” rule that exhibits including documents need to be produced into court by a human witness who can be cross-examined.

The actual rules are quite complex and have many exceptions. In the UK, intercepted data content can be used only for intelligence purposes – it cannot be admitted in evidence for a court to consider.

 

6.2 Weight

Having satisfied the admissibility criteria, the evidence can be considered then for weight of fact – its persuasiveness or probative value. While in the final analysis “weight” is a non-scientific concept, there are a number of desirable features in non-testimonial evidence, that is, exhibits and documents of various kinds. These attributes include that an exhibit is:

authentic – specifically linked to the alleged circumstances and persons;

accurate – free from any reasonable doubt about the quality of procedures used to collect the material, analyse it (if appropriate and necessary) and introduce it into court. It has to be produced by someone who can explain what has been done. If a forensic method has been used it needs to be “transparent”, that is, freely testable by a third-party expert. In the case of exhibits which themselves contain statements – a letter or other document, for example – “accuracy” must also encompass accuracy of content. This normally requires the document’s originator to make a witness statement and be available for cross-examination;

complete – it tells within its own terms a complete story of particular set of circumstances or events.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at that ..it may do.

 

There is also the DPA issue....

 

Someone headed to the CAB and they phoned the ICO about ACS:LAW and have a 3 month backlog to show up on there system so they

couldn'tsay if they are registered or not yet....:eek:

ASPIRE to INSPIRE before you EXPIRE

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

ACS:Law Solicitors

 

Seems the info that's being unearthed and people delving into the law side of things has kick started a face lift for the firms site...take a peek

 

Where are the sources for these so called Latest News items, it looks like have been deliberatly manipulated and placed there to try and scare people. I've no idae what the outcome was in the £16K case but I bet that they didnt recieve that much or indeed any, a court would take into account their ability to pay at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From their site.

We have developed effective and unique methods for organisations to enforce their intellectual rights. By working effectively with forensic IT experts, law firms and anti-piracy organisations, we seek to eliminate the illegal distribution of copyrighted material through our revolutionary business model. Whilst many companies offer anti-piracy measures, these are often costly and ineffective. Our approach is quite the opposite, it generates revenue for rights holders and effectively decreases copyright infringement in a measurable and sustainable way.

 

Errr...send out umpteen demands and hope a significant number will cough up.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true I think cashins...

 

Ive been looking at trying to get myself some representation if in the "likely" case I do get took to court.

 

My budget is meager at best and manage to "scrape by" as it is so on that basis I think I will have to use the Legal aid option .. anyone know how it works and what the requirements are for it or a link to read up on it.

 

Theres a scheme at work were I can get representation if need be but I think that's mainly to do with work and mortgage issues rather than something like this but will look into it when I find some one at work who knows exactly how it works as info is sparse so to speak.

ASPIRE to INSPIRE before you EXPIRE

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I havent received one of these letters so this is just my "outside" opinion if you like....

 

Definately relying on bullying to enforce.

 

The only real evidence that you have had the game would be from a Forensic investigation on your PC from a fully qualified forensic expert, and just supposing you did download the file and they did obtain a court order asking you to provide your pc for investigation (never going to happen for a civil case) There are some basic steps people can take to delete their internet history and ensure a file stays deleted.

 

TCP/IP packets can be faked, IP addresses can be spoofed/hijacked. Records at IP providers can be incorrect. There are just too many variables in my opinion and this should be easy to throw the probabilities scale back against the claimant.

 

I cant see this firm being willing to have an IT "expert" in court describe how he intercepted the packets going from computer A to computer B knowing full well that intercepted data is inadmissible in court as far as I'm aware.

 

Also I cant see a judge understanding TCP/IP packets and headers and the fact that an IP packet can be faked with some really really cheap (i.e. free) software and put out into the network shows how unsecure it is.

 

Just my tuppence worth

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole business stinks, the original solicitors Davenport Lyons' dropped this like a hot brick when Watchdog got involved. They are still being investigated by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority over the matter, ACS:Law crawled from under their rock along with all the files & some of the staff from Davenport Lyons' to continue these cases which they don't have a chance of winning legitimately. I wonder whether ACS:Law think they are exempt from investigation too? Or will they cut and run when enough mugs pay towards their not so little [problem]?

 

Major law firm drops filesharing threats ? The Register

Link to post
Share on other sites

Little Update..

 

Confirmation that ACS were not registered when they processed our personal data, appeared this morning in the ICO register

 

Registration Number: Z1760545

 

Date Registered: 14 May 2009 Registration Expires: 13 May 2010

 

Data Controller: ACS LAW SOLICITORS

 

Address:

18 HANOVER SQUARE

LONDON

W1S 1HX

 

not sure there's a great deal that can be done as its a classed as a breach of the DPA and not criminal supposedly :eek:

 

Deary me...lol

ASPIRE to INSPIRE before you EXPIRE

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

ACS: Law are a legitimate company, and we apologise for so closely linking their name with the name of this website. Letters sent to you by them are not a [problem], and should be treated as legitimate letters of claim.

 

This website never meant to accuse ACS: Law of any wrongdoing, but to merely be a reference of links, collated from the public domain.

 

 

Seems ACS have been busy and are not very happy...

 

 

BeingScammed.com You are not alone, Stand Strong.

ASPIRE to INSPIRE before you EXPIRE

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Seems another load of letters have now been sent out.. but for xxx porn titles.

 

A fellow alleged infringer went to court the other day but lost BUT NOT FOR HIS ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT .and Contested court order

Edited by IdaInFife
removed external links

ASPIRE to INSPIRE before you EXPIRE

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems another load of letters have now been sent out.. but for xxx porn titles.

 

A fellow alleged infringer went to court the other day but lost BUT NOT FOR HIS ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT .. and Contested court order

 

I was going to pounce on you for saying he went to court and lost, but you actually make it clear it wasn't for the infringement :)

 

Needless to say, the post on the ACS page is inane blustering. IT wasn't allowed by the judge because he wasn't named on the order. The "brilliant argument" or whatever was about this, nothing to do with the evidence whatsoever.

Edited by IdaInFife
removed external links
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4949 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...