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

[Ozzy MOS]

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

 

I think thats basically the main problem people are having, this is such a niche area and untested in court, no one knows for certain whats the best thing to do. it's certainly whats stressing me out

[8of9]

IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER PLEASE READ THIS.

 

The file sharing war rages on

 

18 July 2010

The file sharing war rages on

 

Despite the introduction of the draft Code from OFCOM and the Digital Economy Act 2010, more lawyers are apparently jumping on the 'cash cow' that is the file sharing campaigns first started by Davenport Lyons, and then ACS law.

 

It was reported in this weekend guardian that some 2000 letters have been sent out by a Soho law firm on behalf of their client the Ministry of Sound. They are demanding a sum of 350 GBP or they will issue a claim. If everyone paid it would make both the lawyers and the Ministry of Sound a nice sum and would far outweigh the monies 'lost' as a result of the infringements.

 

Lawdit's advice cannot be clearer. Do not ignore the letter, engage with the Law firm and politely inform them (if this is the case) that you have not heard of the tune in question and it is not on your hard drive. The evidence submitted by their client is not conclusive. It may identify the identity of the person from the IP address but it does not identify who actually committed the offence. The name on the bill does not necessarily mean the same as the person who committed the wrong doing, As you do not know the identity of the person involved then politely refuse to pay, point out that this is the last time they will hear from you on the subject and wish them well!

 

Michael Coyle is a Solicitor Advocate and can be contacted at [email protected]. Lawdit Solicitors is a commercial law firm with offices in London Southampton and associate offices in Malaga and Rome.

 

The file sharing war rages on - Copyright Law Articles and News - Lawdit Reading Room

 

 

This seems like sound advice to me, and from a solicitor. A simple letter outlining why you are denying the claim. No need to follow a template and be accused of doing so (even though it is not illegal to use one) as this gives them another reason to write to you. Send it recorded delivery if you like but if they send you another letter referring to your reply thats it. The advice is 1 LOD.

[Huff&Puff]

Although the standard advice has to remain to write a single letter of denial, and ignore them after that, I don't really see that ignoring them matters. If I were ever to get one of those letters I would ignore it myself. They can't take you to court secretly, you'll get plenty of notice, then you can defend if it ever came to that.

 

However, it won't come to that. Although they all say that they "are determined to take it to court" (even ACS have always said that), taking it to court and actually winning are two completely different things. For a start they would need to demonstrate the methods used to obtain an IP address, and I'm 99.98% certain that they will get blown out of he water if they ever do

[TudorBlue]

Post deleted

Edited July 18, 2010 by TudorBlue

[jed52]

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' .

 

What do you mean, haha???

I know enough to know not to instigate anything as far as scams are concerned. You dont know much either do you if you dont know what the D stands for???

I will tell her to ignore it until real court papers come, if they ever do.

jed

[jed52]

Your reply will be where the find their first bit of evidence.

 

So all the more reason to ignore then eh???

jed

[TudorBlue]

I know nothing

Edited July 18, 2010 by TudorBlue

[8of9]

Dont say anything more than you need to. Stating that your daughter owns a copy bought in Tesco is irrelevant. It might open the door for them to persue this from another angle. Basic information only.

[TudorBlue]

DEleted

Edited July 18, 2010 by TudorBlue

[8of9]

Does he even need to know that you have two daughters? No more information than is needed to deny the claim. All that is known at the moment is your name and address why give more?

Edited July 18, 2010 by 8of9

[Ozzy MOS]

I think you need to delete those posts tudorblue, you are identifying yourself online to the solicitors by the information you are revealing.

[TudorBlue]

Post Deleted

Edited July 18, 2010 by TudorBlue

[unclebulgaria67]

TB

 

I liked the earlier version bit about your children owning a copy of the CD that the track appears on.

 

The question would then be, why would anyone at the house, download a track they already own.

[Ozzy MOS]

the letters arent accusing people of downloading the tracks, they're accusing people of uploading them. it would be perfectly feasable for someone who owned a cd, to rip it to their computer and share it with others. telling them you own the cd is just adding more fuel to the fire. tudorblue, you need to delete your posts, you've stated your ip address, when the solicitors read this tomorrow they'll be able to identify you immediately

[TudorBlue]

Post Deleted

Edited July 18, 2010 by TudorBlue

[Ozzy MOS]

DELETE YOUR POSTS!!!

you have previously admitted on this thread to have downloaded the work, now you have posted your ip address, you have clearly identified yourself as a guilty party. when they recieve your LOD they will know exactly what you have been saying in this thread!

[unclebulgaria67]

YES REMOVE ANYTHING THAT CAN IDENTIFY YOU. GO BACK THROUGH YOUR POSTS AND REMOVE BY EDITING.

 

I think the confusion arises, as people are receiving different letters. Some letters accuse people of uploads/file sharing and other downloading.

 

For this reason, perhaps if you are responding, you should sound as vague as possible. If you sound as if you don't have a clue what they are on about, then they will have to try to explain a bit more the next time they write.

[8of9]

TudorBlue

As the firms who are issuing these letters monitor these forums, you can now be identified by your IP which you have posted.

I would do as Ozzy suggests.

When in a hole dont keep digging!

Edited July 18, 2010 by 8of9
requested

[TudorBlue]

DELETE YOUR POSTS!!!

you have previously admitted on this thread to have downloaded the work, now you have posted your ip address, you have clearly identified yourself as a guilty party. when they recieve your LOD they will know exactly what you have been saying in this thread!

 

DONE and thanks for the info. Never thought of it like that. Please, can anyone who has quoted my posts, please delete the quotes. Thanks

Edited July 18, 2010 by TudorBlue

[BARFLY]

If you have a dynamic IP, surely it would have changed by now?

[queen-peanut]

hi again, been in touch with sky once again as they responded with my letter basically sayin they want NOTHING to do with it, gonna send gallant macmillan my sky details etc as i have just cancelled sky and moving house tomorrow. sod em, i give up xx

[Caimbeul]

I have been informed by a friend who is a lawyer for very respected City Bank that you are under no obligation to let these firms (such as ACS and the others) know that you are moving as there are no formal proceeding ets. Might be a nice way to let it all go away.

 

Please do not take me on my word, seek independent legal advice on your obligation should you move etc.

[queen-peanut]

i wasn't planning on it flower

[Mattyhatty]

If you have a dynamic IP, surely it would have changed by now?

 

 

That is a point. What they have done is 'supposedly' tracked the IP to a date/time - not sure how accurate this is - and then gone to the ISP regarding that date/time and seen who the IP matches up to.

 

I know nooooothing of IPs ! But i assume no one shares ips - its always a unique individual reference to specific Accounts ( not users ) ( can some one educate me a little more on that please? )

[Huff&Puff]

That is a point. What they have done is 'supposedly' tracked the IP to a date/time - not sure how accurate this is - and then gone to the ISP regarding that date/time and seen who the IP matches up to.

 

I know nooooothing of IPs ! But i assume no one shares ips - its always a unique individual reference to specific Accounts ( not users ) ( can some one educate me a little more on that please? )

 

No one shares an IP, the internet wouldn't work if they did. However, ISP's can and do make mistakes with who had the address at a particular time. And of course there can be problems with time differences (I believe one of the firms that harvests IP addresses is Swiss). And there is the possibility of spoof addresses being injected into the system. And they refuse to divulge the method used to obtain the addresses in the first place.

 

These are the problems they would have to overcome if they ever try it on in court, along with a good many other difficulties.