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

[BARFLY]

Hickster's reporting on Slyck that The One Show features ACS tonight. What's the bet it's a bit of a damp squid? Bet they don't speak to the SRA! And later in the week we're meant to hear from the SRA regarding their investigation. Again, I can't see much coming from that. I don't believe ACS are breaking the law. That means that at the most they might be reprimanded for their manner of correspondence. Remember DL's letters were more heavy handed than ACS's. I might seem a bit pessimistic but I just cannot see anything changing regarding ACS. Other solicitors are now jumping on the bandwagon with less threatening letters. They must view the speculative invoicing as acceptable so long as you stay within the Code of Conduct. Glad to hear what you think.

Edited July 27, 2010 by BARFLY

[kaminskis]

my wife has had a letter from gallant macmillan over filesharing, from08/12/09, as for the record as i have been told from legal friends, the law regarding filesharing in this country came into force on the 23/24 of this month, so filesharing before then was legal, also, you can seek free 30 minute session with a solicitor for advice, which i am seeking for my wife.............anymore comments would be appreciated

[kaminskis]

if they dont want ppl to download/upload tunes from the internet, they should be chasing the ppl who put the tunes onto it, not the ppl d/loading/uploading it

[captain-123]

What I find strange is that in about 18 months the Digital Economy Act will probably put an end to P2P filesharing yet these companies and law firms are happy to risk their reputations in the short term.

 

Why did the Ministry of Sound decide to sue people when in about six months under the DEA they could have sent a warning? This would have have a beneficial outcome for both customer and MOS alike.

 

If guilty you have received a warning and are more likely to stop and still want to purchase MOS music through legal channels.

 

If inocent warned that your wireless security might not be strong enough.

 

But either way MOS would have seemed to have been reasonable and could have counted on keeping their fan base.

 

By suing people who are guilty they are suing people who like MOS but I would imagine will never purchse another MOS album again, even when P2P has been stamped out.

 

By suing inocent people they are creating a backlash of bad publicity for their brand that will spread as people talk.

 

It just doesn't to be good business sense when their is soon to be another option which would be beneficial to MOS and possibly cheaper as I can't imagine solisitors being cheap.

[kilotango22]

How can you tighten your wireless security? Mine has a WEP code, anyone who has access to my house can simply pick up the box and read the code off the bottom of the box. A friend of mine at work says there are videos on youtube showing you how to crack wireless codes and that someone who is really clued up can do it in about 5 minutes.

 

I've just been reading about Gary McKinnon, he wrote a tiny pear script to look for default passwords, it can scan 65.000 machines in just over 8 minutes, so I'd like to know how any internet connection can be 100% secure.

 

Even a connection which is not wireless could be tapped into from outside you're house so long as there is easy access to the line by anyone who had the intention to tap into it.

[letsdothis]

Now this all makes sense.

 

Why become a solicitor? ‘I love music – I was a disc jockey for 25 years – and thought a legal background would be one way to start a career in music.’

 

Someone must be getting some 'white label' promos for their hassle.

 

Solicitor in 'sex on the beach' case speaks out | The Law Gazette

[youtube]

from the link above quoting Crossley.

 

" ‘From a legal perspective, there was no case to answer. There was no DNA evidence to prove sex had taken place. No witnesses were called at court and my client refused to sign the confession the police had drawn up.

 

‘The process was not fair, but the ultimate outcome – a relatively small fine and deportation – was about right.’"

 

LAUGH MY ASS OFF. A Crime serious enough to face three months in prison in Dubai and he says a relatively small fine "£170" is about right.

 

So how come he deems an offensive which is completely unprovable (uploading of copyrighted files) and lacking any evidence what so ever which doesn't carry any prison sentence time at all even if its proven to be you who committed it, worthy of £300 - £1000 fine. The guy is completely off his trolley. Some one call the men in white coats, this guy needs some serious help. A true menace to society, infact I would argue a terrorist.

[letsdothis]

From a legal perspective, there was no case to answer.

 

Check

 

There was no DNA evidence to prove sex had taken place.

 

Check

 

No witnesses were called at court

 

Check

my client refused to sign the confession

 

Check

 

The process was not fair

 

Check

 

If you changed the word DNA for the word reliable, and the word sex for downloads, some could argue that he was on about a different set of circumstances.

 

Meanwhile here's his fave YouTube hit.

 

[televisionuser]

Just saw this on the One Show.

[8of9]

If you missed The One Show tonight, or like me, you turned on with about 2 minutes of the feature left, dont bother with BBC iPlayer..... its not on because "Unfortunately, certain programming, is subject to rights restrictions". Now that surely takes the biscuit !!!!!

(Might be able to d/l it from a torrent site though)

[cerberusalert]

Just missed

27/07/2010

More:programme information

 

Broadcast today, 19:00 on BBC One and available soon on BBC iPlayer.

 

Sir Stirling Moss hits the road to investigate the controversy around speed cameras.

BBC - BBC One Programmes - The One Show

 

It'll probably be available to view from tomorrow.

[the_shadow]

How can you tighten your wireless security? Mine has a WEP code, anyone who has access to my house can simply pick up the box and read the code off the bottom of the box. A friend of mine at work says there are videos on youtube showing you how to crack wireless codes and that someone who is really clued up can do it in about 5 minutes.

 

If you go to the makers website normally you can download the manual for the router and its fairly easy. There are alternatives to WEP, eg WPA2.

 

I've just been reading about Gary McKinnon, he wrote a tiny PEAR script to look for default passwords

 

[snigger] Does it run on the APPLE Mac?..... I think you mean perl script rather than pear, sorry IT Nerd sense of humour

 

S.

[cerberusalert]

McKinnon wrote a simple brute-force Perl script which he combined with a javascript and words lists over a 56Kbps modem to test passwords against various systems in the US during the years 2001 and 2002.

 

WEP has been updated to WEP2 (WPA2) now which is more secure Wired Equivalent Privacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited July 27, 2010 by cerberusalert

[letsdothis]

McKinnon wrote a simple brute-force Perl script which he combined with a javascript and words lists over a 56Kbps modem to test passwords against various systems in the US during the years 2001 and 2002.

 

Not being funny, although he is a clever chap, there is no way I would even think about using one of his scripts. He got caught.

 

That's as bad as downloading some mp3's from a torrent site in my eyes only those are not quite not as risky.

[cerberusalert]

Not being funny, although he is a clever chap, there is no way I would even think about using one of his scripts. He got caught.

He would have been better hacking into a wireless network first rather than using his telephone modem.

 

And the wheel turns around.

[letsdothis]

He would have been better hacking into a wireless network first rather than using his telephone modem.

 

And the wheel turns around.

 

I bet his inspiration was this film.

[8of9]

Just found this. Its a couple of months old (and a bit long)but it makes interesting reading.

DigiProtect + ACS:Law = Extortion and Harrassment

The bit that interests me is:

 

They state that your data protection laws are not being infringed, this is actually false, the courts are being given false or / and incomplete information, which ensures that a court order is given which forces your ISP to reveal your personal information from their computer systems. After this, your privacy laws are infringed in that your personal data is most likely held on 3rd party systems such as ACS:Law's and DigiProtect's systems, without your permission, being computer manipulated, against data protection law - all in order to extort money from you.

 

If this is true why are the ISP's not challenging these court orders?

[blashey]

last december my brother showed me how to get u torrent and he said i could download albums from sites to see if i liked them before buying them as i prefer proper cds but like to hear what i might like to buy

 

i downloaded an album in december 09 an 80s remix ministry of sound 80s album listened to it and didnt like it so deleted it

 

 

last thursday i open a letter from solicitors gallant and mcmillan on behalf of ministry of sound saying i was an illegal file sharer and would be taken to court unless i paid £370

 

i tried to explain i was naive and only wanted to listen before buying proper copy and had not downloaded any other album except that one and had got rid of u torrent as i was plagued by viruses

 

im angry at my stupidity and the fact i spent tens of thousands of pounds over the years on vinyl and cds i get done for wanting to just listen not copy but they said 7 other people downloaded it from me while i was downloading it

 

also by admitting it over the phone i have no choice but to pay within 21 days or go to court

 

can i still go to a solicitor to get a smaller amount paid to them or have i messed myself up by saying i would pay the 350

 

can no one advise me ?

[Time on my hands]

can no one advise me ?

 

Yes - get proper legal advice. Lawdit may be a good start. Alternatively pay up the £370.

 

Having 'owned up' to them has probably got them rubbing their hands with glee, particularly with the levels of negative publicity doing the rounds.

 

On the other hand, their line about "7 other people had downloaded it" seems a bit dodgy - this is information that they could not possibly have on the strength of their 'evidence' and data. This could be an outright lie on their part.

[d0nkey]

can no one advise me ?

 

Having admitted it does preclude you from taking the action of sending a letter of denial. However, you are well within your rights to respond to their claim in writing offering a smaller amount, an amount that is more proportionate to the potential losses incured by MOS. This is what the pre action protocols are all about - "It aims to keep the costs of resolving disputes subject to this protocol proportionate." Do a search for the Code of Practice for Pre-action Conduct in IP Disputes and have a read, esp annex B.

 

My suggested "plan of attack" would be:

 

1. Respond to their letter saying that you are writing in acordance with the Code of Practice for Pre-action Conduct in IP Disputes, and make an offer that you think suitable. Don't phone them anymore - they will have a record of the conversation, you probably won't.
   
2. Wait for them to respond - if they accept your offer, all is good. If they do not, write back asking why they don't accept, quote part 3.6 of the Code - "In formulating both the Letter of Claim and Response and in taking any subsequent steps, the parties should act reasonably to keep costs proportionate to the nature and gravity of the case and the stage the complaint has reached" re-asert your offer.
   
3. If they still reject your offer, write back again asking them to provide a detailed and comprehensive break down of their claim, including evidence showing how much of the "work" was shared to other users. They will be unable to this and therfore unable to substantiate their claim fully.
   
4. Lastly if none of this works, seek legal advice.
   

This way, at least you can buy some time in which to save up some money (the letter ping pong can take months, and there is no time limit governing the process as long as you are responding within the times specified in the letters) and if they accept your offer, you'll will have saved the costs of legal representation, which is not cheap.

 

Don't worry about what you have said on the phone too much, as yet you have not made any written and signed submissions admitting guilt or offering to pay.

 

Keep a copy of everything you recieve and send.

 

 

I hope this helps

[captain-123]

@blashey

 

'but they said 7 other people downloaded it from me while i was downloading it '

 

While I'm not sure that the can even prove this because of the way I think the monitors work this would equate to aprox 7 x £0.89 plus solisitors costs.

 

Of course 'solisitors costs' is the rub here as this will be the greatest expense and the only people getting any real money out of this.

 

Personally if I got a letter from MOS etc. etc. even if I liked their music I would never purchase another track from them again. Even if you have got to have the next MOS album you can alway buy off ebay thus making sure no money goes back into MOS pockets and of course sell on ebay once you've finished listening to it.

Edited July 28, 2010 by captain-123

[kilotango22]

If you go to the makers website normally you can download the manual for the router and its fairly easy. There are alternatives to WEP, eg WPA2.

 

 

 

[snigger] Does it run on the APPLE Mac?..... I think you mean perl script rather than pear, sorry IT Nerd sense of humour

 

S.

 

Yes I probably do mean that, it just worries me that it all seems so easy and my point being if he could do that then how hard would it be for someone to break into your wireless connection and act without your authority. It has totally put me off having an interent connection at all. Afterall, if someone steals your car and runs someone down and kills them, the police don't hold you accountable even if you were to leave the keys in the ignition.

[andydd]

@blashey

 

'but they said 7 other people downloaded it from me while i was downloading it '

 

While I'm not sure that the can even prove this because of the way I think the monitors work this would equate to aprox 7 x £0.89 plus solisitors costs.

 

Of course 'solisitors costs' is the rub here as this will be the greatest expense and the only people getting any real money out of this.

 

Personally if I got a letter from MOS etc. etc. even if I liked their music I would never purchase another track from them again. Even if you have got to have the next MOS album you can alway buy off ebay thus making sure no money goes back into MOS pockets and of course sell on ebay once you've finished listening to it.

 

Maybe MOS should look at the backlash that Metallica encoutered when they had their moan at Napster, ultimately it did them no favours and hurt their sales..cynics amongst us would argue that MOS are just trying to recoup some money as the actual album in question didnt sell well.

 

Andy

[kaminskis]

last december my brother showed me how to get u torrent and he said i could download albums from sites to see if i liked them before buying them as i prefer proper cds but like to hear what i might like to buy

 

i downloaded an album in december 09 an 80s remix ministry of sound 80s album listened to it and didnt like it so deleted it

 

 

last thursday i open a letter from solicitors gallant and mcmillan on behalf of ministry of sound saying i was an illegal file sharer and would be taken to court unless i paid £370

 

i tried to explain i was naive and only wanted to listen before buying proper copy and had not downloaded any other album except that one and had got rid of u torrent as i was plagued by viruses

 

im angry at my stupidity and the fact i spent tens of thousands of pounds over the years on vinyl and cds i get done for wanting to just listen not copy but they said 7 other people downloaded it from me while i was downloading it

 

also by admitting it over the phone i have no choice but to pay within 21 days or go to court

 

can i still go to a solicitor to get a smaller amount paid to them or have i messed myself up by saying i would pay the 350

i wonder if its dec 09, as that is when my wife was told she d/l the same album, ( we dont have it as i have checked ) but i am visiting with my MP on tue next week, and a solicitor this afternoon.

if it was d/l from this site, it was done from some-one else who hacked my pc, they have to prove who was at the pc of the time it was d/loaded. will keep you informed what happens

[kaminskis]

im just replying to blashey here, my response is the last 2 paragraphs