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

[mr.ton]

The "Being Threatened" website has removed the link to this forum coz they say it "Contains mostly wrong information"

On the contrary...this forum tells it how it really is & maybe thats what they dont like

[patrickq1]

they may keep demanding money one letter of denial second letter SORRY I AINT PLAYING PING PONG WITH YOU MR CROSSLEY SEE YOU IN COURT

[factor]

i received a part 36 agreement today after sending 3 LODs. the amount has increased from £500 to £600. nice..

[mr.ton]

They dont seem to know what they doing from 1 day to the next.

The amount increases & decreases...what a farce

[ccsnet]

Got mine today - Down to £350 this time..... totally ignored my LOD and not actually given me a reason why it was not accepted, oh what a surprise.

 

Still - I forgot to mention in my last letter that I happen to forward a lot of conclusive evidence ( including photo showing the fact I own the chuffing CD in question ) to the SRA who accepted it and its now part of the larger enquiry.

 

I was thinking what sort of damage are ACS doing to the real people trying to sort this out ? Lilly Allen was asking a while back the artists to come together and help stop piracy ( which this is about really ) but with ----s like this they will never get any where.

 

I was wondering if its worth twittering over to her ( lilyroseallen (lilyroseallen) on Twitter ) and other artists about this cos it must really be hurting the cause ?

 

Terran

[ccsnet]

From http://acs-law.org.uk/preaction.pdf

 

2.3 The letters of claim and response suggested by this Code are not intended

to have the same status as a statement of case. They should be sufficiently

detailed so that each party may understand the case of the other.

However, their preparation should not place an unreasonable or

disproportionate burden on either party in terms of cost.

2.4 Attention is specifically drawn to the following provisions:

section 253 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;

section 70 of the Patents Act 1977;

section 26 of the Registered Designs Act 1949;

section 21 of the Trade Marks Act 1994;

paragraph 4 of the Community Trade Mark Regulations 1996

paragraph 4(6) of the Trade Marks (International Registrations) Order

1996

These provisions create liability in tort for making unjustified threats of

infringement of a design right, patent, registered design and registered

trade mark respectively. Claimants and their advisers should be aware that

unless their letter of claim falls within the exceptions set out in the above

sections, by following the provisions of this Code they may make

themselves liable for the tort of unjustified threats. There is a possibility

that relief (including a declaration, damages and an injunction to prevent

further threats) will be granted against them by the court as a result of a

claim or counterclaim for unjustified threats. Accordingly, there may be

cases where a claimant can reasonably justify not having sent a letter of

claim on the grounds that to do so was likely to lead to a claim or

counterclaim for unjustified threats.

 

 

 

d) if more information is required, specify precisely what information

is needed to enable the claim to be dealt with and why;

(e) if the claim is rejected, explain the reasons for that rejection, giving

a sufficient indication of any facts on which the defendant

currently relies in support of any substantive defence;

 

(g) state how the confidential information came into existence;

 

In addition to those matters set out in paragraph 4.2 above, the letter of

response should, where appropriate:

(h) give an explanation as to why the defendant disputes that the right

in issue subsists in the claimant’s work, that the claimant’s work is

original, is owned by the claimant or has been copied, and why the

work which is claimed to be an infringement is not an

infringement;

(i) state whether the defendant is prepared to enter into a licence

agreement;

(j) inform the claimant, in accordance with this Code including

Appendix F, if the defendant intends to make a claim for

unjustified threats.9

 

For the purposes of this Appendix, the claimant is the person who

complains of unjustified threats and the defendant is the person

complained of as making such threats)

3.2.F In addition to those matters set out in paragraph 3.2 above, the letter of

claim should, where appropriate:

(f) identify the correspondence or other activities of the defendant

complained of, where possible enclosing copies of any

correspondence from the defendant upon which the claimant

intends to rely;

(g) identify which section and/or subsection listed in paragraph 2.4

above the claimant relies upon.

4.2.F In addition to those matters set out in paragraph 4.2 above, the letter of

response should, where appropriate:

(h) where the defendant does not agree with the claimant’s

characterisation of the meaning of any words complained of, state

the defendant’s reasons for disagreeing.

So - thats part of their code of practise....

 

Terran

[mr.ton]

They seem to have done all the hard work in the 1st place by preparing the ground work so to speak for what they wanted to do by getting peoples info etc...

Then when its come to the most crucial part of it all, i.e - actually obtaining money off people, its been nothing short of a farce, a shambles & a total disaster on their part.

Back to the drawing board ACS Law.......

[n11186]

Hi this is my first post, i have also now got my 3rd letter saying they are demanding £350.00 within 21 days its now been reduced from originally wanting £500.00

Can anyone give me some advice please? i firstly would like to say that the time of there accusation back in june 08 i was on holliday with all my family, we have all the receipts to prove this but we have NOT told ACS about this as we first thought this was some [problem], so we just sent them a letter denying there accusations. When we go away we never turn the PC of totaly we just leave it on standby and the router was also left on leaving my network open. So firstley can we be guilty for this? not securing the network ?

 

2nd) Can we get prosecuted for not telling them we were on holiday and waisting time? (withholding info)

 

3rd)we are on income-support can we get legal aid? we have never had it befor ALSO ADVICE ON GOOD SOLICITOR

 

4th) This has caused the wife depression alarm and disstress can we counter sue him?

 

I would also like to say together we stand divided we fall, how can the law let this blackmailing thief just getaway with this sort of behaviour are we now governed by kim jon ill ? I fully understand there will be guilty people out there but how can this law firm getaway with saying all are guilty untill proved inoccent and if you dont prove your inoccent we want £500 if the police and law acted in this way we would call it a dictatorship i think the first court case what appeares we should all attend. :-x:-x THANKS

[meep]

The "Being Threatened" website has removed the link to this forum coz they say it "Contains mostly wrong information"

On the contrary...this forum tells it how it really is & maybe thats what they dont like

 

Not wanting to stir up trouble (and yes I haven't exactly posted much on this forum), but I have been following DL/ACS since February 2008 and there has been quite a bit of misleading/out of date/incorrect information on this thread at times. Well meaning I'm sure, but nevertheless misinformed. Wouldn't say "mostly wrong" though. Also it was quite a few months ago that they removed the link.

Edited October 20, 2009 by meep

[cashins]

Hi and welcome

 

Hi this is my first post, i have also now got my 3rd letter saying they are demanding £350.00 within 21 days its now been reduced from originally wanting £500.00

Can anyone give me some advice please? i firstly would like to say that the time of there accusation back in june 08 i was on holliday with all my family, we have all the receipts to prove this but we have NOT told ACS about this as we first thought this was some [problem], so we just sent them a letter denying there accusations. When we go away we never turn the PC of totaly we just leave it on standby and the router was also left on leaving my network open. So firstley can we be guilty for this? not securing the network ? No, there is no legal requirement to do so.

 

2nd) Can we get prosecuted for not telling them we were on holiday and waisting time? (withholding info) No

 

3rd)we are on income-support can we get legal aid? we have never had it befor ALSO ADVICE ON GOOD SOLICITOR Don't know on that

 

4th) This has caused the wife depression alarm and disstress can we counter sue him? Don't know - possible at some point?

 

I would also like to say together we stand divided we fall, how can the law let this blackmailing thief just getaway with this sort of behaviour are we now governed by kim jon ill ? I fully understand there will be guilty people out there but how can this law firm getaway with saying all are guilty untill proved inoccent and if you dont prove your inoccent we want £500 if the police and law acted in this way we would call it a dictatorship i think the first court case what appeares we should all attend. :-x:-x

 

Hopefully someone else will be along to help also

 

David

[mr.ton]

There has been no misleading advice given out on this thread or this forum whatsoever.

Caggers tell the truth & tell what alot of people/people in industry in general dont like to hear.

Sure there will have been trolls on here, like everywhere else - but on the whole, not.

I personally question the "Being Threatened" site & what its real aims are?

[n11186]

Hi and welcome

 

 

 

Hopefully someone else will be along to help also

 

David

Thanks David m8

[Huff&Puff]

Not wanting to stir up trouble (and yes I haven't exactly posted much on this forum), but I have been following DL/ACS since February 2008 and there has been quite a bit of misleading/out of date/incorrect information on this thread at times. Well meaning I'm sure, but nevertheless misinformed. Wouldn't say "mostly wrong" though. Also it was quite a few months ago that they removed the link.

 

What that site doesn't seem to appreciate, is that this thread is posted in a Debt Collection forum, and the advice given here is from people who are experienced in dealing with DCAs. While ACS, and Davenport Lyons before them, may not actually be a firm of DCAs, their tactics so far have been identical to those used by DCAs. The advice given here is from that perspective, and while it may be different advice to what BeingThreatened gives, it is nonetheless known to work very well from our point of view. If ACS start doing something different to a DCA, then the advice will need to change, but it seems to me that nobody has come unstuck with any given so far. From either site, so far as I know.

[mr.ton]

Its like what i get told off DCA's when i tell to them get stuffed & they have no legal powers to obtain money out of me whatsoever.

I always get told in return that i am "misinformed" - well if they think im misinformed then i challenge them to take real action against me, to this day non ever have coz they know i will wipe the legal floor with them so to speak.

As far as ACS are concerned, i dont doubt that theyve been to a court to obtain info & i fully understand that not everyone wants a default CCJ etc...

But in general speaking terms, i still say that they have no legal authority to actually obtain money out of anyone.

Only the county court system has that power & only after a due process of exhausting your basic legal/human rights & protections has been gone through etc..

[n11186]

There is somethink not right with theys letters from ACS-Law it seams as if the music industry have had permission to stop piracy at any cost and also egnore human rights on there way

This is almost crimanal what they are doing, Some years ago my nephew had a fallout with some neighbours of his so they dicided to damage his car he got the police out but it was that same old police frase = SORRY SIR YOU DONT HAVE ANY PROOF we can have a word with them but there is no real evidence. So he then bought CCTV and cought them in the act, he got the police back out and thought YES got em, BUT still there was No evidence the video evidence was inadmissable becouse it dint show a clear view of there faces but he new who it was, so him and a few boys whent round and told them to pay up for the damages or ells (the only diffrence was he didnt threaten court action if yous no what i mean) He then got a visat from the police who were fare and was only doing there job but warnd him he must not go round threaten theys people for money or he could be charged with demanding money by menace and threatning etc

So how can ACS -LAW get away with it after two letters demanding money i would say all letters after then SHOULD be Demanding money by menace how many denials do theys want :-x:-x

[cashins]

So how can ACS -LAW get away with it after two letters demanding money i would say all letters after then SHOULD be Demanding money by menace how many denials do theys want :-x:-x

 

Unfortunately, there are a number of firms of solicitors in this country who will do just about anything for money.

 

Supposedly, solicitors are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority which is just another, virtually unaccountable quango.

 

They have done nothing whatsover about another firm of solicitors who, over the last few months have written to hundreds of people telling them a county court judgement has been made against them and they had better pay up now. This was an outright lie and against every rule in the book but the SRA have done absolutely nothing about it and the firm is still in business.

 

The SRA are still (they say) investigating Davenport Lyons and now say they are investigating complaints regarding ACS. I for one am not holding my breath!

 

David

[shenme]

So some, like me, have been offered lower settlements, while others have had their settlements increased?

Can someone also clarify the without prejudice clause for the part 36 offers? From my (limited) understanding, the offer is made as it's more desireable than a court appearance. If the Part 36 offer is rejected by the Defendant, the Claimant can then process Court Summons against the alleged infringer. Does it then mean that if/when the Case goes to Court, one cannot quote the ineptitude of their processes (as their correspondece is "without predudice")? Can you not show the Judge that their correspondence obviously demonstrates a desire to make money by extortionate means?

[babybear39]

'Without prejudice' means that the letters cannot be presented in court without the express permission of either party.

[car2403]

So some, like me, have been offered lower settlements, while others have had their settlements increased?

Can someone also clarify the without prejudice clause for the part 36 offers? From my (limited) understanding, the offer is made as it's more desireable than a court appearance. If the Part 36 offer is rejected by the Defendant, the Claimant can then process Court Summons against the alleged infringer. Does it then mean that if/when the Case goes to Court, one cannot quote the ineptitude of their processes (as their correspondece is "without predudice")? Can you not show the Judge that their correspondence obviously demonstrates a desire to make money by extortionate means?

 

Suggest you read Part 36 fully to understand the implications - it's not as bad as suggested here.

 

'Without prejudice' means that the letters cannot be presented in court without the express permission of either party.

 

This isn't quite accurate, actually.

 

WO documentation is just subject to legal privilege. In my case against Barclays, I submitted some WO letters, (oops) and the Judge said "are you prepared to waive legal privilege to these letters so I can consider them?". Of course I said yes

[babybear39]

I should have said 'both parties', nawty me

[n11186]

Just had some good advice today NOT OFFICIAL from a ex citizens advice employer he told me if there is any one on low income ie income support and they do get sued they only have to pay what they can afford i have worked my money out and have 76p left over a month. LOOKS like they have got a long wait for my damages, and i owen nothink apart from my dog and cat.

[miss mardy]

hi everyone ive recived my 3rd letter today mine also has gone from £500 to £350 ive ignored all off the letters so far as i have not got a clue what they are on about i got my dad to have a read up on them the first letter i recived he thought they where a [problem] should i send a lod i dont know what to do feeling very scared and cant sleep

[cashins]

hi everyone ive recived my 3rd letter today mine also has gone from £500 to £350 ive ignored all off the letters so far as i have not got a clue what they are on about i got my dad to have a read up on them the first letter i recived he thought they where a [problem] should i send a lod i dont know what to do feeling very scared and cant sleep

 

Hi and welcome.

 

The fact the amount being demanded is going down should tell you something!!

 

Thinking is you should send an LOD. Exact number of people who have had these letters is unknown but runs to many thousands so you chances of ever being taken to court are very remote so stop worrying.

 

David

[AlITTleHelp:0)]

Hiya,

 

My dad got his 3rd letter yesterday upuntil now he has ignored the matter, not sent any responses etc, i have this morning put together a lod, asking if they have any proof other than the IP to bring it forward, informing them i will charge £25 for every letter i have to deal with from them in a counter claim etc, i also got a little worked up when writing and put the following -

 

I write with reference to the above and the letters I have received from you with regards to ‘alleged copy write infringement’.

You should take this letter as formal notice that I deny all allegations made in your poorly put together ‘template’ letters, and will continue to deny and will not be paying any sum of money.

As I am sure you are aware having proof something is linked to my IP address is not conclusive evidence that I, or someone in my household downloaded the material, you admit as much in your letters!

I strongly deny breaching any part of the CDPA 1988 which you allege were breached using my connection. You may also like to note that section 16(2) requires me to have directly infringed copy write or to have authorised someone else to do so, none of which I have done, which is why you have no proof I did!

Never have I possessed a copy of the work referred to in your letters, nor have I distributed it or authorised anyone else to do so using my connection, if you have proof to the contrary (other that the ‘IP address’ rubbish that we both know would not stand up in court) then please feel free to make me aware of it!

Failing to not secure my wireless access is not a crime, and as you know, or should, having an unsecured router leaves it open for anyone to access, without my permission, to carry out any form of illegal activity. Again, if you have solid proof I, or a member of my household carried out the alleged act please bring the proof forward.

Any further letters you send to me will incur a £25 fee, this will be added to my counter claim Civil procedure rules (specifically section 52, rule 48.6) for harassment and being wrongly accused of something you have NO proof I committed, Please be informed that if you wish to pursue this matter, I will seek to recover all my costs to the maximum permitted by the Civil Procedure Rules.

You should also take note that this is not a template letter, therefore you have no reason to write to me again dismissing it as such, nor do you need to respond with more empty threats or accusations that I have simply used ‘help forums’, nor do I need to be informed of your ‘successful cases’ where you were awarded ‘£16,000’, we all know you have never won a case that was defended, you have merely won when the defendant failed to show up and contest in any way, you have simply won by default!

I will not fail to turn up should you be stupid enough to take this case to court and will take great pleasure in seeing it dismissed due to lack of evidence!

Yours sincerely

 

 

Eould be grateful for any advice, if anyone thinks ive gone a little too far etc

[shenme]

I still haven't received anything after replying to their lowered settlement... I don't think it's over, it's just the postal strike.

 

Anyone received a response since the lowered/altered settlements?

 

Is everyone here disputing the Scooter Download or are there some that got accused of downloading games?