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

[nastyacsguys]

Just received a letter from these guys after coming back from my honeymoon - panic! Quick Google relieved this thread which made me feel a lot better. I destinctly remember the two files in question as neither would download at all. I'm sure it's come up before in the 50 pages but I don't have time to search - I wouldn't be surprised if they post hundreds of fake files and harvest IP addresses to target these letters with.

 

I'll be keeping this letter just in case but I honestly think they need to be put out of business.

[robstanley1]

NastyACS -

 

Assuming you didn't download or upload the file(s) in question, you need to do some more reading here, and send in a letter to them, strongly denying their allegations, if these are untrue.

 

DON'T just be tempted to not respond at all, as ACS may view this as having a stronger case against you, as others here have noted (Make sure you read this *entire* thread - it'll be worth your while!)

[nastyacsguys]

Thanks Rob, I will do just that to make sure that I'm covered. I'm not going to pay these people money for something that I didn't do!

[robstanley1]

Thanks Rob, I will do just that to make sure that I'm covered. I'm not going to pay these people money for something that I didn't do!

 

Good man!!

 

...Although, on re-reading your original post, I'm not entirely sure exactly where you would stand, seeing as you are saying that you actually made an attempt to download the stuff they say you did?

 

Anybody alse able to advise on this

[penumbra]

Good man!!

 

...Although, on re-reading your original post, I'm not entirely sure exactly where you would stand, seeing as you are saying that you actually made an attempt to download the stuff they say you did?

 

Anybody alse able to advise on this

 

Well, this is potentially quite interesting. The offence they are accusing you of is the distribution of the file in question. Not the download or the "attempted" download.

 

Generally they state that they download a chunk of the file from the target in order to avoid the problem which leads to them sending letters to printers. Their thinking is if they receive a chunk of the file, then you're not a printer or being spoofed.

 

In this case, if what the original poster is saying is correct then it looks as though they are telling porkies. Bear in mind that Digirights (who do the monitoring on behalf of digiprotect) apparently use a modified version of the software that Logistep use.

 

The logistep software has sent letters to users using "no upload" clients and hence it is impossible that they could have distributed any of the file. That shows you the fallibility of this software.

 

We know that having your wireless hijacked / hacked is not even slightly the only way these schmucks could have mucked up.

 

If you could drop me a line at penumbra (at) beingthreatened.com or PM me with further details that would be much appreciated. The guys from ACS monitor this forum very closely so I wouldn't advise giving any more detail on your case in public.

[spartathisis]

not sure if its been suggested, but ask the mods to put up a poll so everyone can see which isp is giving to to ACS. If everyone who visits this thread (way more than the rest of CAG, by the way ) votes we can then vote with our feet and leave the offending isp's, hit them where it hurts!

[robstanley1]

Loads and loads of publishers/sites now picking up on the story over just the past two days alone:

 

Law firm threatens 150 innocent peopl... - Google News

[Huff&Puff]

not sure if its been suggested, but ask the mods to put up a poll so everyone can see which isp is giving to to ACS. If everyone who visits this thread (way more than the rest of CAG, by the way ) votes we can then vote with our feet and leave the offending isp's, hit them where it hurts!

 

It is probably every ISP in the UK. And as they are being ordered to supply the details by a court of law, the ISPs cannot really be held to account here. What is most wrong is the way the courts are handing out these orders on the basis of virtually no evidence. And succesive governments that have allowed this kind of legal blackmail to continue unchecked :mad:

[robstanley1]

Now - this makes VERY interesting reading folks; the Music Industry is going on record as distancing itself from ACS:LAW and their ilk:

 

BPI distances itself from file-sharing lawyers | News | PC Pro

 

What do we make of this??!!

 

 

EDITED TO ADD: As already noted over on Slyck.com today, Which? are now saying that BBC TV's Panorama programme, as well as the Culture Show are showing an interest in featuring the story on ACS:Law's conduct.

 

Although I haven't received a reply from Which? to my own complaint as yet, I'll certainly post the pertinent comments here when I do...

Edited January 27, 2010 by robstanley1

[n11186]

Its now finaly all coming together, ACS-And DL will be brought to justic its just a matter of time when Crosley and his puppets are in the hot seat getting a grilling of the media, about his big fraud [problem] and lets hope him and his employees end up in the dock at a CROWN COURT and all get a stretch in prison, if i was employed by this man i would now be seriously thinking of deflecting to the right side of the law, before the law catches up on his [problem], and all them getting prosecuted for aid-and-abetting. He will proberleys end up doing a Rony Biggs and buzz of to Mexico with his bag of money and leave his emloyees to take the flack.

[Spuddy]

I received a letter from ACS:LAW in the past few days regarding an alledged offense of making available one track. I have no knowledge of this track or even this artist. I don't use P2P, it was on a prior ISP and was almost a year ago.

 

I must admit I haven't trawled through 88 pages on this matter, but can anyone provide any advice other than replying denying this wild and unfounded accusation?

[penumbra]

I received a letter from ACS:LAW in the past few days regarding an alledged offense of making available one track. I have no knowledge of this track or even this artist. I don't use P2P, it was on a prior ISP and was almost a year ago.

 

I must admit I haven't trawled through 88 pages on this matter, but can anyone provide any advice other than replying denying this wild and unfounded accusation?

 

Unfortunateley you are going to have to put some effort in to reading up on the matter and informing yourself. Besides, there is not much more to say other than reply and deny.

Edited February 11, 2010 by IdaInFife
external links removed

[Flyyyte]

I received a letter from ACS:LAW in the past few days regarding an alledged offense of making available one track. . .

I must admit I haven't trawled through 88 pages on this matter, but can anyone provide any advice other than replying denying this wild and unfounded accusation?

 

Hi Spuddy:

 

It will trouble fair-minded people everywhere that the "wild and unfounded accusation" levelled against you seems anything but unique.

 

According to Which?, they have been contacted by well in excess of 150 people, all of whom believe they are also being wrongly accused.

 

Which? quotes the case of a 78-year-old man who received one of the perhaps many hundreds of letters sent out by London law firm ACS: Law. That letter, says Which?, demanded that he pay £500 in respect of a pornographic file he had downloaded.

 

The 78-year-old and his family -- like you -- believe the accusation is as wrong as it is distressing.

 

Obviously, then, the question of identity is at the heart of this matter.

 

ACS: Law reckons it knows -- beyond doubt -- the identity, and therefore the background, and the culpability, of every recipient of its letters.

 

That being so:

every individual in receipt of such a letter, or every individual who is a friend or family member of such a recipient, must equally make sure that they know -- beyond doubt -- the identity, and therefore the background, of the originator of such a letter.

 

Curiously enough, and despite the 80-odd pages you've just been asked to plough through on CAG, that question seems to have been addressed but fitfully here.

 

If, however, you refer to the following link:

 

Which? warns on pirate letters ? El Reg Forums

 

 

you'll see some info perhaps of benefit at this time.

 

The post from VulcanV5 may well correct any misapprehension that, somehow, an intimidatingly huge multi-partnered legal firm operating out of the expensive heart of Mayfair is bringing its massive resources, its massive wealth, and its massive power to bear upon individual punters wholly unable to defend themselves against so overwhelming a corporate Leviathan.

 

Obviously, as sole principal of ACS: Law, Andrew Crossley would not want anyone to form any kind of misimpression about, well, anything.

 

He's a practising solicitor, after all.

 

So. . .

 

If you, and everyone else on here, sets aside the assumption that at the heart of this affair is a great corporate 'it', or institutional 'them', or some kind of gigantic legal steam-roller ready to flatten 'em if they don't pay up, that will bring things into perspective.

 

You are, Spuddy, in fact dealing with a former disk jockey who is on record in the Law Society Gazette as saying that he embraced the Law out of a wish to establish a career as a musician.

 

I don't follow the, er, logic myself, but that's as maybe.

 

The point is, there's no question of any misapprehension of identity there: the Law Society Gazette is unequivocal in its confirmation of Andrew Crossley's employment status.

 

And that kind of confirmation has to be good for everyone, not least Andrew Crossley, because this former disk jockey turned solicitor turned aspirant professional music-maker seems to be saddled with a similar name, and a similar age, to a solicitor once brought before a disciplinary tribunal by The Law Society and fined £1,000 with over £3,000 costs payable to The Law Society as a result.

 

That Andrew Crossley was a legal practitioner punished for failing to honour his obligations to others.

 

By contrast, this former-disk-jockey-who'd-like-to-be-a-musician Andrew Crossley of ACS:Law is committed to punishing Internet users who fail in their obligations to others.

 

Those two solicitors cannot possibly be the same.

 

Indeed:

 

The Andrew Crossley of ACS: Law will be able to instantly set the record straight as to the absence of relationship between him and the Andrew Crossley censured and fined after action against him by The Law Society.

 

(Google for: Solicitors Regulation Authority, Andrew Crossley, tribunal.)

 

As a solicitor, ACS:Law's Andrew will be as keen as anyone to ensure that no misapprehension about an individual's identity can ever arise when it comes to levelling accusations of a serious nature.

 

As to what you should do now, well. . .

 

You need to respond to Andrew Crossley.

 

But, as before, you do need to ensure you're fully up to speed where issues of identity are concerned.

 

For example: you could check out Andrew's Hanover Square, London, address and visit his office in that beautiful, though highly expensive, Georgian building.

 

Or ask someone living in London to drop by, perhaps to have a word with Andrew or a member of the team of qualified lawyers that I'm assuming are at work there under his leadership.

 

You're not being nosy.

 

Just as Andrew Crossley and his ACS: Law had to satisfy themselves about your background before they decided to contact you, you're merely wishing to satisfy yourself as to the provenance of Andrew Crossley and his ACS: Law before you contact him.

 

(And please, do post back here: I surely won't be alone here in seeking an insight into the actual working environment of a Mayfair-based law firm such as this one. Will it make Boston Legal look, well, downright amateurish? Who knows? The fact that elsewhere on the Internet, Andrew appears to give his home address as, er, Monaco, whilst selling his Audi from an address in, um, West Sussex, suggests either an international high flier or one who really isn't sure where he is.

 

Or:

 

You could check out ACS:Law's org.uk registered website address, operated in that particular domain either because Andrew Crossley is running a non-profit organisation or -- and this must surely be more likely -- because the charitable arm of his business is so vigorous that ACS:Law has to have an org.uk address to safeguard its multifold benevolent activities.

 

You might like to ask Andrew for the list of charities he's so generously supporting, too.

 

As to the response to the letter you've received, there's ample help out there on that selfsame World Wide Web which Andrew is so enthusiastically helping police on behalf of his clients.

 

Bottom line, Spuddy:

 

never make the mistake of not knowing who you're really dealing with.

 

Which, of course, is a sentiment Andrew Crossley, former disk jockey, aspirant musician, sole principal, ASC:Law and with a name uncannily similar to a solicitor with a history of misconduct already on The Law Society's records. . .

 

. . . Will endorse whole-heartedly.

[Huff&Puff]

Superb! :D

[BARFLY]

Nice bit of research Flyyyte! Always nice to know who your dealing with.

[the_shadow]

Well its finally made the Beeb :-)

 

BBC News - Law firm's piracy hunt condemned

 

S.

[andydd]

Well its finally made the Beeb :-)

 

BBC News - Law firm's piracy hunt condemned

 

S.

 

It's the lead Technology story too, lets hope the noose is solwly tightening around Mr Crossley's neck.

 

'I'm not afraid of a court case' he says, bring it on then, why the delay ?

 

Andy

[penumbra]

It's the lead Technology story too, lets hope the noose is solwly tightening around Mr Crossley's neck.

 

'I'm not afraid of a court case' he says, bring it on then, why the delay ?

 

Andy

 

Some very inept question dodging / publicity from Crossley there. Nobody is accusing him of being scared of court.

 

It would be a wee bit of a handicap for a solicitor to be scared of court.

 

Silly man.

[ccsnet]

Fixed that for ya.

 

Unfortunately it's the same old same old. ACS' random outcome generator ticks on.

 

In other news, the lords who are currently debating this seem well aware of the situation and are trying hard to change the digital economy bill to stop ACS in their tracks.

 

Lord Clement jones has been particularly vociferous:

 

My Lords, I support the amendment....: 20 Jan 2010: House of Lords debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)

 

Unfortunately some Lord seem to be under the impression that we haven't bothered to contact the SRA:

 

Lord Young of Norwood Green said:

 

My Lords, I am not sure how the...: 20 Jan 2010: House of Lords debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)

 

If you have been effected by this, WRITE TO A LORD TODAY.

 

Particularly if you have complained to the SRA, ICO or anyone else and they haven't done anything yet.

 

To do this, go to writetothem.com/lords and type the name of the lord in the "Find a lord interested in my topic box" and click on the top result (it will be the lord you searched for).

 

Lords Young, Clement Jones and Lucas are a good place to start. Generally only lords who have already spoken continue to debate during comittee stages so for your convenience, here is a list of all lords so far to have spoken on the bill:

 

 

• Lord Clement-Jones (libDem)
  
• Lord young of norwood green (Lab)
  
• Lord Lucas (Cons)
  
• Earl Attlee (cons)
  
• Lord Howard of Rising (Cons)
  
• Lord Mandelson (Lab)
  
• Baroness Howe of Idlicote (N/a)
  
• Baroness Byford (Cons)
  
• Lord Wade of Chorlton (Cons)
  
• The Earl of Erroll (N/A)
  
• Baroness Hayman (Lab)
  
• Lord Maxton (labour)
  
• Lord Razzall (LibDem)
  
• Viscount Bridgeman (Cons)
  
• Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LibDem)
  
• Lord Triesman (Lab)
  
• Lord Birt (N/A)
  
• Lord Whitty (Lab)
  
• Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
  
• Lord de Mauley (Cons)
  
• Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
  
• Baroness Buscombe (Cons)
  
• Lord Steel of Aikwood (LibDem)
  
• Lord Puttnam (Lab)
  
• Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (N/A)
  
• Lord Mayhew of Twysden (Cons)
  
• Lord Mackay of clashfern (Cons)
  

As you are not represented by a single lord, as you are represented by a single MP in the house of commons, you can write to several. Feel free to write to two or three (or four). Don't mailshot the whole lot, however as this will only annoy them.

Thanks, I have already raised this with my MP and she in turn has had two responses from Stephen Timms who misses the point about IDENTFICATION both times.

 

I'm very technical and even included a laymans view of how detection is done yet the only response I have had relates to the copy right law and the digital bill.... OK I have no problem with that but start at the start - how do you identify those responsible. IMHO this is not just about ACS or any other ambulance chaser but the confidence in the digital bill which I believe is the right way of moving on so the government really do need to start looking at this as companies like ACS are totally undermining that work.

 

Basically my point is if you are employing the 3 strikes and your out route in that how do you identify those doing it.... the answer apart from tapping every data stream and analysing EVERY packet in detail is the same as what Digiprotect etc do and is place the bait.... in its self proliferating it.

 

I've also just written to Lord Clemot-jones my self adding to the above ( which is more detailed ) the fact that ACS are not been imho very professional about this.

 

Any way - GL to those still dealing with this.... we all still need it

 

Terran

[Flyyyte]

Oh dear. Shome confusion, shomewhere.

 

On one hand there's Andrew Crossley, waging a single-handed campaign as a legal firm's sole principal for truth, Justice and the punishment of wrong-doers, and on the other, the BPI, official voice of the British Recorded Music Industry, saying it doesn't approve of his behaviour at all.

 

How can that be? Andrew has access to technical experts and state-of-the-art monitoring and identification equipment which guarantee that every demand for money sent out in the name of his law firm is accurately targeted.

 

After all: court case after court case after court case has already been won thanks to the testimony of Andrew's experts, Andrew's technological evidence, and Andrew's legal expertise.

 

(Well, that's the impression I've gleaned from the splendid charitably-oriented ASC:Law dot org website, and such an impression will not have been created without careful forethought.)

 

And yet, and yet. . . The BPI seems, er, unconvinced. More than that: none of its members now look as though they're going to make use of Andrew's services.

 

(Not to worry, though: were I an honest, upright and disadvantaged overseas pornographer, I'd certainly be impressed with the way Andrew has pounced on the 78-year-old man cited by Which? I'd certainly be happy to add further lustre to ACS:Law's client list.)

 

I think what may have happened here is that BPI's legal advisers simply aren't up to snuff.

They appreciate the obligation that is placed by The Law Society upon a practising solicitor to exercise due care and diligence in the discharge of his or her professional duties -- an obligation all the more onerous where a legal issue has a blindingly obvious potential to provoke untoward anxiety and distress amongst wholly innocent parties.

But appreciating that is one thing. Running scared of it, quite another.

And Andrew certainly isn't running scared -- which means there can surely be no doubt at all that he can prove to the satisfaction of the BPI, The Law Society, and The Solicitors Regulation Authority that the very last thing he's doing is orchestrating a recklessly irresponsible mass mail-out of accusatory demand letters in cavalier disregard of fact or consequence.

No. Andrew will comprehend his professional obligations as well as any lawyer advising the BPI.

In fact, he'll likely appreciate more than many just how important The Law Society views a solicitor's obligations: the Andrew Crossley who was fined £1,000 with over £3,000 costs by an SRA Tribunal as relatively recently as February 2nd, 2006, certainly received an object lesson in what The Law Society expects in the way of responsible conduct.

(Further evidence, were it needed, that ACS:Law's ex-disk-jockey-turned-solicitor-cum-hopeful-professional-musician sole principal is not, nor can possibly be, the same person who so upset The Law Society that it brought a charge of "conduct unbefitting a solicitor".

(A solicitor who gets hammered in 2006 is hardly likely to run the risk of the same -- or much worse -- happening all over again in 2010.)

Ah well.

Not a good day, one would've thought, for Andrew Crossley or his ACS:Law.

And as for all the folks out there who may have received a letter mailed out in the financial interests of some exploited pornographer somewhere, well. . .

[digitalantichrist]

Reading the BBC article posted here, I noticed Crossley suggested downloading and uploading were "the equivalent of someone stood outside HMV with a pile of the latest albums, handing them out to people who were intending to go in the shop and buy it,"... as far as I'm aware, that's not illegal is it? I mean, that's essentially something we do at Xmas, give people things they want so they don't have to buy them.

Edited February 3, 2010 by digitalantichrist

[cashins]

"the equivalent of someone stood outside HMV with a pile of the latest albums, handing them out to people who were intending to go in the shop and buy it,"... as far as I'm aware, that's not illegal is it?

 

Errrrrr.....now you mention it, no.

 

David

[Jasper1965]

Norwich Pharmacal Orders.

 

is it not a prerequisite of such an order that the person(s) applying should normally be making the application with intent to actively pursue the ultimate subject of the order through the Courts and that the applicant should also meet the costs of the middleman (the ISP's) in this case from any amount thus awarded?

 

I suggest that garnishing tens of thousands of names without obtaining a single provable Court judgment against any, indeed without even a single provable case having ever even been brought to Court, the actions of ACS Law might appear to be systematically abusive of this particular legal process.

[BARFLY]

"the equivalent of someone stood outside HMV with a pile of the latest albums, handing them out to people who were intending to go in the shop and buy it,"... Yeah, that sounds about right. Crossley should know because that's exactly what his clients are doing by deliberately posting their material on P2P sites. Especially Digiprotect. The "someone" in that scenario happens to be his own client. Idiot.

[andydd]

 

For example: you could check out Andrew's Hanover Square, London, address and visit his office in that beautiful, though highly expensive, Georgian building.

 

Or ask someone living in London to drop by, perhaps to have a word with Andrew or a member of the team of qualified lawyers that I'm assuming are at work there under his leadership.

 

.

 

Actually I used to work next door so did pop in but could see no mention of ACS in reception or on the name plates although the building is continually renting out space to companies.

 

The .org bit is interesting too as I now do work for a registered charity which uses .org in our domain and email address.

 

Andy