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

[stupiditto]

I've had three letters in total - two from ACS and one from Gallant Macmillian. The ACS letters were about some film I never heard of so responded with a LOD using a template from the "beingthreatened" site - got a letter back a month or so later saying that as it was a template they were ignoring it. Not responded to them yet but I'm worried about the GM one-they accused me if sharing a MOS 80's album which I do have on CD, iPod and consequently my PC. I have used a torrent legally before to download straight from an artists web site. I don't really understand much about it but could having the torrent program on my PC caused me to have unknowingly shared music that I have? I don't want to pay out 350 notes but I don't feel happy sending a LOD if I have done it accidentaly. Any help would be greatly appriciated.

 

Just send a letter of denial off - They are hitting everybody with these poxy letters. I heard they had sent out 2000 letters in 1 week so that equates to £375 x 2000 = £750,000 if everybody was stupid enough to pay up. It's a big joke and in my opinion MOS are wasting more money employing these people to do there dirty work.

 

As I have mentioned before these people are under investigation - My advice would be to also call these people and enquire about Gallant Macmillan

[captain-123]

I had one of these letters for the MOS 80's album. I know I didn't download it, as I'm not into MOS anyway. There are only two others that have used my internet connection and I know they wouldn't have downloaded it either. My Dad wouldn't know how to download anything from Bit Torrent anyway, and my cousin only likes the crap the x factor winners churn out.

 

It took me less than a minute to do my LOD. I got red marker pen and wrote across it, "Prove it or F**k off!!!" Then popped in an envelope and dropped it in the postbox on the way to work this morning.

 

Like my battles with the DCA numpty's I don't waste anymore time than I really have to, when it comes to people trying to get money off me when they have no legal basis to do so.

 

Just out of interest, trying to understand how all these mistakes are being made, is your wireless connection secured.

 

What I'm trying to understand is that if the data harvesters are to be beleived then every IP they list has been connected to and has given data. Which would only leave someone else in the family committing the offence and not admitting it or your wireless connection being hacked.

 

By all accounts WEP is useless WPA is better but not infalable and WPA2 is the best you can get at the moment.

 

I've heard of someone on these forums saying that they hadn't done it and they had WPA. Just curiouse what the numbers are with unsecured wifi or WEP or WPA. It would be interesting if anyone with WPA2 has been sent one of these letters and can say with certainty that they haven't done it.

[stupiditto]

Just out of interest, trying to understand how all these mistakes are being made, is your wireless connection secured.

 

What I'm trying to understand is that if the data harvesters are to be beleived then every IP they list has been connected to and has given data. Which would only leave someone else in the family committing the offence and not admitting it or your wireless connection being hacked.

 

By all accounts WEP is useless WPA is better but not infalable and WPA2 is the best you can get at the moment.

 

I've heard of someone on these forums saying that they hadn't done it and they had WPA. Just curiouse what the numbers are with unsecured wifi or WEP or WPA. It would be interesting if anyone with WPA2 has been sent one of these letters and can say with certainty that they haven't done it.

 

More to the point these people are blaiming the acc holder.They have no right to do this. What if 4 people were sharing a house as I have done in the past and all use seperate laptops. One name on the acc as we had! Then you have friends who come round - so say (2 per person on average) That is 12 people in total that could have caused the infringment - So who is getting scare mongered? The ACC HOLDER - Just say I know of at least 4 of my friends have used my wireless connections. One even told me that one of the reasons he popped around was because he wanted to sit in our driveway and send an email on his laptop..... We have had birthday celebrations with a least 30 people in the house - Where does the list end?

[White-Dragon]

Exactly, how can a bill payer be responsible or police all the traffic that comes through the connection, it's ridiculous. Ministry of sound are simply trying to extort money out of unfortunate bill payers. These quite frightening tactics are apporant and the governing bodies need to out law them

[mrwhite123]

It's not just what kind of wireless you have, in my case is WPA, but the router is just rubbish! at least twice in the past year the wireless settings have been reset without us knowing it, or losing DNS settings and leaving us without name resolution in the internet, etc., and I know that in this household nobody has done it....

[stupiditto]

Exactly, how can a bill payer be responsible or police all the traffic that comes through the connection, it's ridiculous. Ministry of sound are simply trying to extort money out of unfortunate bill payers. These quite frightening tactics are apporant and the governing bodies need to out law them

 

I think MOS are wasting alot more money employing these monkeys.

The solicitors doing it are corrupt and just trying to line their own pockets.

I published a figure which was 3/4 million pounds they would reap in if people were scared enough to pay up.

 

Even if they said look pay up for the cd costing £15 that would only equate to 2000 x approx (cd) £15 = £30,000.

 

£750,000 vs £30000 ???????

[STC12]

My thought is that MOS are not wasting any money - guessing ACS and GM are no win no fee people. the original rights holder eg MOS or Cascada, will get a share - a very small share- of anything the lawyers recover.

[White-Dragon]

Has anyone replied to gallant Macmillan yet? If so have they responded? Cheers

[car2403]

One thing to think about, though, is how would MOS (or any copyright proprieter) protect their work from online fraud like this? This may be their only course of action, in current times - what need is a change in law to protect them and us as consumers from allegations of this sort.

[Jamuir]

One thing to think about, though, is how would MOS (or any copyright proprieter) protect their work from online fraud like this? This may be their only course of action, in current times - what need is a change in law to protect them and us as consumers from allegations of this sort.

 

Electronic Anthems of the 80s = MOS's work??? The MOS record label was founded in 1995 and I presume theyve licensed these tracks from the original copyright holders for the purpose of a compilation CD. I assume they also knew what type of marketplace/environment they were entering ie illegal downloading is fairly widespread, when they did this.

[car2403]

Electronic Anthems of the 80s = MOS's work??? The MOS record label was founded in 1995 and I presume theyve licensed these tracks from the original copyright holders for the purpose of a compilation CD. I assume they also knew what type of marketplace/environment they were entering ie illegal downloading is fairly widespread, when they did this.

 

Ah, rhetorical question

[Jamuir]

Ah, rhetorical question

 

a possible case for the defence m'lord

[captain-123]

I'm curiouse how come MOS can claim copyright infringement on songs which they dont own and were released before MOS was created.

 

Do they list a particular song on the claim?

[Jamuir]

I'm curiouse how come MOS can claim copyright infringement on songs which they dont own and were released before MOS was created.

 

Do they list a particular song on the claim?

 

No chance. They have 'obtained evidence that Ministry of Sound - Anthems Electronic 80s was made available for download' at the specified ip address , time and 'bittorrent' as the p2p network.

[Shaggy123]

8of9 so then it's better to reply on your own words?

because for the first two I used the template and they keep on sending me letters......

 

Keep replying, he'll keep sending you letters. You've stated your position so ignore them now.

[Shaggy123]

I wouldn't pay for something I haven't done even if a judge told me to.

 

I think if a judge told you to, you would.

[stupiditto]

No chance. They have 'obtained evidence that Ministry of Sound - Anthems Electronic 80s was made available for download' at the specified ip address , time and 'bittorrent' as the p2p network.

 

Release date: 09-11-2009. Format: CD Number of Discs: 3

 

But it would be nice to see if MOS has got full permission from the original material to be used in the compilation.

 

Thats what I was saying earlier. Every letter they send out say 2000 x that by compensation of £375 = £750,000

 

If 2000 thousand people were to buy the album at £9.99 Various - Ministry Of Sound: Anthems Electronic 80s (3CD) - CDs at Play.com (UK)

 

That would equate to £19,980. (average persons yearly wage)

 

So they want compensation of £730,000 - To me that seems like daylight robbery and we are only talking about 2000 people. How more letters will be sent out?

[Shaggy123]

I don't want to pay out 350 notes but I don't feel happy sending a LOD if I have done it accidentaly. Any help would be greatly appriciated.

 

It's not possible to do it accidentally.

[kaminskis]

Has anyone replied to gallant Macmillan yet? If so have they responded? Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not yet, and i aint gonna, either, they have to prove who was driving first and it was not me or the wife who was at the helm when it was allegedly uploaded, mos 80s, as they say ;-)

[stupiditto]

not yet, and i aint gonna, either, they have to prove who was driving first and it was not me or the wife who was at the helm when it was allegedly uploaded, mos 80s, as they say ;-)

 

and I was in India lmao

 

All I can say I hope the SRA hurry up and come to a good conclusion

 

I would write a letter of denial as I was told this by the sra that as they haven't come to a conclusion about GM yet. Then letter they have sent you is still a legal document.

 

When they sign the letter Gallant Macmillian. It cheeses you off more as you haven't got the persons name to respond to. No person to stick the blame on for wrongfully blaming the wrong person hmmmm

[floppydog]

To hopefully try and clear something up. With regards to MOS and any of theirs' or other compilation albums. These companies take out what is referred to as a mechanical copyright. They basically pay for the priveledge of producing a compilation album. The costs involved are something like cost per track + quantity created (the more you make the better the discount). So they will pay someone normally MCPS who then distribute these charges for tracks to the copyright holders. MOS or who ever makes these compilations ( Now 1 - 78 etc) then get to keep all the money they then make. The album is sold with their "Trade Name" like MOS 80's blah blah in order to make money off of their copyrighted album name. Let's just call it Speculative Track Selection !!

[seymourtitty]

Hi all

 

I received 2 letters on Friday from Gallant, both identical except 2 different IP addresses were quoted. I live alone, have 1 laptop with wireless internet from Sky.

 

However, both of the IP addresses quoted do not match the IP address that I was supposed to have committed the offence with. I realise that they can change (dynamic rather than static IP addresses) but why should I pay up when they can't tell me the correct IP?

 

I was considering calling GM on Monday to clarify this...but would appreciate advice first before sending a LOD.

 

If the file is on my laptop, am I still eligible to send a LOD?

[stupiditto]

Hi all

 

I received 2 letters on Friday from Gallant, both identical except 2 different IP addresses were quoted. I live alone, have 1 laptop with wireless internet from Sky.

 

However, both of the IP addresses quoted do not match the IP address that I was supposed to have committed the offence with. I realise that they can change (dynamic rather than static IP addresses) but why should I pay up when they can't tell me the correct IP?

 

I was considering calling GM on Monday to clarify this...but would appreciate advice first before sending a LOD.

 

If the file is on my laptop, am I still eligible to send a LOD?

 

Do not correspond to these people via phone. Constuct a good denial letter.

 

The ip address they have quoted is the one that is allocated to your phone number by your isp but why they send letters with 2 different ips is a mystery and puts further evidence to tell us that they dont really know what they are doing.

 

Every device that you have in your house that connect wirelessly ie a wii, other laptops etc will all have a different internal ip address's.

 

Phone the SRA asap and report them Solicitors Regulation Authority - Contact us

 

They are already under investigation.....

I phoned them the other day and this is what the sra told me.

[Jamuir]

Phone the SRA asap and report them Solicitors Regulation Authority - Contact us

 

They are already under investigation.....

I phoned them the other day and this is what the sra told me.

 

Do you know how long have these investigations have been ongoing and how much longer will we have to wait for results ? GM have only just jumped on this particular bandwagon which has been ridden by at least 3 other law companies (ACS etc) in the last couple of years.

[stupiditto]

Do you know how long have these investigations have been ongoing and how much longer will we have to wait for results ? GM have only just jumped on this particular bandwagon which has been ridden by at least 3 other law companies (ACS etc) in the last couple of years.

 

They didn't say they just said they hadn't come to a conclusion yet. But the more people that report these outrageous bully boy tactics gives the sra abigger charge to do something.

 

I cant see how they can demand £375 or £350 if paid online and expect people to pay it with out any real proof. They would have to have a camera in your house to see who did it. I see no cameras...