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

[thomas2008]

gallant macmillan also said that if i paid the balance in full straight away it would be £350.00

[mos law suit!!!]

Like a few other people i did actually download the mos album but the date on the letter is different from when i downloaded, i dont want to admit to downloading it incase i end up with more letters demanding £375!! If i were to deny downloading the album is there anyway they can prove i did it without actually taking my laptop???

[youtube]

Any one who recently received a letter from ACS:LAW, does it state what monitoring company they used?

[josephbloggs]

hi to all again, ive done some more research and it looks possible they can find out what folder you downloaded to and what the file is. if you use your own computer for example and you download for arguments sake evacuate the dancefloor (very popular today) by cascada then if your name is john smith the folder reads C:/Documents and Settings/john/smith/Desktop/music/cascada/cascada"evacuatethedancefloor"(2010) - dance [website]- then it doesnt take a genius to prove who it is who actually d/l'd it!

[mos law suit!!!]

@josephbloggs

If someone else has downloaded it on your computer then its still going to show your name not theirs!! its only proves the file was downloaded not who actually donwloaded it??

 

Can they access you files without actually having your computer??

[josephbloggs]

yes you may well be right in your argument. consider this as well though.

i imagine its not hard to prove you downloaded the software to join p2p sites and download torrents. also email addresses used probably relate to personal computers as well. can they get your computer and check do you think?

[lostinspace333]

hi to all again, ive done some more research and it looks possible they can find out what folder you downloaded to and what the file is. if you use your own computer for example and you download for arguments sake evacuate the dancefloor (very popular today) by cascada then if your name is john smith the folder reads C:/Documents and Settings/john/smith/Desktop/music/cascada/cascada"evacuatethedancefloor"(2010) - dance [website]- then it doesnt take a genius to prove who it is who actually d/l'd it!

 

So far they have tracked I.P address in which by contacting the I.S.Ps have given people's address. They can't gather information about what folder it was downloaded to etc. That would be a breach of privacy surely? The only way people gather that kind of information is hackers via trojans etc. For them to access data on your pc that would be illegal? Even if they could prove that someone else downloaded it on an unsecured network I'm sure they would still look to blame the owner of the internet despite having no information.

 

also i thought it was the job of isps to warn people of downloading and isnt it against the data protection act for them to give out details to these 'solicitors'

 

7,000 letters asking for 375? and someone has stated that they've said we will settle for 350?....... what do others think is going on?

[Evacuate_the_acs_bs]

 

also i thought it was the job of isps to warn people of downloading and isnt it against the data protection act for them to give out details to these 'solicitors'

 

According to Sky, that act was irrelevant because ACS claimed they needed my information regarding a legal matter so Sky were obligated by law. According to the Sky rep I spoke to, Sky have a list of certain agencies they are obligated to give our information to.

[8of9]

According to Sky, that act was irrelevant because ACS claimed they needed my information regarding a legal matter so Sky were obligated by law. According to the Sky rep I spoke to, Sky have a list of certain agencies they are obligated to give our information to.

 

WRONG WRONG WRONG

 

SKY received a court order (NPO) from ACS Law to provide the IP address identity. No ISP will reveal this data witout a Court Order.

I suggest that recipients of the latest batch of Letters of Claim spend some time reading all the previous replies as this will answer most of your questions. Even though they're from a different company the same laws apply.

[mos law suit!!!]

I dont think they would go to the trouble of getting peoples computers if you send a letter of denial because they need to prove it was you that downloaded the file!! Even though the file is on the computer doesnt prove it actually was you that downloaded it!! Its impossible for them to prove that!! Someone could be sitting in a car outside your house and hack into your wifi ..... there is no way they can prove who downloaded it!!!!!!

[stevo7790]

P2P or peer to peer file as its known is continuously ransacked by firms threatening to sue etc... some have and some have not.

 

Let's be clear on this and this to everyone who has had a letter.

 

In order to have been deemed ( whether you have really or not ) responsible to breaching copyright specifically with a torrent file as states the following needs to have happened:

 

you need to have a software client, utorrent for example, you have to download this.

 

you need to access a website that hosts torrent files like thepiratebay

 

you need to open the file and select the software client to download it.

 

You can't do this by accident, and it isn't simply a case of 'the file just appeared' you have to have done it! simple.

 

So because there is a huge debate as to if this is a [problem] or not, let's look at it this way... do you use torrents? if yes then maybe you should be worried ofcourse unless you can prove it and if you don't use torrents then there can be NO WAY you are liable, again unless you have had a hdd replacement can be proved within reason.

 

I don't file share I don't need to but let's say you do, I cant stress how highly important it is you understand the SHARE part, its one thing to download it, its another to share the download after it has finished.

If it was me, any downloaded files would be moved straight out of the shared folder and stuck elsewhere, and the torrent file deleted.

Also any wireless security can be hacked unsecured or not. In the IT world we use terms like piggybacking where your relying on someone elses connection to browse and download. Or you can interrupt data packets and capture logon details. Please also bear in mind there next to no chance of someone bothering with your wifi if it is security protected.

Why target yours when lots of others cant be bothered to secure their connections.

Also I will point out it can be deemed an offence not to have a password as you are deemed to be broadcasting.

 

To summarise, if you don't use Torrents and none of the above makes even the most highly tuned brain cell tick over then send a LOD and forget abut it.

But if you use Torrents for gods sake stop the sharing! this is where you will get the big boys coming after you under the DCMA etc!

[mos lawsuit!!!]

Hey all. Read through the last 10 pages of this thread last night after getting my letter through yesterday too, asking for £295. Woo... Parents wanted to pay it off but I wanted to do some research on it. Luckily I did! Also, dunno if it matters, but they've spelt my dad's first name wrong so can they legally still pursue him even if it did, by some random possibility, go to court? Also, since he didn't commit the offence (he never uses the computer), isn't he fully entitled to write a LoD on legal grounds?

 

So anyway, similar to the case above, I got the letter from ACS: Law but the date is wrong and so is the file I allegedly downloaded it from. It says I downloaded 'UK Top 40 Singles Chart 13-09-2009', regarding the file 'Evacuate the Dancefloor'. The date/time they've accused me of doing so is 16:56:50 on 15/09/2009. Is that the same date/time everyone else has got regarding this file? I did download that UK Top 40 album but I didn't download Evacuate the Dancefloor from it, so is their case void?

 

I did in fact download the song, but I downloaded it on the 1st August and from the Cascada album, not the UK Top 40 Singles album. Luckily, I only downloaded the one song from the said album, though, so they hopefully can't come back at me for the whole album.

 

I've contacted Sky who said that they did pass my information onto ACS Law, but that was on 15th April, whereas the stamp on the High Court of Justice Document is dated 17th February. That doesn't really add up? Also, I've got the name 'Kopie' crossed out on my letter too, and replaced with the surname 'Eshuijs'. It was handwritten, but the copy I have is a photocopy. Surely since it's a photocopy, the stamp from the High Court of Justice isn't legitimate?

 

But yeah, just wondering how to proceed. Do I send a LoD? (Thanks tp123 for the template on the previous page) Considering going to see the Citizens Advice people but even so, not sure how to go about that. Guess I'll just google it or something. Any information anyone can give regarding my case, I'd be very grateful. Also curious as to what time/date people have been accused of downloading Evacuate the Dancefloor on. Thanks and sorry for the wall of text.

 

Hi thanks for replying, on my letter it is addressed to my father and they have also spelt his first and last names incorectly! how can they prove that we have done this, and what action wold you advise me to take because i really cant afford this extorsionate fine

[Evacuate_the_acs_bs]

WRONG WRONG WRONG

 

SKY received a court order (NPO) from ACS Law to provide the IP address identity. No ISP will reveal this data witout a Court Order.

I suggest that recipients of the latest batch of Letters of Claim spend some time reading all the previous replies as this will answer most of your questions. Even though they're from a different company the same laws apply.

 

Like I said, I've read the last 10 pages (13 now) but most of the replies refer to people who have been falsely accused. My case is somewhat unique in that I did download the file, but not in the way they have accused me of. I assume you're recommending I send an LoD?

 

Also, I'm curious. It says I have 2 weeks to pay up or face further penalty. If you send an LoD, what happens to the time constraint they've given you to pay?

 

Oh and to the earlier poster claiming I was wrong with the Sky thing, I am just reiterating what was told to me. I find it odd that the 4-5 people from Sky I spoke to over 2 hours had no info on a court case against Sky. =/ They said the info was simply handed over during a phonecall.

[Guest sheriffp]

blank

Edited July 13, 2010 by sheriffp

[youtube]

Their biggest problem is that if they did indeed take somebody to court solely on the evidence they tracked the ip address, there is a very big chance... almost certain, that they would lose the case, that would then ruin their whole business model and no more letters would be sent out.

 

Its not worth the risk.

 

They are hoping their letters scare enough people into paying up too make a quick buck. You may say morals are left at the door when these people send these letters, they have no dignity in my opinion.

[8of9]

Hi EtAB

 

It took me a long time to get through to someone at Sky who actually knew what was going on other than getting directed to "co-enquiries" and an automated reply. It does not matter whether you did or didn't do it. The fact of the matter is that an ISP cannot reveal the identity of a subscribers IP address without a court order. Sky confirmed to me that they have received such an order and that their policy is to comply with it and supply the identities of their subscribers based on the IP addresses provided. To simply provide the information over the 'phone is not only unethical it is also illegal (Data Protection Act). If you have taken the name(s) of the person(s) at Sky who told you this I would make an official complaint about them.

I wouldn't have thought that your case is unique just because you admit that you downloaded file but not as they claim you did. Its your call. Pay up or send an LOD. But before divulging any reasons to ACS Law in your defence I would strongly advise that you seek legal advice.

 

8of9

[mos law suit!!!]

When i spoke to someone at sky he actually told me to ignore the letter!!!

He said as it wasnt recorded delivery not to do anything and if they send something else deny i ever received the first letter!!!

He also told me they can only prove it came from my address and not who downloaded the file.

 

I have only ever downloaded 2 albums and have since deleted my utorrent as im not really that good with computers and downloading!!

 

Just my luck i suppose!!!!!!!!!

[zero_flight]

When i spoke to someone at sky he actually told me to ignore the letter!!!

He said as it wasnt recorded delivery not to do anything and if they send something else deny i ever received the first letter!!!

He also told me they can only prove it came from my address and not who downloaded the file.

 

I have only ever downloaded 2 albums and have since deleted my utorrent as im not really that good with computers and downloading!!

 

Just my luck i suppose!!!!!!!!!

 

Most of the advice on this forum advises that you to send a LOD, which I certainly think is the best way to deal with it. Ignoring them could lead to problems if it did go to court (very slim chance though).Thats what I did back in April.

[queen-peanut]

hi all.

been in touch with sky, if ur like me and been hacked by next door but one (who admitted to using our router to download HUNDREDS of albums, whom i am also taking to court asap, as he offered to sell me one for 2 quid) ask them for your dsl user name and password so u can buy your own modem, sky admitted to me that the modem in question (netgear/sagem) are very simple to crack, and are specifically made for people who aren't pc savvy. even though it states in skys terms and conditions that you can't do this, if you plea your case they willg ive you this info. as for gallant and macmillan i've reported them to the solicitors do dah, i'll be sending a letter of denial and they can have me laptop if needs be too to find the album. i don't even like mos, much more cradle of filth ta! but please don't panic, £375 is disgusting so if u have downloaded the album, please seek legal advice and state that the amount asked for is way to high for what the album is actually worth. plus next but one told me it was crap! all in all, you can get your first half hour free at a solicitors and free at the cab. if you didn't like myself, send a letter of denial and ignore all other correspondence as they cannot prove anything, to get your laptop they need a court order, and do u honestly think they are willing to get 7000 court orders for laptops? as for going into files to see what you have or haven't done, is against the privacy act, they also need a court order for this, this will cost millions and its also against human rights. THEY CANNOT DO THIS. ignore em, deny all, worse case sceanario, drop sky they a ton of bricks or move xx:D

[lostinspace333]

Hi EtAB

 

It took me a long time to get through to someone at Sky who actually knew what was going on other than getting directed to "co-enquiries" and an automated reply. It does not matter whether you did or didn't do it. The fact of the matter is that an ISP cannot reveal the identity of a subscribers IP address without a court order. Sky confirmed to me that they have received such an order and that their policy is to comply with it and supply the identities of their subscribers based on the IP addresses provided. To simply provide the information over the 'phone is not only unethical it is also illegal (Data Protection Act). If you have taken the name(s) of the person(s) at Sky who told you this I would make an official complaint about them.

I wouldn't have thought that your case is unique just because you admit that you downloaded file but not as they claim you did. Its your call. Pay up or send an LOD. But before divulging any reasons to ACS Law in your defence I would strongly advise that you seek legal advice.

 

8of9

 

so did sky give over our details over a phone which is illegal?

[youtube]

All new recipients please please please complain to the SRA (solicitors regulation authority) as it is one of only a few ways we can stop these people.

 

Your other options are to contact your local MP or contact media productions such as Which magazine or Watchdog.

 

It does not take long to do and if enough people rally together we can put enough pressure on them so they have to do something.

[mos law suit!!!]

I no everyone who has had letters from asc say that nobody has been taken to court after sending their letter of denial but gm has only sent out 7000 letters where as acs supposedly sent 30,000!!

 

Does anyone think because they didnt send out as many there is more of a chance they would take you to court??

[youtube]

If you didn't do it then let them take you to court, there's no way they can prove it was you, not even 51% doubt. So it would put an end quickly not only to GM's letters but also any other solicitor attempting to pull these scheme off. An IP address is very flimsy evidence and this practice of farming IP address is actually illegal in some countries.

[Nelly070]

deleted

Edited July 20, 2010 by Nelly070

[tp123]

I no everyone who has had letters from asc say that nobody has been taken to court after sending their letter of denial but gm has only sent out 7000 letters where as acs supposedly sent 30,000!!

 

Does anyone think because they didnt send out as many there is more of a chance they would take you to court??

 

The piece of law they rely on, namely the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Chapter II 16 (2), says;

 

“Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright.”

 

They have NO evidence that you, (a person) infringed the "work". Nor do they have evidence that you authorised another to infringe copyright.

 

What they do have is an ip address which was allocated to an internet enabled hardware device at the time an alleged infrigment took place. Unless they were able to physically observe you, or any person, using that device to make the work available to third parties they have no evidence at all.

 

If they were to procede to court with one of these cases, I would eat my hat.

If they were to win, I would s**t it out and gladly eat it again!