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

[Ladydevimon]

POWER to the little people lolololol

 

http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/

 

if you go here and type in your postcode it will give you the names and contact details of your local MP (I hope admins allow this link)

Edited September 10, 2009 by Ladydevimon

[judixxx]

Have just phoned the SRA (Solicitors regulation authority), took a while to get through as they are very busy (obviously with complaints about ACS).

The lady was very nice, knew exactly who ACS where, where they are based at and everything else about them, as they have had a lot of complaints about him and are compiling a huge file (not individual cases, but one huge one) against him. She took all my details and is passing the info on to a guy who is looking into ACS at present and said it will help them build a case against him and they will keep me posted........

 

Oh.... also suggested to speak to a solicitor in meantime for some legal advice.

 

Looks like Andrew Crossley could be in trouble because of his behaviour!!

Edited September 10, 2009 by 42man

[Ladydevimon]

I emailed the SRA and have had a reply back saying the complaints are being looked into as a whole, so it seems we may finally be getting somewhere

[car2403]

They said this all the way back to the beginning of the thread though - seems no action since, as it's still apertaining

[Wintord]

Just passed my complaint on to the SRA was told its being processed as an priority case due to the amount of complaints being made about them. (I had Just passed my complaint on to the SRA was told its being processed as an priority case due to the amount of complaints being made about them. (I had previous contacted them when I first recieved letters from acs law but contacting them again got my name put in with all the others so its no longer a single complaint).

 

I urge anyone who has not been in contact with them to do so asap.

[piglette]

Of course AC has been brought before the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal twice in the past, so he is experienced at it. In his defence, he said he had been suffering from depression, had had a stroke and had gone temporarily blind.

[cashins]

and had gone temporarily blind.

 

He clearly had been overdoing it!!!:-o:-o

 

Seriously, one can only hope they have finally had enough of this parasite.

 

David

[andydd]

Its looking good (for us) and bad for ACS . Anyone know if Watchdog took an interest ?. I notice its back on TV tonight and they did previously do a feature on Davenport Lyons and it was mostly their feature that revealed that innocenmt people were beiong accused and shortly after DL dropped it all.

 

Andy

[tess2006]

I too have emailed SRA and watchdog, also lawdit

complain complain complain !!!!!!!!!!

[teddylorry]

emalied mp,ico sra

[cashins]

Anyone know if Watchdog took an interest ?.

 

I would think that if a large number of people being chased by ASC e-mailed them, (Watchdog), that would generate enough interest.

 

David

[D_arkTrooper]

Reported ACS to the SRA and given them all the details of whats gone on.

[piglette]

Thank you so much for keeping us all updated D_arkTrooper, it is very much appreciated, especially as you must be totally traumatised by the big brown envelope. I just hope that this time ACS have bitten off a bit more than they can chew.

[D_arkTrooper]

I must admit it's not the nicest situation I've found myself in but there's always somebody else worse off elsewhere.

[corsair]

As a new member i have also received correspondence from ACS LAW. They have sent me two letters. I like other members have contacted the Solicitors Regulation Authority whose telephone number is 08706062555. My next steps are to contact my MP and the Information Commissioner. ACS LAW are now sending letters to residents livinh in N. Ireland.

[penumbra]

Can I urge people to also speak to their MP and reply to the consultation on illicit file sharing?

 

Unfortunately links are banned on this forum, but if people search for my username on slyck, I have posted all the info you need over there.

 

I cannot emphasise enough how much of a golden opportunity the consultation is. We get to put our views directly to the people who are going to be making the policy in this area. They must not be allowed to have a feasible business model based on bringing litigation for copyright infringement! It closes very soon, so time is of the essence!

 

Any questions, PM me.

[piglette]

If you type in "consultation on illicit file sharing" into Google it should be the first item. Appendix A has a list of questions that you can answer, but I assume you can submit other things as well. There was something on the BBC that the figures on illicit downloads were totally wrong and had been completely incorrectly calculated. It does seem something of a witch hunt, presumably good lobbying by the industry.

[penumbra]

If you type in "consultation on illicit file sharing" into Google it should be the first item. Appendix A has a list of questions that you can answer, but I assume you can submit other things as well. There was something on the BBC that the figures on illicit downloads were totally wrong and had been completely incorrectly calculated. It does seem something of a witch hunt, presumably good lobbying by the industry.

 

Tom watson MP has linked to a wiki (called myrandomstuff [dot] wikispaces dot com) that has the addresses to send your replies to. Googling his name in conjunction with it might get you to it. You can submit your answers by email or letter.

 

Here are a few of my thoughts on the consultation:

 

As piglette said, they have a set of specific questions they want answers to, but more generally:

 

 

• You should make clear you are a member of the public being falsely accused of copyright infringement by ACS:law (if that's what you are) and that they are demanding £500 off you and are threatening court action if you do not pay. If you're speaking in any other capacity then make that known.
  
• You can add a little information on your own situation if you like and the horror and distress caused by having this hanging over you. But be brief. They aren't looking for rants.
  
• Think about whether you think penalties for sending out false allegations are appropriate. What should they be?
  
• Think about the time limit there should be for them to act (it can take them a much shorter time than it does now).
  
• Think about the standard of evidence which should be required. They are thinking of making it on the balance of probabilities - essentially the same as now.
  
• Should there be a limit on how many notices a rights holder can serve in a certain period?
  
• £500 is awfully steep for a single file. Do you think this is right? How much do you think they should be able to ask you for?
  
• The real threat in ACS' letters come from the boogeyman of legal costs. Even if they managed to claim a more reasonable level of damages of, say £30 off a file sharer in court, the legal costs will be thousands of pounds. this is where the fear mongering comes in. Should this be allowed, or should there be limits on this?
  
• Think about whether it is appropriate for there to be a valid business model in threatening mass litigation such as this where the more IPs they can harvest, the more letters they can send out, the more money they can rake in. Do you think that encourages them to be as thorough as possible in sorting the guilty from the innocent or examine the validity of their evidence?
  
• Do you think that rights holders should be allowed to take you to court before they have made attempts to stop a person infringing / warn them their connection may be being hijacked? Or should they be allowed to do both at the same time?
  
• There is a full list of questions beginning from page 30 of the consultation pdf. You should attempt to answer at least some of the questions, although if you don't have an opinion or experience of them simply leave them out.
  

The deadline for the consultation is the 29th of september, so get writing!!!

Edited September 12, 2009 by penumbra
added some more ideas

[corsair]

To add to my previous comments i have contacted my M E P by e=mail. When he responds to me i will post the relevant information.

[andydd]

The deadline for the consultation is the 29th of september, so get writing!!!

 

Interesting reading even if you dont wish to reply, the section Technology: identifying the infringer and Consumer protection and level of proof are useful and could be used as a defence if ever any cases got that far.

 

Andy

[teddylorry]

just looked at their web site and they say that the second lot will be selected next week.just a thought how do they select who they pick.if we are all so called guilty why do they need to pick and not send them all out in mass as they do with all their other letters:confused:

[Harbinger16]

^^at a guess it'll be the people who have yet again failed to respond.

[cerberusalert]

just looked at their web site and they say that the second lot will be selected next week.just a thought how do they select who they pick.if we are all so called guilty why do they need to pick and not send them all out in mass as they do with all their other letters:confused:

 

Mmm.... that's a hard one, let me see, if I was in their position I would go for those that acted like ostriches and buried their heads hoping it would go away rather than those that vigorously denied it and stated in no uncertain terms that they would defend.

[piglette]

D_arkTrooper said that he has received a large brown envelope from the Central London County Court in spite of the fact he had already sent two letters of denial to ACS. Personally I think ACS must be mad to send a claim out to someone who has already denied the accusation twice. As cerberusalert says the people to go for are those who have not bothered to reply at all.

[D_arkTrooper]

Im wondering if ACS crazy decision to not accept template letters (or modified templates in my case) had anything to do with them picking me.

 

Still,its their decision and I hope they're prepared to reap what they sow.