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

[jpts33]

An interesting article here about ISP's lying on their backs and handing our information over without hesitation. I still believe that it's time to hit ISP's where it hurts - their pockets.

 

Neutralize UK File-Sharing Legal Threats – Join TalkTalk | TorrentFreak

 

On a lighter(ish) note: linked from slyck.com:-

 

 

I sent my second LOD months ago and have heard nothing since. Though this does nothing for me but makes me worry every-time the postman comes. This is what ACS want though, people to panic and worry; which is pretty sick tbh. It's a good job my wife has a sense of humour or I would be in court right now - the divorce court. Not for being accused of illegally downloading but for being accused of downloading gay porn LMFAO! On a more serious note though I wonder how many marriages Mr Crossley has put under great strain from poor husbands accused of downloading gay porn. Maybe he should be taken to court for family breakdowns over this dirty, rotten ugly scheme he has going.

[download-muppet]

I've had some good news. Spoke to my old ISP today and asked them to confirm my previous static IP. According to their records for my account the IP was different than the one on the claim sent through by ACS. I've given them the IP provided by ACS and they say their programmers are going to look into it and get back to me tomorrow.

Looks hopefull so ive got my fingers crossed. If it turns out ACS are wrong I'll finally be able to relax enough to keep some food down.

 

Watch this space

[factor]

it seems like crossley is actually enjoying all the bad publicity: File sharing litigation results

[kiptower]

so they are increasing by 300% their court claims, strange no known court cases , so 300% of none is still none

[factor]

it seems so. and apparently 80% of 'defendants' opted to pay up. yeah sure they did mr crossley.

dont know if its been mentioned yet but does anybody know anything about this case: Unsecured wireless network liability

[penumbra]

Hi, everyone.

 

I think if we've shown anything during the last few pages of, it's that we can have quite a potent voice when we can be bothered to use it. Several of the Lords are well aware of the level this scheme of Terence and Andy's is at. For some superb youTube footage of the lords in action see here: YouTube - acsflaw1's Channel

 

It appears from letter sent by ACS:law themselves that they are angling to become an operator of the scheme when the three strikes legislation (The Digital Economy Bill) becomes enacted and they would like to have the power to send their nastygrams to anyone unlucky enough to be caught in their way.

 

This cannot happen.

 

The digital economy bill is next discussed on Wednesday, for the penultimate time at committee stage.

 

If you are a recipient of a letter from ACS:law WRITE TO A LORD TODAY. PARTICULARLY if you have complained to the SRA and not heard anything as of yet. In fact, even if you have not had a letter - write to them anyway.

 

If you have previously written to a lord and they have not spoken up, politely write to them and as them why not. If a lord has spoken in support, then write and thank them. Lords Lucas and Clement-Jones have been particularly good.

 

Click on the big text for a link to writetothem. IT IS AS EASY AS FILLING IN A FORM. Type in the name of the Lord you are interested in writing to in the "interested in my topic" box and let rip. Send your letter to at least two, but a MAXIMUM of 4 lords.

 

 

Here is a list of lords who have already spoken (and you therefore need to write to):

 

• High Priority
  
• Lord young of norwood green (Lab)
  
• Lord de Mauley (Cons)
  
• Earl Attlee (cons)
  
• Baroness Howe of Idlicote (N/a)
  
• Baroness Byford (Cons)
  
• Lord Wade of Chorlton (Cons)
  
• Baroness Hayman (Lab)
  
• Lord Maxton (labour)
  
• 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 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)
  

 

• Lower Priority (already aware)
  
• The Earl of Erroll (N/A)
  
• Lord Lucas (Cons)
  
• Lord Clement-Jones (libDem)
  
• Lord Razzall (LibDem)
  
• Lord Howard of Rising (Cons)
  
• Lord Mandelson (Lab)
  

 

Finally, please bear in mind that after the house of lords comes the house of commons. We will need to write to our MPs soon. Or, even better - get an appointment and speak to them in person. The system is different here in that you can only lobby your own MP to speak out on your behalf. Be prepared, keep your Lord letter hanging around ready to adapt to whatever amendments are voted in by the lords.

Edited February 11, 2010 by IdaInFife
removed external links

[cerberusalert]

it seems so. and apparently 80% of 'defendants' opted to pay up. yeah sure they did mr crossley.

dont know if its been mentioned yet but does anybody know anything about this case: Unsecured wireless network liability

Pub 'fined £8k' for Wi-Fi copyright infringement - ZDNet.co.uk

[Jasper1965]

Pub 'fined £8k' for Wi-Fi copyright infringement - ZDNet.co.uk

 

 

Solicitor fined £1000 plus costs for failing to file his accounts three times in a row. LINK

[jpts33]

From ACS:LAW website:-

 

"We are pleased with the results on the initial batches of issued claims, as we have found that 80% of all defendants opt for settlements outside of court, for amounts more than originally claimed."

 

Does this mean that people who have unfortunately paid ACS have not only paid them but given a little extra dosh for ACS' inconvenience?!!!

 

It must be the ".org" web address that people were moved to pay more?!!

[andydd]

it seems like crossley is actually enjoying all the bad publicity: File sharing litigation results

 

"Copyright infringers generally buckle when litigation is formally initiated."..Odd..because as we all know ACS have initiated bugger all litigation, sending threatening letters is not litiagtion Mr Crossley !

[Jasper1965]

What credibility should a Court give to ACS Laws supposed evidence when the man responsible for producing it in the remote eventuality of a case actually being instigated was twice hauled before tribunals by the SRA (13-12-2002 and 02-02-2006) for failing to file accounts for the years ending 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2003?

 

"the Tribunal could not allow the current failures on the part of the Respondent to continue indefinitely. For this reason, the Tribunal ordered that the Respondent be suspended from practice for an indefinite period to commence on the 31st January 2003 but confirmed that should he regularise his position and file his outstanding annual Accountant’s Reports with The Law Society by that date then the sanction imposed upon him by the Tribunal would be that of a reprimand and not a suspension. It was right that the Respondent should pay the Applicant’s costs and the Tribunal ordered that these be paid in the fixed sum of £1,250 plus VAT, a figure with which the Respondent agreed.”

(The Respondent did regularise his position and was reprimanded)

 

It would appear to anyone that Mr Crossley has some very serious issues where numbers are concerned.

[robstanley1]

it seems like crossley is actually enjoying all the bad publicity: File sharing litigation results

 

 

Errm - nope; this 'News' article has existed on the ACS Law site for quite some time, and certainly predates the latest high-profile criticism from the Lords, BPI, Which? etc, etc...

 

...Leads one to wonder just why Mr. Crossley/Mr. Tsang don't date these News features - perhaps they are relying on their latest 'victims' supposing that these articles are more recent tahn they really are?!

 

In light of the latest bad publicity from numerous areas, Mr. Crossley has - far from giving the impression that he's 'enjoying' any of this - been resolutely "unavailable for comment", which is a real shame.

 

Perhaps, if and when the Watchdog or Panorama researchers come calling, he might be more forthcoming regarding the questions we all want answering...?

[Flyyyte]

Download-muppet: good news, and please keep everyone here up to date.

 

Re: ACS:Law claims.

 

Have to say, I'm once again drawn to the issue of perception at the heart of all this:

 

* perception of guilt

 

* perception of vulnerability

 

* and, above all, perception of size of threat.

 

Were Crossley, for example, to wish to contrive the perception that his business is in some way or other a trade body in itself, and thus of such a size that confronting it is a definite no-no for any solitary individual, he could do no better than have a domain address as a dot org.

 

And:

 

Were Crossley, for example, to seek to intimidate the vulnerable and impress the gullible, he could do no better than refer to the "intellectual property department" at his seemingly impressively headquartered law firm.

 

(Elsewhere on the Internet, there are reproductions of posts from Crossley which instead refer to his firm's 'file sharing investigation section'.)

 

Put all the above together and it's easy to see how a perception of standing, stature and sheer size can be conjured forth.

 

The only problem here though is: is that perception derived from fact --

or from the kind of fantasy most likely to be entertained by a modern Walter Mitty, one as strong on self-deceit as on wilful, self-serving misrepresentation?

 

There's nothing to say that ACS:Law is not a huge and prestigious law firm with offices permanently established at 20 Hanover Square, Mayfair, and that within this accommodation is to be found the many and varied legal talents at work in the ACS: Law 'intellectual property department'.

 

But there's nothing to counter the nagging doubt, either, that Crossley -- a resident of, er, Monte Carlo (now, how did that particular perception of a well-heeled international sophisticate come to arise?) or West Sussex -- is actually a one-man band using an accommodation address. . .

 

. . . where there's no "intellectual property department" at all.

 

The difference between the one and the other is so vast that Crossley is going to have to address it soon because no credible, reputable UK legal practitioner can remotely afford to allow the erroneous impression to run unchecked of an individual to whom no exaggeration is too great, no self-promotion too extravagant, and no business practice too repugnant.

 

Not only is such an impression not in any law practitioner's best interest.

 

It's absolutely not consistent with The Law Society's determination to see the profession's status and public standing maintained to the highest standard.

 

Pending Crossley's clarification and correction of whatever misperceptions are now growing in regard to him and his operations, 20 Hanover Square does of course continue to remain open to a visit by anyone -- be they a Member of The House of Lords or not.

[n11186]

An interesting article here about ISP's lying on their backs and handing our information over without hesitation. I still believe that it's time to hit ISP's where it hurts - their pockets.

 

Neutralize UK File-Sharing Legal Threats – Join TalkTalk | TorrentFreak

 

On a lighter(ish) note: linked from slyck.com:-

 

 

I sent my second LOD months ago and have heard nothing since. Though this does nothing for me but makes me worry every-time the postman comes. This is what ACS want though, people to panic and worry; which is pretty sick tbh. It's a good job my wife has a sense of humour or I would be in court right now - the divorce court. Not for being accused of illegally downloading but for being accused of downloading gay porn LMFAO! On a more serious note though I wonder how many marriages Mr Crossley has put under great strain from poor husbands accused of downloading gay porn. Maybe he should be taken to court for family breakdowns over this dirty, rotten ugly scheme he has going.

I tell you what this crossley wants is a bit rough justice, After reading the link in your post about Talk-Talk this i carnt get my head round, becouse i was with Tiscali and have been for years then Talk Talk took over but i now have a letter of claim from ACS and await my fait, so it looks like Tiscali:-x has screwed its loyal customers big time B4 TALK-TALK took over

[BARFLY]

What P2P hosts do ACS/DIGIPROTECT scavenge their information from?How would you know that what your downloading is copyrighted until you open it? Do ACS provide screenshots to prove that what they are accusing you of downloading was actually decsribed as such? For example, they accuse me of downloading Debbie does Dallas or Scooter or whatever. But perhaps they've posted the download as something else!

[ccsnet]

Lets just say I have more than a passing interest IT security especially networks and with out spoiling the surprise I'm interested in if it gets further than a letter.

 

Any way - point is I have access to a big data base which lists known scams and is shared eg like those emails we all get time to time.

 

One of the things it says in general is that if you get some thing that says a lot, doesnt look like its from a particular place and no real detail then its probably not real.

 

So when I look at news reports on sites I ask wheres the tangible proof such as names, dates etc

 

Surley if you want publicity you want to cite examples or client names and so on....

 

Draw your own conclusions

 

Terran

[Yorky2008]

Any way - point is I have access to a big data base which lists known scams and is shared eg like those emails we all get time to time.

 

Can you get Mr Crossley added to it?

[Caimbeul]

Hi All,

 

New to the forum today and guess what! I had rec'd one of these letters back in mid Jan. After a mild panic (no i had not Downloaded the works in question) I fired off a letter denying it and offering possible alternatives as to why there info points towards me. I also asked how they obtained the information such as IP address before going to my then ISP.

I have yet to hear anything and am encouraged by some of the info on here. It certainly leans towards ACS not being a very credible organisation or not having much of a case against many people. I wrote back to them mid Jan and am yet to have receive a response (has anyone else had anything back from them since denying anything?).

 

I have visited their offices as i hand delivered the letter, it certainly is not like the link above indicates. Much more run down and many tenanted.

One of the things that struck me as very strange was that although having previously agreed via telephne that i could drop it in by hand, upon arrival i was kept waiting 40 minutes (bearing in mind that this is just for someone to come down and take the letter from me and jot something on a comp slip or headed paper confirming receipt). During this time i was on the phone to them trying to find out why i was being kept waiting. I had long debate with the woman on the phone who was very cagey about everything. I even called her up on why she was being so cagey and that her behaviour was suspicious, why were they refusing to send someone, anyone down to collect my letter? I told her that I had previously worked for a Law firm a couple of years back (which is true) and having dealt with many of the very big law firms and obviously ourselves, that it was not standard practice to ignore deliveries particularly for an industry that relies on physical documentaion.

 

Eventually i went away, called them up, ranted about why i could not drop the letter off and was told i could the next day.

 

Next day arrives - someone does indeed come down (a girl who could not have been more than 17 and demonstrated that she did not even know how to open the paper tray on a photocopier to retrieve a sheet of A4 for me to write something on).

 

I would note that all of this takes place in the ground floor reception. At no point do i see the offices. 20 Hanover Sq, whilst a prestigious address on paper, is not in the flesh. What organisation has a ropey old photocopier in the main reception area?

Edited February 2, 2010 by Caimbeul
forgot to add something...

[Flyyyte]

I tell you what this crossley wants is a bit rough justice

 

n11186:

 

Can't agree. If you look at recent posts by, amongst others:

 

kiptower (so they are increasing by 300% their court claims, strange no known court cases , so 300% of none is still none), factor (and apparently 80% of 'defendants' opted to pay up. yeah sure they did mr crossley), andydd ("Copyright infringers generally buckle when litigation is formally initiated."..Odd..because as we all know ACS have initiated bugger all litigation, sending threatening letters is not litigation Mr Crossley !), and jpts33re the claim that people are paying more than was asked of them: (Does this mean that people who have unfortunately paid ACS have not only paid them but given a little extra dosh for ACS' inconvenience?!!!)

you can see:

No court cases. Not a single one.

No proof ever provided, tested or validated of the technology upon which the allegations of wrong-doing depend.

No proof that Mr Crossley's claimed identification of a wrong-doer is any more credible than Mr Crossley's assertion that, um, eight out of every 10 people contacted by ACS:Law not only pay up, but pay more than was originally expected.

So having seen, and understand, all that, what emerges is not a figure in need of "rough justice" but one who may merit the services of an agent, one capable of not merely assisting Andrew Crossley's avowed aspiration to a musical career, but more specifically, to a role in panto.

Because this is, and continues to be above all else, pure pantomime --

vexatious, certainly, and with the nastiest of after-tastes, but stupefyingly absurd nevertheless, perhaps as embarrassing to the legal profession as Harold Davidson's 1932 Blackpool promenade antics were to his former colleagues in the Church of England.

(Though it should be pointed out here that Harold may have redeemed himself by subsequently becoming the most notable Christian in Britain ever to have been eaten by a, er, lion.)

Harold, methinks, would've done well, and survived longer, had he had a good agent. Which is why, when it comes to finding an agent to represent Andrew Crossley, there'll be many, including myself, who will look no further than:

Lee Bowden, of the Media Cat company.

Bowden was, in October 2008, "Media Agent to Vince Acors."

(If you're wondering what a "media agent" is, think of someone who plants stories, finesses photo-calls, helps Z-rate celebs upgrade to Y-rate status. If you're wondering who "Vince Acors" is, think some bloke from Bromley found guilty of bonking whilst drunk on a public beach in Dubai.)

Now, it's not clear quite what enduring celebrity status Vince Acors may've been envisioning in the wake of his seminal contribution to the life and times of civilised, sophisticated Society.

But had he sustained a period of fame longer than a couple of nights' fish and chip wrappings, he would've been well represented, for as Media Cat advised in its News Release of October 16th, 2008:

For more information, or to schedule an interview with a representative, please contact:

Andrew J. Crossley, Partner ACS Law

or

Lee Bowden, Media Agent to Vince Acors, at Media Cat.

What a team! Andrew Crossley. And Lee Bowden.

The Solicitor and The Agent.

A massively wealthy and successful Mayfair law firm run by a Monte Carlo resident and a celebrities representation agency that may possibly be in the same league as Max Clifford.

Does it get any better than that?

Well, er. . Perhaps. Or then again, perhaps not.

Because as far as I know from Max Clifford's operation, he's never actually been in the business of helping people who have:

an idea, unique content, or some data with demographic support

to

monetise it & generate impressive new revenue streams.

Eh? Wozzat?

Media Cat has though. Since 2001. (As I don't entirely understand what media handler Lee Bowden is saying here, best read this for yourself:

ZoomInfo Cached Page

Now. . . Try to reconcile what you've just read with:

Lee Bowden. Media Agent to Vince Acors.

Not easy, is it? And now it begins to get even worse: why not try reconciling all the above with:

Record of hearing, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2, November 19th, 2009, Norwich Pharmacal Order applications before Chief Chancery Master Winegarten.

Huh??

What's that got to do with Andrew Crossley, solicitor to beach bonking Vince, and Lee Bowden, media agent to ditto?

Well. . . Unless the record's wrong, in which case The Royal Courts of Justice have some explaining to do, appearing at Chief Chancery Master Winegarten's hearing on November 19th, 2009, were:

 

Andrew Crossley of ACS:Law

 

Er, Terence Tsang, also of ACS:Law (see end note.)

 

And, um, Lee Bowden, of Media Cat. (Or possibly, CAT. Or even, C.A.T. The company seems in need of help to explain how the company's name should be spelled. Perhaps a Media Agent could assist.)

 

But. . . Hang on. Hang on.

 

A solicitor with the same name as one previously in trouble with The Law Society over professional misconduct???

A solicitor's associate with the same name as a sleaze-bag previously in trouble for pirating the good name of global investment manager Morgan Stanley???

A Media Agent with the same name as one who helps people monetise and generate impressive new revenue streams out of, er, demographic data???

Ask yourself: was there ever so distinctive a trio as this to appear at The Royal Courts of Justice?

What Chancery Chief Master Winegarten made of it all, Heaven knows. Unless, of course, Chancery Chief Master Winegarten had no inkling of the provenance of those in his Court on that November day.

 

And perhaps he hadn't. For not only did he grant Andrew Crossley's NPO application on behalf of DigiProtect, he also granted Andrew Crossley's NPO application on behalf of Media Cat.

No. Let's back up a little here.

Andrew Crossley went to Chancery Division to seek an order from Chancery Chief Master Winegarten requiring UK ISPs to disclose customer information to the Media Agent who had represented beach bonkin' Vince Acors?

Impossible. Oh, wait a minute though:

Andrew Crossley went to Chancery Division to seek an order requiring UK ISPs to disclose customer information to a man who will help you monetise and then generate impressive new revenue streams for any content you have with demographic support.

Nah. How on earth does that kind of hucksterism qualify Lee Bowden to have Court-backed access to the address details of hundreds if not thousands of ISP subscribers?

That's not possible, either.

So what, actually, did solicitor Andrew Crossley tell Chief Chancery Master Winegarten in respect of the application made on behalf of Media Cat?

The last thing any solicitor would ever do is misrepresent his case and his client to a senior Judge.

Andrew Crossley's representation to Chief Chancery Master Winegarten must have related to some other aspect of his client's CV and his evident interest in copyright protection and anti-piracy campaign. How about then, er, well, um, let's see. . .:

Telephone Psychics -- you know the ones (or maybe, you don't?) who you think are sitting at one end of an expensive Premium Rate phone line while you're on the other, asking, perhaps, if there's any way they can "see" the customer addresses of every ISP in the UK.

The psychic is unlikely to be there. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the psychic is down at his / her bank, counting up all the money rolling in from all those premium rate calls to his / her answering machine. . .

And thanking God that in the world of telecomms there's someone like Lee Bowden to help out with the creation of Psychic Phone Lines. As per Emma Gee's report here:

Can the Ethiopian change his skin?

So.

Lee Bowden, Media Agent to, and with solicitor Andrew Crossley, co-representative of, beach bonking Vince.

Lee Bowden, expert in maximising revenue streams from sources supported by"demographic data".

Lee Bowden, inventor, perhaps, of Britain's first Premium Rate Psychic Telephone Line.

Yet though singularly impressive, walking into The Royal Courts of Justice with a CV like that certainly does not qualify you as a credible applicant for an Norwich Pharmacal Order to access the nationwide customer database of various British ISPs.

So the CV must, therefore, be incomplete. And indeed, that seems to be so, because of Media Cat / CAT / C.A.T., TorrentFreak reports:

"Searches reveal that the company is involved in the premium SMS market. One page states Premium Rate Telephone Riches: How to Make £500 a week. Quite what they have to do with copyright holders and anti-piracy is unclear."

Unclear then. And unclear now. Because of Media Cat, there's no sign: go to http://www.media-cat.co.uk/about-us.htm and the message is displayed:

This account has been suspended.

So within a few weeks of copyright holder defender cum anti-piracy campaigner Media Cat getting what it wanted from Chief Chancery Master Winegarten at The Royal Courts of Justice . . .there's absolutely no way for Chief Chancery Master Winegarten, or a concerned Member of The House of Lords, or you, me or anyone else to find out exactly what it is that Media Cat is. . .

Doing.

All of which would be entirely unacceptable were it not for the fact that at that Court hearing, Andrew Crossley assured Chief Chancery Master Winegarten that Media Cat, or CAT, or possibly C.A.T.:

"operates in the UK. . . dealing with UK companies"

as distinct from, say, another of Crossley's clients, DigiProtect.

Still. The question has to be asked: precisely what is the nature of "the dealings" the now seemingly non-existent Media Cat has with other "UK cvomlpanies".

 

Is it acting as a Media Agent? Is it facilitating psychic telephone lines?

I mean, you can't have a situation where one day there's a company and its boss getting access to data only available through force of Law, and the next doing a disappearing act. That sort of thing makes the Law, the Courts, look, well. . . laughable.

 

Hence my earlier reference to pantomimes, rather than rough justice -- or indeed, any kind of Justice at all.

 

Sadly, I can't locate beach bonkin' Vince's Media Agent Lee Bowden so as to ask him to help further the musical career that solicitor Andrew Crossley seems to yearn for. But I guess that they do see a lot of each other anyway. And I also guess that -- because Andrew Crossley seems as elusive as the Media Cat website now -- that the third member of that illustrious Royal Courts of Justice trio, Terence Tsang, would know where Lee Bowden's gone to.

 

I could just ask Terence on Twitter, he's often posted there, rather than any of Morgan Stanley's websites, and is most informative -- touching to see his fond memories of working for Davenport Lyons before joining ACS:Law, for example.

 

(Though that linkage might come as a surprise to Solicitor Advocate Michael Coyle at Lawdit Solicitors Ltd, who had to fork out to a charity of Andrew Crossley's choice -- was it a dot org, then? -- after wrongfully saying various things about ACS:Law, including that it had a connection with Davenport Lyons.

 

(Of course it didn't. Internet website pirate Terence Tsang merely moved from a law firm notable for anti-piracy activity to another law firm which embarked on anti-piracy activity, Mr Tsang's previous employer coincidentally ceasing to take so high profile a lead in the nationwide hunt for P2P wrongdoers at the same time that Mr Tsang's new employer seized the torch.)

 

 

Anyway. My apologies, n11186, for this lengthier than intended response to your post, but it's as well we get the record straight before reaching conclusions about the forms of Justice that may be present anywhere in, or applicable to, this present affair.

 

Apologies, too, to penumbra for not responding in detail to his comments -- but perhaps, when writing to the Law Lords, he might like to draw their attention to this post?

 

They might like to have a good laugh.

 

Though then again, they might not find anything to laugh at.

 

At all.

 

 

 

Flyyte.

[scooby555]

hi there new to this site i recived 1 of theses letters on friday

am kinda worryed about it

i recived it from acs:law the guys name is andrew j crossley apartly i uploaded a file on the 8.1.2009 and ive just reviced this letter now is this a [problem] what do i do now i cant afford to pay £400

[robstanley1]

- Flyyte....

 

Absolutely top-notch bit of piecing together of available information there - I take my hat off to you!

 

On the back of this, I've been corresponding with 'Which? Computing', and it seems as though they're definitely putting together a feature on ACS:Law's way of operating (and have actually reported ACS to the Solicitors Regulation Authority themselves!!).

 

They're arranging to visit myself and my wife, as a part of this, and I will most definitely ensure that the information you've posted here, Flyte, is passed onto them for inclusion.

 

**Incidentally, but most importantly, it seems that Which are actively-seeking other victims of ACS' - can everybody who's received one of these letters take five minutes, and drop them an email (at [email protected]) - it's likely that they will want to gather as much additional detail as possible from us all.**

Edited February 2, 2010 by robstanley1
Additional information

[ccsnet]

As above

 

Domain name:

media-cat.co.uk

Registrant:

MEDIA CAT

Registrant type:

Unknown

Registrant's address:

Meadowvale Wellington Hill

High Beech Essex

LOUGHTON

IG10 4AH

United Kingdom

Registrar:

amen ltd t/a Amenworld.com [Tag = AMEN]

URL: http://www.amenworld.com

Relevant dates:

Registered on: 29-Sep-2004

Renewal date: 29-Sep-2010

Last updated: 30-Aug-2008

Registration status:

Registered until renewal date.

Name servers:

ns143.edns1.com

ns144.edns1.com

WHOIS lookup made at 17:06:44 02-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 URL Redirect, 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: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 17:06:44 UTC

 

Hosting is be Professional Low Cost Websites by Chisbo which seem to be a reseller for

 

Registry Whois

$8.99

Domain Search:

 

OrgName: ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc.

OrgID: TPCM

Address: 315 Capitol

Address: Suite 205

City: Houston

StateProv: TX

PostalCode: 77002

Country: US

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.theplanet.com:4321

NetRange: 174.132.0.0 - 174.133.255.255

CIDR: 174.132.0.0/15

OriginAS: AS13749, AS21844, AS30315, AS36420

NetName: NETBLK-THEPLANET-BLK-15

NetHandle: NET-174-132-0-0-1

Parent: NET-174-0-0-0-0

NetType: Direct Allocation

NameServer: NS1.THEPLANET.COM

NameServer: NS2.THEPLANET.COM

Comment:

RegDate: 2008-06-17

Updated: 2008-06-17

RAbuseHandle: ABUSE271-ARIN

RAbuseName: The Planet Abuse

RAbusePhone: +1-281-714-3560

RAbuseEmail:

RNOCHandle: THEPL-ARIN

RNOCName: The Planet NOC

RNOCPhone: +1-281-714-3555

RNOCEmail:

RTechHandle: TECHN33-ARIN

RTechName: Technical Support

RTechPhone: +1-214-782-7800

RTechEmail:

OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE271-ARIN

OrgAbuseName: The Planet Abuse

OrgAbusePhone: +1-281-714-3560

OrgAbuseEmail:

OrgNOCHandle: THEPL-ARIN

OrgNOCName: The Planet NOC

OrgNOCPhone: +1-281-714-3555

OrgNOCEmail:

OrgTechHandle: TECHN33-ARIN

OrgTechName: Technical Support

OrgTechPhone: +1-214-782-7800

OrgTechEmail:

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2010-02-01 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

 

The Media CAT TLD is obtained through

 

AMENWORLD.COM WHOIS

Updated: 21 hours ago

Registrant:

AMEN LTD

29th Floor One Canada Square

Canary Wharf

LONDON e14 5dy

GB

Domain Name: AMENWORLD.COM

Administrative Contact:

AMEN LTD @amenworld.com

29th Floor One Canada Square

Canary Wharf

LONDON e14 5dy

GB

+448704446778

Technical Contact:

AMEN @amenworld.com

29th Floor One Canada Square

Canary Wharf

LONDON e14 5dy

GB

+448704446778

 

Record expires on 14-Dec-2018.

Record created on 14-Dec-1999.

Database last updated on 1-Feb-2010 14:25:20 EST.

Domain servers in listed order:

PARIS.AMEN.FR

NS2.AMEN.FR

Information Updated: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:29:15 UTC

 

Note to Mods - all this infomation and more is freely available on the net.

 

Terran

 

EDIT - Intresting to do a Google Maps view..... I'm guessing finding Media CAT may not be that hard

Edited February 2, 2010 by ccsnet

[Flyyyte]

@ Rob: thanks for that, but really, it's just a digest of info already in the public domain. Though of course, the problem with the public domain is that one tier of info buries another, and ultimately there's so much it's difficult to see the media agents from the major commercial outfits with so substantial a UK client list of disadvantaged copyright holders that the highest Chancery Judge in the land is bound to roll over to 'em.

 

@ Terran: up to your usual antics, I see, tst! Tst! But of course, this is the problem the esteemed Andrew Crossley and his mate the even more ersteemed Tsang has with targeting Internet users as a source of quick profit: the Internet is also used by people who may, because of their expertise and experience, may be almost as dangerous to long-term health as that lion was to the poor Rector of Stiffkey.

 

After all, you can only go so long, poking it, tugging its tail, and generally being a bloody nuisance to it, and the inevitable happens:

 

The lion bites back.

 

Anyway. Am currently having a splendid time at The Duke of Wellington (ah, Google, never quite gets it right) which, methinks, is actually a few doors down from a property opposite the car park to the golf driving range, this property perhaps more likely to be the one in question.

 

But of course, that's surely 100% wrong too, because a major company involved in rights protection and anti-piracy on behalf of lots of other UK companies which gets the backing of Chief Chancery Master Winegarten doesn't work out of. . .

 

Someone's house.

 

I'll just have to look again.

 

scooby: do not, repeat NOT, do anything until you hear from others on this thread.

 

In the meantime, can you confirm NOT the letter's contents but the nature of the envelope and its postal cost, i.e.:

 

this being an important legal letter, it did, of course, come by Special Delivery.

 

Or, er. . . ?????

[n11186]

Flyyyte

Good post m8 but i still think Crossley and his underdogs should get a bit rough justice (down a back alley) i feel i have had rough justice from ACS i have had 3 blackmail letters from him and his so called LAW firm:mad: they evan look like a pack of corrupt scumbags.

[scooby555]

it never came recorded and i think it was second class post, also it gives me 21 days to pay

Edited February 2, 2010 by scooby555