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

[mos law suit!!!]

Thanks tp123, I havent got a clue when it comes to computers hence the mess i have found myself in!!!

[tp123]

Thanks tp123, I havent got a clue when it comes to computers hence the mess i have found myself in!!!

 

No worries mate. Just send a letter saying it wasn't you and that you didn't authorise anyone esle to, and you'll be fine. I posted a sample letter a few pages back.

[youtube]

What if someone in your household did download the file and make it available for upload ? How can this be proved ? I think my son may have done this !!

 

 

they are putting the blame completely on YOU, not your son. Your son is not you.

[Nelly070]

deleted

Edited July 20, 2010 by Nelly070

[mos law suit!!!]

No worries mate. Just send a letter saying it wasn't you and that you didn't authorise anyone esle to, and you'll be fine. I posted a sample letter a few pages back.

 

Got my letter all typed up urs was alot of help cos i didnt have a clue where to start!! Hopefully i can get some sleep now, its amazing how much distress this bloody letter has caused!!!

[tp123]

So like everyone else I should complete a LOD and send to them ?? They still can't prove that it was anyone in my household ??

 

There is no technical way in which they can determine who, if anyone, downloaded, stored or uploaded a file to, on or from your PC.

 

More importantly they can't prove that you as the account holder did it or authorised anyone to.

[Systorm]

Recieved my letter friday too, going to keep an eye on this forum to see what action to take. They not having any cash out of my pocket!

[8of9]

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

 

No I dont think that they did.

They received, along with other ISP's, a request from ACS Law informing them that they were applying for a court order for them to reveal the identities of "infringing" IP adresses. This is based on a procedure called the Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO). At this point an ISP can inform the applicant that they will contest this order, as TALKTALK (did leading to no actions against their customers). All other ISP's who would not contest the application then received a court order for them to provide the data requested. I asked Sky about this order and they confirmed to me, by E-mail, that they received such an order. Whatever you might think about Sky and the other "tame" ISP's, they would not reveal personal details without the correct applications. Its all covered in the Data Protection Act. Try it yourself. Ring them up with a friends or your own IP number and ask who it belongs to and see whether they give you the information. They wont even give you your own Internet History (addresses contacted etc) witout you applying for a SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST (Data Protection Act 1988 ) and you would have to pay for this. It is rumoured that some of the ISP's who provide the information are paid up to £50 for each one.

Now, do you think that they will give this information if you just ring up and ask???

 

I would still recommend that recipients of the latest batch of letters go back and read the previous posts, not just 10 or 12 pages but from the begining if you can. Many of your questions have been asked before and there is a lot of sound advice to look at. It will also give you more of an idea of the wider picture and how long similar things have been going on. Remember the law has not changed .. yet.

[Ozzy MOS]

Hi,

 

Like a lot of people I have found this site after recieving a letter from Gallant Macmillan on friday accusing me of sharing Ministry of Sound - The Annual 2010 in december, or more accurately I should say the letter addresses and accuses my father. Still trying to work out how best to address this, I admit I did download the file, but my father, who did not download it, and did not authorise me to do so, is the one who the letter is addressed to. Would it be wise of him to send a LOD and deny all knowledge? Does anyone know if it is in any way possible that this software company could have recorded the MAC address of the particular machine the file was downloaded to?

[youtube]

Hi,

 

Like a lot of people I have found this site after recieving a letter from Gallant Macmillan on friday accusing me of sharing Ministry of Sound - The Annual 2010 in december, or more accurately I should say the letter addresses and accuses my father. Still trying to work out how best to address this, I admit I did download the file, but my father, who did not download it, and did not authorise me to do so, is the one who the letter is addressed to. Would it be wise of him to send a LOD and deny all knowledge? Does anyone know if it is in any way possible that this software company could have recorded the MAC address of the particular machine the file was downloaded to?

 

Mac address doesn't go any further than the router as im aware of, in any case they would argue you could just change your network card and it would be irrelevant. Like you all these thoughts went through my head... I could prove im innocent if they had a Mac address stored etc etc. Unfortunately the scheme is well made and enough time is between the alleged offence to the accusation for them to claim anything you say is irrelevant because you could of changed anything in that time period. I mean how can you even remember what you were doing 1 year ago at a specific time, like the time actually adds anything to the offence, its just purely there to scare you into thinking they know something you don't, and it seems it works alot of the time.

[tp123]

Hi,

 

[is] it is in any way possible that this software company could have recorded the MAC address of the particular machine the file was downloaded to?

 

No

 

The software uses a technique called deep packet inspection.

 

In a nutshell, data is sent across networks is in "chunks" called packets. Each packet contains a piece of the data to be transfered, a header which contains addressing information - the ip address of the sender and receiver, and various other things for error checking and stuff...As these packets arrive at the destination they get reconstituted at the receiver.

 

The monitoring software makes a file available for download and then intercepts the packets being sent to the downloader while extracting from the header of the packets, the recipients (uploaders) IP address. Over a period of time they gather a number of IP addresses with which they populate a speadsheet along with details of the file and the date and time. The spreadsheet gets sent to the solicitor who then obtains a court order to have the ISPs release the details of the account holders to whom those ip adresses were allocated to at the time.

 

Clear as mud?!

[8of9]

Just found this on "What Do They Know"

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/35054/response/98514/attach/html/3/Fletcher%2065669.doc.html

 

If you have been falsely accused, contact the SRA

[queen-peanut]

Active@ Kill Disk Hard Drive Eraser. Low Level Format. for those of u who did do it xxx

[tp123]

Active@ Kill Disk Hard Drive Eraser. Low Level Format. for those of u who did do it xxx

 

Ha!

 

Nobody needs to be formatting hardrives, as this is a civil matter they can't demand your pc for forensic examination. Anyway an IT forensic team would be able to recover the data from a drive after formating at low level. The only way to truly prevent recovery it is to physically destroy the disks medevil style (a hammer and screwdriver) and lose the bits in a scrap yard.

 

[queen-peanut]

my husband is cisco networker, this brings your hard drive down to bulls**t binary

[queen-peanut]

just noticed too, that gallant and macmillan hired a new guy on the 6th of july, diggin deeper now, woohoo!

[tp123]

my husband is cisco networker, this brings your hard drive down to bulls**t binary

 

I don't disbelive it's effectiveness. Where I work the disks get physically destroyed, and for good reason.

 

just noticed too, that gallant and macmillan hired a new guy on the 6th of july, diggin deeper now, woohoo!

 

Carefull - investigating this can become a hobby!!

[queen-peanut]

i know, but i'm sure people would appreciate they're pc's to look untampered with. as for that lot, it'll be a very chilly day in hell when i pay up. plus i wouldn't even mind sendin em my laptop to investigate it, just so i could have the smug satisfaction of watching them find a shed load of florist paper work and tax returns but no sodding ministry of sound. gimme metallca any day.........mos.........bloody chav crap!!!

[tp123]

Metallica eh? now we're talking! A bit of "And justice for all" would be nice!!!!

 

[Scooby Doo69]

For all you newbies, read this

You are not the first and won't be the last to receive one of these claims.

Many have been there before you so you are not alone. There is much good and confusing/conflicting information out there.

These are civil claims. You can not receive a criminal record through this claim.

To date, there is no evidence that out of the hundreds of thousands of letters sent out that anyone has been taken to civil court over these claims. In the early days a few years back one solicitor claimed to have taken a handful of people to court who ignored claims and got a judgement in their favour by default.

If you are guilty, then it's up to you on how you pay it, but suggestion is that the monies claimed is out of proportion to the claim in hand. A more realistic claim is around the £50 mark, but remember if you admit the offence, the ball is in the solicitors court (excuse the pun).

If you are not guilty, send a single letter of denial giving away minimal detail whilst stating the facts and advising them you that no further correspondance should suffice. What you don't want to do is to enter into letter "ping-pong" like some have. It's a fishing exercise and they want to trip you up into admitting guilt then brow-beat you into paying up.

The solicitors have secured the right to pursue suspected copyright infringers from the rights owners. They have employed the services of an IT company who have used a computer program to identify IP addresses during the process of sharing copyrighted material. An IP address is like a finger print at the scene of a theft. It's unique and can be traced to an account holder. The solicitor has then used the legal process to force the ISPs to give up the account information for them to pursue a civil claim.

Some common myths.

1) This is not a [problem]. It is a legal process. Do not ignore the letter. Another one will come, then another if you do and you put yourself at risk of receiving a court claim. Just because there hasn't been evidence of any cases to date, doesn't mean you won't be the first.

2) Even if you have the original track/film legally purchased, the offence is still valid. Owning legally the item in question is no defence.

3) You don't have to be at the PC/laptop to upload the item, even in the Country. Modern technology allows for uploading the happen without human intervention. Saying you was on holiday is no defence.

4) You are being accused of uploading the item for others to download. You are not being accused of downloading the item. So to say you haven't got it any more, etc is no defence. Uploading is how file sharing works

5) IP address change regularly so just because you don't have the same IP address now as what the letter says is no defence.

6) Don't give away personal information, user name, IP addresses on here or anyone on-line. If I can read it, so can others and they may put 2+2 together, especially if you admit guilt.

Now the good news.

1) File sharing is still very much a grey area. Internet connections can be hijacked, passwords on routers can be hacked, IP addresses can be spoofed to make it look like you done something you didn't. There is no legal precedence out there, ACS Law and others now that. All the time people pay up (innocent or guilty) they won't take anyone to Court and risk the chance of upsetting the gravy train by losing a case. Even if they won in the small claims court they won't be able to recover their costs and the fine could be more realistic. It all costs time and money.

2) Deep packet inspection (DPI) used as evidence is very untested under English Law. In some European countries it has already been decided to be a breach of human rights. It's like Royal Mail opening your mail without your permission or a court order.

3) There are others like you. Google beingthreatened and the speculative handbook. Google Slyck forums and track down Hickster. He'll appreciate a chat with you.

4) The media are interested in this process. Contact Which? magazine, The One Show (Dom Littlewood wants to speak to you, yes I am serious).

The legal bodies want to speak to you as well. Lodge a complaint with the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA). Speak to your local MP.

One thing you should be is to take independent legal advice. No one on here is qualified to give you legal advice. There are many options to get free advice, from Citizens Advice Bureau, some solicitors offer a free 15-30 sessions and most car/home insurance policies come with a legal helpline.

Remember, this isn't about fighting piracy, it's all about how much money can be squeezed out of Joe Public. This is a lucrative money-spinning exercise for the likes of ACS Law. They have claimed to have taken on close to £1,000,000 through this to date so are they likely to give it up?!?

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!

[johnsmith999]

If you are in receipt of one of these letters and you currently use PLUSNET, then pop on over to the forums Plusnet will give your personal details to ACS Law with not informing you!! | Community Site

 

One of the Subsribers to that ISP is trying to get them to publish the contents of a report, which was demanded as part of the NPO that ACS Law was granted in Nov 09. this states that ACS Law must provide to PlusNet (other ISPs will get the report but not yet) a report stating

the Applicant shall provide to Respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 a written report stating precisely from the relevant names disclosed (1) how many of those persons were sent letters of claim, and (2) against which persons legal proceedings were issued.

It is thought that as of today ACS Law have not taken anyone to court. You can see why many other "Law Firms" are taking up this business model.

 

As stated in earlier posts if you didnt do it , you must write back to them stating you did not do it, do not give any other information. Do not tell them about your Wireless connection or anything, the only "Proof" they have is the IP address of your Router. If this new "law firm" is like ACS Law they will send another letter in a couple of months time, you can either ignore that one or send another LOD, do not get into a "letter Ping-Pong"

 

Get some very good advice from the Being Threatened Website Being Threatened?

 

If you have done it then seek legal advise, but dont admit anything on this public forum.

[captain-123]

@ Scooby Doo69

 

Is there any evidence that Deep packet inspection is actually being used? I would imagine that they are just joining a swarm, collecting IP addresses and then maybe seeing if the IP addresses collected actually offer chunks of the file for uplaod / downlaod.

 

They may just be collecting the IP addresses and not even checking anything else.

 

I think that DPI would more likely happen in the case of the ISP like Virgin are currently trialing.

[Evacuate_the_acs_bs]

Thanks for all the advice so far. Definitely advise people to forward their cases to Watchdog, the SRA and Which magazine - just to bring more attention to this so that the general public is aware of what a shambles is going on at ACS Law.

 

Anyway, I will be going to see the CAB later in the week, before I send a LoD on my father's behalf. But say that everything gets serious with ACS and they do try to take me to court then analyse my PCs. Could I not just tell them I simply own a desktop (which the parents use) and just leave my laptop at a mate's house or something?

Edited July 12, 2010 by Evacuate_the_acs_bs

[johnsmith999]

Firstly, stop talking about wether or not you did it, the fact of the matter is they have sent the letter to your father, if he didnot download anything then he is legally and morally able to write back to the Law firm with a LOD. He is under no Legal or moral obligation to say anyone else did or did not do anything. It is up to the Legal firm to Prove that he did, and as you say he didnt then they cant. THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO INSPECT THE PC, so it doesnt matter whether you keep it or not. (Note these are my personal opinions and do not represent legal advice)

 

Contact the SRA, WatchDog, and your MP.

[ccsnet]

Guys - Which and the BBC have been in touch with me.... for a number of personal reasons I said no to an interview ( one been the job I do ) how ever I can tell you The One Show are investigating this and will be doing some thing soon....

 

Needless to say I had a good chat including to the researcher in ( I think cos I do waffel ) how this all works from a techy point of view.

 

Its more rife though as one of my mates got the cascada one today....

 

Terran