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

[unclebulgaria67]

Have recieved advice from my solicitor to settle with them, it's not sitting right with me tho :-|

 

Don't then. Have a read of the last post by car2403.

 

It is not apparently unknown according to posts I have read ozzymos, for people to make similar posts to yours, who may be connected to ACS:law.

 

What Solicitor of any calibre is going to recommend paying these people, when there are points of law, which require further exploration ?

 

I suggest that if you have not downloaded the copyrighted material, you are alleged to have, that you just send them the letter of denial. It is up to ACS to prove that you breached copyright and not for youto provide contrary evidence.

[Ozzy MOS]

Thing is that I did download the file, after hearing this the solicitor said he didn't think it was wise to argue against it if I had in fact done what they accused me of. Feel like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, I know their evidence is flimsy to say the best, but do I risk sending a LOD only for them to produce some more evidence later that they havent yet revealed?

[Ozzy MOS]

btw mine is one of the new Gallant Macmillan cases, not ACS Law, so we're on new ground, so to speak

[wellangry]

posted my letter of denial today. read the persons thread who was advised by solicitor to pay up....DONT! even if you did do it they could never prove it and would not go so far as taking you to court. Just write a simple letter of denial. State at the end you will not be writing to them again. the one letter is enough. Everyone should report Gallant Macmillan to the SRA and anyone else they can think of complaining to. These people are causing a lot of people unneeded stress. [EDIT]

Edited July 21, 2010 by alanfromderby
Please refrain from posting comments which may be read as threatening.

[unclebulgaria67]

Thing is that I did download the file, after hearing this the solicitor said he didn't think it was wise to argue against it if I had in fact done what they accused me of. Feel like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, I know their evidence is flimsy to say the best, but do I risk sending a LOD only for them to produce some more evidence later that they havent yet revealed?

 

Ok then, don't send them any letter of denial. If you want to send them a letter, just ask them to reveal any proof that they have, so that you can look into the matter further. In that way, you are not saying that you do or don't know anything about this. Asking for proof is quite reasonable.

 

Ask yourself this question. If this firm of solicitors have sent thousands of letters out, why would they pick on you to take to court, when they haven't apparently taken any other person to court so far? Are you really that unlucky.

[kilotango22]

Thing is that I did download the file, after hearing this the solicitor said he didn't think it was wise to argue against it if I had in fact done what they accused me of. Feel like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, I know their evidence is flimsy to say the best, but do I risk sending a LOD only for them to produce some more evidence later that they havent yet revealed?

 

I thought these cases were supposed to be about 'uploading' this file, sharing it, not downloading it?

 

In fact, why would any solicitor advise you to pay up so much money for downloading a single file? I can't imagine any solicitor would agree that is a fair sum in damages for downloading a single file. I'd go back and ask him to explain himself as all you have done is admit to downloading which is a lot different to the letters everyone else has recieved. Everyone else has had letters asking about file sharing, uploading NOT downloading.

Edited July 17, 2010 by kilotango22
Had another thought.

[andydd]

Have recieved advice from my solicitor to settle with them, it's not sitting right with me tho :-|

 

Jeez, what a dumb solicitor, sack him !...whilst I have not had dealing with ACS I have recentlyn received a CPR Part36 offering to settle about a ground rent/leaserhold dispute, I ignored it (and the various threats from my landlords solicitors), I had my day in court and they totally lost and I came away a grand happier .

 

Andy

[TudorBlue]

deleted

Edited July 18, 2010 by TudorBlue

[Mattyhatty]

Im not a lawyer and Unlike yourself TudorBlue / OzzyMos, i did not download the file - and the accused on the letter i have did not also.

 

You two unfortunately are a focus. Yet you need to sit tight, as the evidence they have used to find you out is the same evidence they have used to accuse innocent people....... there is no logic in how they have managed to do that. If this is the case then something is unlawful - but beyond my knowledge -

 

i cant tell you how to respond. Luckily its a civil matter, not a criminal.

 

IF you do go for a settlement, make sure that its a FINAL settlement of all allegations to prevent those 'floodgates'. As i too feel those caught will be sent more. Just a paranoid feeling.

 

Also.... yes you got caught... ouch, and unfair. in UK id happily abide by the 3 strike rule. But the price to pay? F*CK A DUCK! Do not pay it.

 

Your solicitor is probably inexperienced in the matter, along with a LOT of others. If you are looking for a settlement, then find a lawful way to renegotiate the costs of the settlement, because they are for one, absolutely extortionate to the real loss.

 

Request the evidence that you uploaded the song, request the amount you uploaded, request how much you uploaded and to how many peers. Theres so much more evidence they need to prove.

 

a LOD will filter you into the queue with us but i dont knwo how far it can get you!

[BARFLY]

QC's view raises doubt on online piracy cases - Which? News

 

Another nail in the coffin for ACS Law. Confirming what's been said on this forum. And the SRA investigation meant to wind up at the end of this month?

 

I think there will be more and more demands getting sent out in the next few weeks, now. He'll be trying desperately to make some money while the sun still shines. I believe there's just been an NPO for 15 000 names? and I beleve also that the BT customer names from the NPO releasing 25 000 names in November 2009 have yet to be released? 12 000 names?

[Mr Anonymous]

Thing is that I did download the file, after hearing this the solicitor said he didn't think it was wise to argue against it if I had in fact done what they accused me of. Feel like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, I know their evidence is flimsy to say the best, but do I risk sending a LOD only for them to produce some more evidence later that they havent yet revealed?

 

Ozzy was the letter addressed to you, are you accused?

Are you sure you did it and not someone else using your computer? ie a friends son or you had a party and loads of people were using the PC?

[jed52]

My sons girlfriend has just received a letter from these clowns demanding £295 from her for downloading a file with one song! It came with an a4 sheet with high court stamps on it. The accompanying paperwork had her I.P. add, on and her I.P.

I knew I had seen something about ACS Law on CAG.

I've told her to ignore it and not to acknowledge anything, not even write.

From what I've read on here this is probably the best thing to do, right???

jed

[Mattyhatty]

I've told her to ignore it and not to acknowledge anything, not even write.

From what I've read on here this is probably the best thing to do, right???

jed

 

haha, you havnt read a lot then.

 

Thats the worst thing you can do. With innocence you need to be focusing on a Letter Of Defence / Denial - not sure what the D is again.

 

They will be harassing her, they will send more, but with a LOD its more in her favour than theirs when it comes to the Ping pong letters. ( stop replying and start repeating and referring to the first defence letter if it gets over 3 letters ) and by all means there is no lawful way they can get you to reply to these 'questionairres' .

Edited July 18, 2010 by Mattyhatty

[Mattyhatty]

Ozzy was the letter addressed to you, are you accused?

Are you sure you did it and not someone else using your computer? ie a friends son or you had a party and loads of people were using the PC?

 

 

haha i see where youre going with that one :rolleyes:

 

but becareful we wont want ACS : BORE to send you ANOTHER letter for perverting the course of justice haaaa

[TudorBlue]

I know nothing

Edited July 18, 2010 by TudorBlue

[Nelly070]

Im going to sit down later tonight and write a letter to ACS and tell them I know nothing about the the download. I have even thought of saying that I already own the said piece of work but my daughter downlooaded it because she couldnt not rip it to her itunes and thought because she owned the said peice of workm, that it was ok to download. What should I go with guys? What should I put in the letter??

 

Don't give them any info to come back at you with. Use the lod template and leave it at that mate.

[Mattyhatty]

Referring to the LOD, you do not put any information regarding whos in the house, who uses what and how they use it.

 

its you V them. So they have no need to know about any one else in the house. You also dont admit to downloading, as the issue is uploading. which is where copyright laws slam you. So they dont need to know about that either.

 

Keep it simple. Keep it minimal. All they want is more to judge you by because they have NOTHING to begin with. Your reply will be where the find their first bit of evidence.

[Ozzy MOS]

File sharers targeted with legal action over music downloads | Money | The Guardian

[unclebulgaria67]

Ozzymos

 

I smell a rat. You come on here and post that you have been advised by a solicitor to pay up and now just add a link to a newspaper article.

 

The advice stands that you don't pay until they come forward with proof, that a copyright offence has been commited, which is sufficient to be tested in a court.

 

Have you read that some copyright owners have been found to have deliberately added files to internet sites, so that they can run a speculative invoicing scheme through a firm of solicitors. I am not saying this has happened in this case, but this is something you should be aware of.

[TudorBlue]

Don't give them any info to come back at you with. Use the lod template and leave it at that mate.

 

Where can I find it?

[Ozzy MOS]

I have posted a link from The Guardian, not a random site that I, "a rat", have created. I'm just trying to share as much information as possible, and to show this issue is making mainstream news. The article doesn't tell people to pay up, and it could be viewed as arguing against that.

 

It's all very well people giving advice to strangers not to pay up, but when your the one who has actually been accused, and stands to lose a lot if things go wrong, it puts things in a different light. The point I was trying to make in a previous post was that Gallant Macmillan (and Ministry of Sound) are new to this racket, none of us know how far (if at all) they are willing to go.

 

And for the record, Lawdit, who people on this site have recommended for these cases, also recommend to pay up if you have in fact committed the infringement.

 

What to do when you receive a letter of claim - Copyright Law Articles and News - Lawdit Reading Room

 

"(4) If you have downloaded the said work it may be an option to pay up. If you deny the claim now, and further along down the line the other side prove that you have downloaded the said work, you will be liable for a substantial amount of money (mainly due to the other side claiming their solicitors costs for dealing with this matter from you, which can rack up to thousands of pounds). It may be easier to get rid of this at this early stage while the other side are willing to settle for a relatively low sum of money. "

 

I'm not trying to cause an argument, I totally agree that people should not pay if they have not downloaded and uploaded the work, but for others like me, it's not as crystal clear what the right course of action is.

 

Regarding the copyright owners deliberately adding the files to the internet, I agree surely there has to be an element of truth to that. If not directly, then surely they have given permission to the solicitors to do this? Does anyone have a working knowledge of how the tracking system works, would something have needed to be implanted into the file for them to harvest our ip addresses? If that is the case, then would Ministry of Sound (or Gallant Macmillan) be the one's legally responsible for initially sharing the copyrighted work?

[TudorBlue]

I know nothing

Edited July 18, 2010 by TudorBlue

[Ozzy MOS]

So, what do yopu suggest would be my best course of action?

 

See a solicitor, one who's experienced with Intellectual Property cases. I'm not qualified to tell you what to do, I'm just really confused and stressed out by this whole thing.

[unclebulgaria67]

My advice is to just send a letter saying. Thank you for your letter dated xx/xx/xxxx. In order that I may look into this further and obtain appropriate advice, please forward full proof to back up this allegation.

 

Leave it at that. If they want to take this further, then they will have to come back

 

Think logically, if this is just one file, they are unlikely to go after the owner of the IP address. They would probably prefer to go after someone, who had repeatedly breached copyright, where there was more evidence to support them.

 

At the moment the legal system in this country makes it very difficult for them to go to court. I have seen no reports of any pending actions.

[andydd]

See a solicitor, one who's experienced with Intellectual Property cases. I'm not qualified to tell you what to do, I'm just really confused and stressed out by this whole thing.

 

Even then you are unlikely to get a full answer, this area of the law is pretty much untested.

 

An I.Property lawyer may be very smart of the details of I.Property, but he is unlikely to know about the complexities of IP addresses, wifi hacking, spoof addresses, torrent streams, P2P, deep packet inspection, etc