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

[patrickq1]

yes dont bother with the ping pong letters,send him a harrassment letter against any future mail threats ,all future letters shall be treated as harrassment

patrickq1

mr terrence has his grubby fingers in all sorts of scams

[stupiditto]

yes dont bother with the ping pong letters,send him a harrassment letter against any future mail threats ,all future letters shall be treated as harrassment

patrickq1

mr terrence has his grubby fingers in all sorts of scams

 

Not sure if anybody has had a reply from Gallant yet but that was the way I was going to play it with him. I know id like to use some thing as a tennis ball he he ha ha :rolleyes:

[patrickq1]

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

[stupiditto]

Who's this Guy

 

Domain name:

gmlegal.co.uk

 

Registrant:

Arif Butt (HERE)

Registrant type:

UK Limited Company, (Company number: 3597730)

 

Registrant's address:

Science house

Church Farm Biz park

Corston

Bath

BA2 9AP

United Kingdom

 

Registrar:

Webfusion Ltd t/a 123-Reg.co.uk [Tag = 123-REG]

URL: 123-reg | Domain names | Domain name registration

 

Relevant dates:

Registered on: 14-Jan-2008

Renewal date: 14-Jan-2012

Last updated: 04-Mar-2010

 

Registration status:

Registered until renewal date.

[stupiditto]

Is it me or is gm's website down?

[Shaggy123]

Is it me or is gm's website down?

 

It's fine from here.

[stupiditto]

It's fine from here.

 

 

Try clicking on one of the menus then one of there services like internet.

[Shaggy123]

Try clicking on one of the menus then one of there services like internet.

 

Ah yes, not down as such, just certain pages not playing.

 

A bit unprofessional that.

[kaminskis]

It was all fiction I haven't admitted anything. The LOD hasn't even been sent yet lol. I was just creating scenarios.....

 

Not word for word but something like that.

 

 

My ISP is Sky.

 

Why would they just be Sky?

 

 

 

 

i have just been to see my MP, he has knowledge of whats goin on and his understudy has told me to only send of LOD when you get a second demand, he told me to let him,(my MP ) Write the letter on my behalf, then ACS will know who they are dealing with, because their reply letter will be sent to him, and not me, (yourself )

[johnsmith999]

In the mean time, feel free to read the BeingThreatened.com response which has been published here:

http://bit.ly/bAHY1n

 

You may also be interested that the Pirate Party has responded to the OFCOM consultation, see the article that links to it at http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1725983/pirate-party-responds-digital-economy-act-consultation-doc

 

Makes interesting reading.

[Mattyhatty]

A very good read, finally a good well informed and witty article that defines the current situation we are ALL in.

[unclebulgaria67]

I think the advice with any new kids on the block, is to not to get into correspondence.

 

If you do your research, you will find that some solicitors like to test boundaries that have not been tested before. From what I understand, Gallant might just be that solicitor, who given the financial backing, might just go for it.

 

If you get into correspondence trying to make any legal arguments, you might just be the one they pick on to test in the courts.

[Mattyhatty]

These companies have nothing to lose now. I think its apparent now that the battle between us and them is sketchy with a lot of stabs in the dark for some to slip up with their defence and letters of denial.

 

Not writing anything is looking like the new tactic, and those who do MUST write a clear letter stating a denial without mentioning anything at the same time........Just like the cheap questionairres they sent out, they will probably build up a profile by using the denfence excuses we provide them with. The more letters they recieve from an individual, the more they can use.

[8of9]

Below are parts of the court order issued to ISP's in February by ACS Law relating to the disclosure of information back to the respondents (ISP's)

 

 

 

Relevant parts of the actual court order read:

BEFORE CHIEF MASTER WINEGARTEN DATED 17th FEBRUARY 2010

 

BETWEEN: Media C.A.T Ltd

-and-

(1) BE UNLIMITED

(2) BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC

(3) BRITISH SKY BROADCASTING

(4) ENTANET INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

(5) KCOM GROUP PLC

(6) PLUSNET PLC

(7) TELEFONICA O2 UK LIMITED

(8) THUS LIMITED

(9) ZEN INTERNET LIMITED

..........

 

11. Within six months of the date of disclosure referred to in paragraph 3 above, the applicant shall provide to Respondents 1, 2, 6 and 7 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.

A couple of things stand out

1. "the applicant

SHALL

provide...." Legislative acts and contracts sometimes use "shall" and "shall not" to express mandatory action and prohibition. I would therefore read this to mean that the information be supplied whether the respondent requested it or not. In either case the information should be available

NOW

as it is a requirement of the order

2. Not only should the number of persons taken to court be available but the TOTAL number of letters of claim that have been sent out should also be made available.

3. TalkTalk as we know said that they would challenge this order and so they do not appear in the list of Respondents, but WHY are SKY not included in the list of ISP's who shall be provided with the above details? (Spineless? Clueless? )

 

So, not just Plusnet but ALL the ISP's listed in (11) above should receive this information.

IF YOU ARE A SUBSCRIBER TO ANY OF THE ABOVE ASK THEM IF THEY HAVE RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION OR IF THEY HAVE NOT ASK THEM IF THEY INTEND TO REQUEST IT.

. REMIND THEM THAT IF THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED IS NOT BEING USED IN THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED THEN THEY SHOULD CHALLENGE ANY SUBSEQUENT ORDERS.

Remind them that they have a duty of care to protect their subscribers from any exploitation. Remind them that there are other ISP's who do.....

8of9 Posts: 20 Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:34 pm

• Private message
  

[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

 

 

 

i recieved a letter from gallant agreeing i can pay £350 on september 30th 2010

i was about to send below letter is it too late as i havent signed anything ?????

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

Last December a relative 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 called 80s remix ministry of sound 80s album listened to it and liked it and bought a copy.

 

 

I open a letter from you 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 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

 

I am 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 you also said 7 other people downloaded it from me while I was downloading it I can only apologize as I didn’t realise

 

As I have been honest and upfront from the first call I made to your selves I would like to come to a compromise if possible as this has caused me and my family a lot of stress.

On advice I have been asked under the accordance of the practise for pre action conduct in IP disputes to make hopefully what I feel would be a fairer sum to pay your selves would be £100.

I hope you can agree to this and the matter hopefully can be resolved

Thank you for your understanding in this matter

[kiptower]

DO NOT ADMIT TO ANYTHING follow the instruction regarding a letter of denial LOD you send that and your hanging your self etc

[blashey]

but i stupidly admitted it in a phone call

[kiptower]

so what was it not your brother / mate that rang them ? and you knew nothing about it etc ??

 

their chancer's waiting for people like yourself to fall for it

 

read all the info on them you will get a better idea how they are running which is close to if not a [problem]

[blashey]

so what do u suggest after admitting it to them ?

[blashey]

???

[kiptower]

someone did on the phone, was it you , your brother a mate who said i will sort this for you ,

 

read between the lines

 

because what was done on the phone it could have been anyone

 

it was not in writing

 

now follow the advice as in many threads do a LOD

 

the chances that they recorded the call and could prove in a court it was you , are far distant

[captain-123]

so what do u suggest after admitting it to them ?

 

Personally, if you have done it and admitted doing it, I would take 15 mins free advice from a solisitor and send the letter.

 

If you were willing to pay the £350 then the worst that can happen is they say no pay the £350 but they might come to a lower figure.

 

You can go down the road of it wasn't me that phoned etc. but it will always be in the back of your mind. Peace of mind has a price too.

 

This is just my opinion and I would take some free advice, maybe send lawdit an email and see what they say, it can't hurt.

 

This is just my opinion in this particular instance please make up your own mind. You have to decide what to do and what is best for you.

 

If you decide to pay then you have nothing to loose by trying to negotiate a lower setlement. If you decide to go with it wasn't me who phoned and it wasn't me then you can't change from this and have to stick to your guns regardless of how difficult things may or may not get.

 

Remember no one on here is an expert not even me

Edited August 5, 2010 by captain-123
spelling

[Guest mb4014]

There are some interesting developments going on at the moment. ACS Law had until yesterday to provide Plusnet details of how many people had been taken to court. This was a mandatory condition of the NPO that ACS used to extract peoples names. If they didn't then they had breached a mandatory condition of this order. Plusnet have promised to provide details of this today on their forum. If ACS havn't replied by close of play yesterday then Plusnet could take action on this and it will be another factor for the Law Society to use to backup their case which is still ongoing.

If ACS have provided the information and they report that noone has been taken to court then in my opinion this finally exemplifies that this whole episode has been nothing short of an attempt to extort money by speculative invoicing.

[d0nkey]

@blashley

 

Check your PM

[Billpayerr]

Lawdit Solicitors advice for those that admit to file sharing:

 

If, and only if, you have downloaded or uploaded the work you will have committed an infringement of copyright. In this instance it is advisable to pay up and get rid of the matter as soon as possible. However, if you have decided to settle the matter and pay up you may want to consider negotiating the settlement figure down.

Also, when settling it is important not to sign any undertaking.