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

[inatiable-cj]

Looks like it's all gone 'pete tong' for the [EDIT] Andrew Crossley

[Flyyyte]

And so the ACS: Law chronicle continues to unfold.

 

It begins with a single, frightening perception: an elite London law firm, operating out of some of the most expensive real estate in the world, has you in its sights.

 

The firm is called ACS:Law. Its address is 20 Hanover Square, Mayfair, London. And a letter in your mailbox from ACS:Law has just identified you as an illegal file sharer.

 

You must, therefore, mount an urgent and definitive defence of your position, or pay forthwith to ACS:Law a substantial sum of monies otherwise what ACS:Law may do next could well cost you infinitely more.

 

You are, of course, most likely not an expert on how the Law is supposed to work. Or how lawyers are supposed to conduct themselves.

 

You are most likely not an expert, either, on Internet technology, so are unaware of the difference between the alleged identification of an Internet address as a medium for illegal activity, and the alleged identification of the actual individual responsible for that activity.

 

All you know is that you have received disturbing correspondence whose letterheading certainly ain’t that of some single lowly practitioner working from an upstairs room in a low-rent street in a small provincial town.

 

It’s a Big League address. Which could only belong to a Big League law firm. Which means you are, unquestionably, in Big League trouble.

 

This perception of your distressing vulnerability is further confirmed when you hunt around the ‘Net for information: “the law firm” says this, “the law firm” says that. That’s right. The law firm at 20 Hanover Square, Mayfair, London. The Big Time operator that you fear is ready, willing and more than able to steam-roller you flat.

 

Just to make sure your perception is correct, you visit the firm’s website.

 

You don’t actually notice that the domain is a dot.org address. So you don’t wonder, as others might, if everything is indeed as perceived.

 

But not only do you fail to notice the oddity of a major law firm running a domain address that’s typical of a charity or not-for-profit organisation.

 

You don’t remark, either, on the website’s notable absence of corporate information: nothing about the various senior and junior partners who could be expected to staff so prestigious a practice; nothing about the record of success that has enabled this firm to prosper to such extent that it can today afford to be quartered so impressively, and so expensively, at 20 Hanover Square.

 

All you know is that you’re not a lawyer. You’re not a millionaire. And you’re not an illegal file sharer, either. . . but that if a law firm with what must be the massive fee income, massive client list, and massive resources to finance a Mayfair address is accusing you, then oh boy: better start worrying, and start worrying now.

 

Perception. How it works.

 

Or: how it seems to have worked. Before other people began to take an interest in this situation.

 

 

* Andydd: thanks for that.

 

But are you sure that 20 Hanover Square is not brimming with Andrew Crossley’s partners, associates and employees?

 

ACS:Law must surely have at least a floor, or office suite, there.

 

The alternative, that an individual would rent an accommodation address so as to acquire an impressive letter heading on correspondence intended to exert pressure on the recipient into paying over a substantial sum of money is, frankly. . .

 

. . . as unthinkable as that any solicitor, anywhere, would choose to embark without proper regard to fact or consequence on an activity that risked inflicting needless distress and anxiety upon persons wholly innocent of any offence, and in so doing bring the legal profession itself into disrepute.

 

Andrew Crossley cannot have done something like that.

[n11186]

If you go on U-Tube and put in (Rockwell - Somebody,s Watching me) this song from 1983 with michael jackson as his backing singer is crossley all over, evan at the end of the video the postman is there with a letter probably a ACS claim :grin::grin:

[andydd]

And so the ACS: Law chronicle continues to unfold.

 

It begins with a single, frightening perception: an elite London law firm, operating out of some of the most expensive real estate in the world, has you in its sights.

 

The firm is called ACS:Law. Its address is 20 Hanover Square, Mayfair, London. And a letter in your mailbox from ACS:Law has just identified you as an illegal file sharer.

 

You must, therefore, mount an urgent and definitive defence of your position, or pay forthwith to ACS:Law a substantial sum of monies otherwise what ACS:Law may do next could well cost you infinitely more.

 

You are, of course, most likely not an expert on how the Law is supposed to work. Or how lawyers are supposed to conduct themselves.

 

You are most likely not an expert, either, on Internet technology, so are unaware of the difference between the alleged identification of an Internet address as a medium for illegal activity, and the alleged identification of the actual individual responsible for that activity.

 

All you know is that you have received disturbing correspondence whose letterheading certainly ain’t that of some single lowly practitioner working from an upstairs room in a low-rent street in a small provincial town.

 

It’s a Big League address. Which could only belong to a Big League law firm. Which means you are, unquestionably, in Big League trouble.

 

This perception of your distressing vulnerability is further confirmed when you hunt around the ‘Net for information: “the law firm” says this, “the law firm” says that. That’s right. The law firm at 20 Hanover Square, Mayfair, London. The Big Time operator that you fear is ready, willing and more than able to steam-roller you flat.

 

Just to make sure your perception is correct, you visit the firm’s website.

 

You don’t actually notice that the domain is a dot.org address. So you don’t wonder, as others might, if everything is indeed as perceived.

 

But not only do you fail to notice the oddity of a major law firm running a domain address that’s typical of a charity or not-for-profit organisation.

 

You don’t remark, either, on the website’s notable absence of corporate information: nothing about the various senior and junior partners who could be expected to staff so prestigious a practice; nothing about the record of success that has enabled this firm to prosper to such extent that it can today afford to be quartered so impressively, and so expensively, at 20 Hanover Square.

 

All you know is that you’re not a lawyer. You’re not a millionaire. And you’re not an illegal file sharer, either. . . but that if a law firm with what must be the massive fee income, massive client list, and massive resources to finance a Mayfair address is accusing you, then oh boy: better start worrying, and start worrying now.

 

Perception. How it works.

 

Or: how it seems to have worked. Before other people began to take an interest in this situation.

 

 

* Andydd: thanks for that.

 

But are you sure that 20 Hanover Square is not brimming with Andrew Crossley’s partners, associates and employees?

 

 

ACS:Law must surely have at least a floor, or office suite, there.

 

The alternative, that an individual would rent an accommodation address so as to acquire an impressive letter heading on correspondence intended to exert pressure on the recipient into paying over a substantial sum of money is, frankly. . .

 

. . . as unthinkable as that any solicitor, anywhere, would choose to embark without proper regard to fact or consequence on an activity that risked inflicting needless distress and anxiety upon persons wholly innocent of any offence, and in so doing bring the legal profession itself into disrepute.

 

Andrew Crossley cannot have done something like that.

 

The building rents out lots of floors/office space so companies come and go, mind you this was about 8 months ago, redundancy loomed soon after but luckily ive just started a new job, still, hanover square was nice place to be, maybe Ive walked past Andrew or even sat next to him in the park having a sarnie or perhaps having a beer in The Duke Of York or The Loop around the corner

 

Andy

[inatiable-cj]

The building rents out lots of floors/office space so companies come and go, mind you this was about 8 months ago, redundancy loomed soon after but luckily ive just started a new job, still, hanover square was nice place to be, maybe Ive walked past Andrew or even sat next to him in the park having a sarnie or perhaps having a beer in The Duke Of York or The Loop around the corner

 

Andy

Loop around Crossley's neck sounds better...

[jakehtesnakeuk]

guys have a question,

I read everywhere about this ACS:law sending ppl letters demanding money for illegal downloads,

My question is, I rent a couple of rooms in a flat, (i dont live there,though it is my flat)

Now here is a problem, tenats use internet and account is on my name. What happens if someday one of them downloads something, and I will receive such letter?

What should I do now to avoid problems later?Shall I create a letter, something like " I am not responsible for any internet activities .." and tell them to sign it?

thanks

Edited January 31, 2010 by jakehtesnakeuk

[again]

I would have them put their name to the account. Easiest way to avoid any problems.

[andydd]

I would have them put their name to the account. Easiest way to avoid any problems.

 

 

Huh !?. That wont work, Im in the same situation, I rent out a room and the broadband account is in my name and the connection is shared, it wouldnt be possible to have seperate broadband accounts in different names.

 

It is possible to use a domain and server and block certain sites or block the ports that torrent sites use (or keep a record of which PC or MAC address accessed what) but unless you are an expert in IT not very practicle.

 

Andy

[jakehtesnakeuk]

So I have a slight problem here, I need to come up with solution.

I was thinking about letter,something like

" we (tenants) are solely responsible for all internet activities and everything what is downloaded off the internet..."

signed and dated

 

what do you guys think?

[jakehtesnakeuk]

Huh !?. That wont work, Im in the same situation, I rent out a room and the broadband account is in my name and the connection is shared, it wouldnt be possible to have seperate broadband accounts in different names.

 

It is possible to use a domain and server and block certain sites or block the ports that torrent sites use (or keep a record of which PC or MAC address accessed what) but unless you are an expert in IT not very practicle.

 

Andy

 

it is very difficult to block torrents, I have searched for cable router but found no such.

[again]

Huh !?. That wont work, Im in the same situation, I rent out a room and the broadband account is in my name and the connection is shared, it wouldnt be possible to have seperate broadband accounts in different names.

 

It is possible to use a domain and server and block certain sites or block the ports that torrent sites use (or keep a record of which PC or MAC address accessed what) but unless you are an expert in IT not very practicle.

 

Andy

 

In his case it would work because he does not live there. They become the account holders for their own broadband. Any problems fall on them.

[download-muppet]

:-| Muppet here is one of the few people who panicked when receiving his letter and agreed to pay.

I admit ive downloaded a few things in the past under the false assumption that is was ok if you owned a legit copy.

 

How stupid do i feel now - lol

The problem was my brother received the notification letter as the internet was in his name at the time. I recognised the track in question and imediately set about to clear his name, e-mailing this ACS company confessing my sins and asking them to reissue paperwork with my name on it. I automatically assumed I was responsible - Doh!!

 

Naturally I'm beyond hope now, but on reflection I think we may be onto something that would help your cases. I'm almost certain that this supposed album wasnt one of those that i had actually downloaded. Also, reading through the backlog here i noticed that the offences are in relation to uploading/sharing the material, and as I used to use a leacher only client with 0% upload I surely cant be at fault anyway.

 

With this in mind my good bro checked the old internet paperwork at the time we cancelled, and our IP address doesn't match the one contained in ACS's claim. We've always used to have a fixed IP and are fairly certain that it never changed.

 

Also am I right in thinking ACS's information claimed by the courts for these latest claims was for the end of last year only? If this is the case then surely something is amis as the alleged offence was commited in April 09?

 

We'll be getting in touch with our old isp on the morrow and double checking things. I'll keep you informed on what they say.

 

For you other people out there who've received letters -

DONT BE A MUPPET TOO. DENY DENY DENY!!!

[Flyyyte]

The building rents out lots of floors/office space so companies come and go, mind you this was about 8 months ago, redundancy loomed soon after but luckily ive just started a new job, still, hanover square was nice place to be, maybe Ive walked past Andrew or even sat next to him in the park having a sarnie or perhaps having a beer in The Duke Of York or The Loop around the corner

 

Andy

 

Was it an amiable bloke sitting on his own, playing an air-guitar?

 

That sounds like Andrew, former disk-jockey turned solicitor in hope of furthering a musical career.

 

You're right about 20 Hanover Square being a very nice place to be (if the cost of an office there can be afforded.)

 

And, of course, 20 Hanover Square is still a very nice place not to be if the cost is too high. As detailed here:

 

Virtual Office 20 Hanover Square in London, W1S 1JY - Davinci Virtual

 

 

A start point of £60 a month for any commercial operation which, for whatever reason, isn't actually based at 20 Hanover Square but would really, really like everyone to think it is, has to be great value.

 

Of course, if ACS:Law -- sounds so much like a TV legal show, real snappy stuff -- is operating from a real-world office (and hey, whoever heard of a major UK legal practice working out of an accommodation address?) then a visit to 20 Hanover Square will instantly confirm it.

 

I rather think you missed Andrew last time you were in the neighbourhood because ASC:Law's UK headquarters were not situate at 20 Hanover Square 8 months ago.

 

Be great, if ever you or anyone else has the time, to pop by -- purely in the interest of validating facts and establishing identity, of course, as per the protocol adopted by ACS:Law with every one of its letters to guilty illegal file-sharers.

 

 

* Muppet: you haven't been fined in a criminal court nor ordered to pay a sum of monies by a civil court.

 

You haven't, in fact, gone through any form of due process at all.

 

Instead, you have a letter from someone you don't know, containing a serious and distressing allegation absent credible evidential proof, in response to which you could as well have admitted to being complicit in the assassination of President Kennedy.

 

And then, of course, retracted that confession, on the basis that from time to time, you suffer from delusions brought on by stress.

 

You can, of course, do exactly the same where your other 'confession' is concerned.

 

* Whether or not the Dallas Police Departmernt will now wish to interview isn't clear, but you can always let us know of any developments.

[download-muppet]

Removed.

Edited January 31, 2010 by download-muppet

[n11186]

Loop around Crossley's neck sounds better...

Mint m8, love it if we lived in China he would be facing public execution

[Flyyyte]

Removed.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Flyyyte
This post was a response to a now deleted post.

[download-muppet]

Thanks flyyyt, I appreciate your advice.

 

I'm just in a major panic now through fear that I've implicated myself for something i didnt do. After reading up on everything on other forums and help sites etc, I am now 100% confident that I have done nothing wrong. My admission was only in response to the downloading of said music (which I realise I didnt do anyway) and not uploading. I'll speak to a solicitor and see about how i go about recinding this comment.

As for the uploading I know i cant of uploaded anything because the client I use is purely for downloading anyway. If necessary I'll happily testify to this in court.

 

If Andrew Crossley is brave enough that is.

Dont panic peeps. This guy is grasping at straws.

[ccsnet]

Re .org....

 

When to use a .Org domain as a platform:

1. When you envision building a website that will, in time, evolve into something akin to an industry, trade or demographic organization site.

 

2. When the thrust of your website will be educational.

 

3. When you plan to use the domain "to organize" people. (Organizations start somewhere, don't they?)

 

4. For the reasons stated at the PIR.org website.

 

5. When your mission is to "do some real good" (for someone other than yourself, for something more than money).

 

6. When you are taking a long view.

 

7. When there is a commercial element to the online enterprise but it's not commerce in the direct sense of selling. For example, a "steel industry organization" that promotes the economic interests of the industry is clearly of a "commercial nature" but that doesn't mean that the website is the online arm of one brick and mortar entity that maufactures steel or distribute steel.

 

8. When selling something is incidental to the mission. (Fundraising to support the mission versus making money IS the mission.) Museums have "museum shops" that sell some pretty interesting items, with the funds going to pay salaries for the staff and "the profits" going to support the museum's mission.

 

9. When you wish a global reach on an issue that is global: health, environment, disease, farming, etc.

 

Money is not anathema to the .Org domain. No organization functions without funds. Fundraising, which is producing "income" by another name, is very much a part of non-profits but typically they will have a prime directive other than making money. Money or profit is not the end but a means to an end, which is the underlying mission - whatever that might be. For commercial entities the end game is to profit, otherwise capital will find another investment. When you take a hard look at the role of money in either a commercial or a "non-profit" enterprise the role is not that divergent: Pay the rent, pay the utilities, pay the staff, pay insurance, pay for supplies - and then pay for the mission (unless the mission is simply to redistribute funds).

 

If your prime directive is "make money" it's fair policy to not take the .Org route. If making money enables you to perform some mission that is greater than making money - informing, educating, organizing, promoting, empowering - then .Org is fine.

 

As the rules are written you can even use the unrestricted TLD .Org as the base URL for selling your widgets, so don't lose any sleep. It's okay.

 

Do you use a .Org? Did you have a choice of using the same .Com or other TLD?

 

Why did you choose .Org?

 

The domain name org is a generic top-level domain (gTLD) of the Domain Name System (DNS) used in the Internet. The name is derived from organization.

The org domain was one of the original top-level domains,[1], with com, edu, gov, mil and net, established in January 1985. It was originally intended for non-profit organizations or organizations of a non-commercial character that did not meet the requirements for other gTLDs. The MITRE Corporation was the first group to register an org domain with mitre.org in July 1985.

Registrations in the org are processed via accredited registrars worldwide. Anyone can register an org second-level domain. Although org was recommended for non-commercial entities, there are no restrictions to registration. There are many instances of org being used by commercial sites. org was also commonly recommended for use by individuals, although name and info are now alternatives.

The org TLD has been operated since January 1, 2003 by Public Interest Registry, who assumed the task from VeriSign Global Registry Services, a division of VeriSign.[2]

Although organizations anywhere in the world can register org domains, many countries have a second-level domain with a similar purpose under their own country code top-level domain (ccTLD). Such second-level domains are usually of the form org.cc or or.cc, where cc is the country code. jp , uk and au are examples of this convention.

On 25 August 2008 The Public Interest Registry announced that there are over 7 million domain names registered as .org, making it the third largest generic domain name. [3]

I'm guessing the American Law Society may have the one he wanted....

 

EDIT

 

Domain Name: acs-law.com

 

Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.

Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com

Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com

Status: clientTransferProhibited

 

Expiration Date: 2013-06-13

Creation Date: 2000-06-13

Last Update Date: 2009-01-13

 

PS I'm looking in to what ICANN say about this....

 

Current site who is info...

 

Domain name:

acs-law.org.uk

 

Registrant:

Terence Tsang

 

Registrant type:

Unknown

 

Registrant's address:

ACS Law Solicitors, 18 Hanover Square

London

Greater London

W1S 1HX

United Kingdom

 

Registrar:

Total Web Solutions Ltd t/a Total Registrations [Tag = TOTALREG]

URL: http://www.totalregistrations.com

 

Relevant dates:

Registered on: 09-Apr-2009

Renewal date: 09-Apr-2011

Last updated: 08-May-2009

 

Registration status:

Registered until renewal date.

 

Name servers:

ns1.dfsv61.com

ns2.dfsv61.com

 

WHOIS lookup made at 00:41:29 01-Feb-2010

 

--

This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry

for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:

 

Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2010.

 

You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted

by the terms of use available in full at http://www.nominet.org.uk/whois, which

includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its

repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing

or hiding any or all of this notice and © exceeding query rate or volume

limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the

register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

 

Information Updated: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 00:41:30 UTC

 

IP: 91.103.216.62

IP Location: Verwood, United Kingdom

Website Status: active

Server Type: Apache 3 - HOSTMerit

Alexa Trend/Rank: 1 Month: 2,458,682 3 Month: 1,911,992

Page Views per Visit: 1 Month: 1.7 3 Month: 2.0

 

OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre

OrgID: RIPE

Address: P.O. Box 10096

City: Amsterdam

StateProv:

PostalCode: 1001EB

Country: NL

 

ReferralServer: whois://whois.ripe.net:43

 

NetRange: 91.0.0.0 - 91.255.255.255

CIDR: 91.0.0.0/8

NetName: 91-RIPE

NetHandle: NET-91-0-0-0-1

Parent:

NetType: Allocated to RIPE NCC

NameServer: NS-PRI.RIPE.NET

NameServer: SEC1.APNIC.NET

NameServer: SEC3.APNIC.NET

NameServer: SUNIC.SUNET.SE

NameServer: TINNIE.ARIN.NET

NameServer: NS2.LACNIC.NET

Comment: These addresses have been further assigned to users in

Comment: the RIPE NCC region. Contact information can be found in

Comment: the RIPE database at http://www.ripe.net/whois

RegDate: 2005-06-30

Updated: 2009-05-18

 

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2010-01-30 20:00

# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

#

# ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use

# available at https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html

 

% This is the RIPE Database query service.

% The objects are in RPSL format.

%

% The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions.

% See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf

% Note: This output has been filtered.

% To receive output for a database update, use the "-B" flag.

% Information related to '91.103.216.0 - 91.103.216.255'

inetnum: 91.103.216.0 - 91.103.216.255

netname: DFL-NET

mnt-routes: EUROCONNEX

descr: DFL-NET

country: GB

remarks: -------------------------------------------------------

remarks: Network abuse reports: [email protected]

remarks: NOC and contact details: http://www.dataflame.co.uk/contactus.html

remarks: -------------------------------------------------------

admin-c: DBEK1-RIPE

tech-c: DBEK1-RIPE

status: ASSIGNED PA

mnt-by: DFL-MNT

source: RIPE # Filtered

person: Duncan Knapper

address: PO Box 5425, Verwood, Dorset, BH31 6WZ, GB

phone: +44871 288 4896

nic-hdl: DBEK1-RIPE

source: RIPE # Filtered

% Information related to '91.103.216.0/21AS29550'

route: 91.103.216.0/21

descr: Dataflame Internet Services Ltd

origin: AS29550

mnt-by: as29550-mnt

source: RIPE # Filtered

 

http://www.dataflame.co.uk/

 

Note to the mods - all the above is freely available on the net along with plenty more info if you look.

 

Terran

Edited February 1, 2010 by ccsnet

[Flyyyte]

Terran:

 

Thanks for that: much appreciated.

 

Your research demonstrates how a commercial enterprise might take a dot org domain address with a view to becoming so identified with a particular interest or activity as to be perceived as being the sole or principal representative of any and all matters relating to that interest or activity.

 

Were someone, say, to be running a business whose Internet domain address was fredsfishnchips.co.uk then it's pretty clear what this single commercial enterprise would be doing.

 

However: were Fred to decide to anonymise his enterprise to the point of initials alone, then FFC.org.uk might come to be thought of not as a corner shop run by a fish fryer and a junior batterer, but something of considerably greater substance and authority.

 

People might conclude that whenever they read something uttered by Fred of FFC.org.uk, they were hearing the definitive voice of an entire organisation -- a trade body, representative of all interests in, and expert in all matters relating to, that to which Fred's pronouncements related.

 

Such perception would, of course, be erroneous.

 

But Fred can't be held responsible for the way people think when they see a dot.org domain address instead of a dot.co or dot.com.

 

And the perception might ultimately become self-fulfilling anyway, with so many people assuming that Fred really is the chief representative of an entire industry's trade organisation that Fred's own substance and authority does indeed increase exponentially.

 

At which point, Fred lands in the happy position of being seen as the point of contact, the resource, for anyone with a problem relating to the area of interest or activity of which FFC.org.uk appears to be organizational representative.

 

Who you gonna call? Fred!

 

And of course, if any fish frying Freds are reading this, then the question of who're they gonna call is answered in your research:

 

Fred could contact Terence Tsang.

 

But if that's the same individual as the Terence Tsang at one point resident in Quorn, Leicestershire, then Fred should stay clear. Because that Terence Tsang pirated the respected name of Morgan Stanley so as to register a bad-faith Internet domain of financial links injurious to the lawful business of Morgan Stanley.

 

The outcome of the action that followed is on public record here:

 

DECISION

 

 

Fred, of course, is now forewarned. Whereas poor Andrew Crossley, sole principal of a practise called ACS:Law was not -- because, let's face it, would a leading anti-piracy campaigner like Andrew have any association at all with a disgraced pirate like Terence Tsang?

 

Ye Gods: what does that do for the credibility of Mr Crossley, his business, his website and the accusations made in the correspondence sent out on 20 Hanover Square letterheaded paper?

 

That's why this is yet another example of malign coincidence at work.

 

Thus: the Terence Tsang listed as registrant of acs:law.org.uk is not the Terence Tsang who thought he could con thousands of people and wound up in serious trouble with The National Arbitration Forum, Case FA0701000896636, on March 9th, 2007.

 

Thus: the Andrew Crossley at the forefront of the anti-piracy campaign is not the Andrew Crossley accused of professional misconduct by The Law Society under the terms of The Solicitors Act 1974 and fined £1,000 with £3,348.75 costs by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Case 9346-2005, on February 2nd, 2006.

 

 

Both the Mr Tsang who is not a pirate and the Mr Crossley who is waging war on all pirates can easily come here to confirm what I have just said and will no doubt do so very soon.

[Flyyyte]

Thanks flyyyt, I appreciate your advice.

 

I'm just in a major panic now through fear that I've implicated myself for something i didnt do. After reading up on everything on other forums and help sites etc, I am now 100% confident that I have done nothing wrong. My admission was only in response to the downloading of said music (which I realise I didnt do anyway) and not uploading. I'll speak to a solicitor and see about how i go about recinding this comment.

As for the uploading I know i cant of uploaded anything because the client I use is purely for downloading anyway. If necessary I'll happily testify to this in court.

 

If Andrew Crossley is brave enough that is.

Dont panic peeps. This guy is grasping at straws.

 

All best, Muppet.

 

Before shelling out for legal advice, you might like to check out the website of a law firm with no connection whatsoever to anyone of the name of Terence Tsang:

 

Intellectual Property Law - Corporate and Internet Law - Lawdit Commercial Solicitors

[ccsnet]

Terran:

 

Thanks for that: much appreciated.

Your welcome..... and an intresting link .

 

Terran

[upnorthal]

Is the following true?

 

 

File sharing claims update (ACS Law Website - Accessed 10:17 hrs, 01 02 2010)

 

"Cases involving the infringement of copyright are held in the Patents Court in London, and as they are automatically assigned to the multi-track system, we are able to claim our client's legal costs should we succeed in court. Should you now wish to settle, please contact us early in the New Year."

 

Are they saying that if they take you to court, it won't be the County Court, rather it will go straight to the multi track?

[robstanley1]

'Morning all,

 

Quick update, regarding my wife's situation, having just taken some time off work to get a grip on this:

 

- Complaint made to SRA via telephone - spoke to a young lady called Kate, who advised that they'd had "thousands" of similar complaints, and were investigating (she had an email on her desktop, with prompts and advice for SRA staff taking such calls, and knew - straight away - which firm I was calling about, without me even mentioning them!)

 

- Am also corresponding with Which? Computing, who are looking to put together an article on the issue.

 

- Have enlisted the help of our local MP, who is currently liaising with Trading Standards.

 

- Have written to several of the Lords who are enagegd in debate on the Digital Economy bill.

 

- Have emailed BBC Watchdog

 

More to follow, as it happens!

 

 

Rob

[penumbra]

Is the following true?

 

 

File sharing claims update (ACS Law Website - Accessed 10:17 hrs, 01 02 2010)

 

"Cases involving the infringement of copyright are held in the Patents Court in London, and as they are automatically assigned to the multi-track system, we are able to claim our client's legal costs should we succeed in court. Should you now wish to settle, please contact us early in the New Year."

 

Are they saying that if they take you to court, it won't be the County Court, rather it will go straight to the multi track?

 

Yes.

 

Past experience is (and they say on their website somewhere) they will claim for around £3k if they issue a court claim.

[cashins]

The relevant statement on their website is this:

 

 

 

We have been reviewing all cases which are currently open, and a good number of these cases have been dropped, where we do not either consider litigation to be a viable option or to be beneficial to our clients. A letter has been sent out today informing those involved of this, and explaining that they now owe our client’s a duty of care to ensure this type of activity does not happen again.

 

That would be the 90% of cases where the subject has denied it and indicated they would defend then?

 

David