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

[wittzend]

I received my first letter off GM four weeks ago,I promptly sent a LOD next day first class because I was going away the next day.While I was away on holiday(which was ruined from worring about this situation) I realised I should Have sent it recorded delivery so that what I did first day back in the UK.I have not recieved any other letters yet,does anyone know what the time scale is for GM sending a second letter.I'm hoping recent developments with ACS have them re-thinking their business plan.

[wittzend]

I should have added that I have also complained to the SRA and my MP,who was already aware of GM as he's already had six complaints:mad:

[BARFLY]

Anyone received a first letter from ACS after the tribunal announcement? Is he carrying on? Anyone know whether he needs to inform any alleged filesharers that he is to face a tribunal? surely he would need to disclose this if he is threatening legal proceedings in the same matter?

[Jd 1984]

Anyone received a first letter from ACS after the tribunal announcement? Is he carrying on? Anyone know whether he needs to inform any alleged filesharers that he is to face a tribunal? surely he would need to disclose this if he is threatening legal proceedings in the same matter?

 

Is he still allowed to pursue the cases or will he have to wait for the outcome?

 

I am sending my 2nd LOD as my first was a template and they won't accept it. The 14 days have expired but I'm sure they can wait.

 

Has anyone received a 3rd letter from ACS law?

 

Any help appreciated

[wittzend]

If youv'e already sent an LOD, youv'e done your bit!

 

you don't have to do anything else.

Sit back! Chill! Let ACS take whatever sh1t rains down on them.

[wittzend]

Congratulations to those threatened by ACS for getting a good result,bit please dont forget the rest of us getting it from GM and probably the next one in line.Lets keep up the campaign and get this bull**** stopped once and for all.

 

Thanks People

[8of9]

Is he still allowed to pursue the cases or will he have to wait for the outcome?

 

I am sending my 2nd LOD as my first was a template and they won't accept it. The 14 days have expired but I'm sure they can wait.

 

Has anyone received a 3rd letter from ACS law?

 

Any help appreciated

 

I suppose that until he goes before the tribunal he is free to carry on. Innocent until proved guilty. (Not a privilage afforded to the recipients of the letters though who are, of course, all guilty.)

Whether he carries on, or not, remains to be seen. (His predecessors, Davenport Lyons, stopped when they were in a similar situation)

If you've sent an LOD, thats enough. You have no need to enter into any further correspondence.

The balls now firmly in his court.

[blashey]

i sent a letter 3 weeks ago to gm offering £100 but no word yet should i worry as originally i panicked and said on phone i would pay the £375 at end of september but decided to offer lower sum but they have not responded

[blashey]

this is my original posting

 

Originally Posted by 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

Edited August 28, 2010 by blashey
spelling mistakes

[8of9]

@blashey

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

 

Who did you try to explain to?

[Yorky2008]

Agree that yes he probably is still allowed to practice.

 

However, I would refer to the case against him and his shoddy practices in my LOD. It will let them know you are no pushover which seems to be one of the criteria for dropping a case against you.

 

Yorky

[blashey]

@blashey

 

Who did you try to explain to?

 

to gallant and mcmillan

[wittzend]

this is my original posting

 

Originally Posted by 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

 

I think you've noosed your self.Your first letter says you downloaded didn't like deleted.second letter you downoaded and bought album.

 

 

 

as a lay person I would say you havent a leg to stand on because of your inconsistancy.Better to deny it and let them o the work.

But thanks for the imput,It helps other people with the same problem.Good luck with your fight,and if they do want the full amount make the f""ck""s work for it.

[silverswood]

to gallant and mcmillan

 

blashey, please keep us updated though as it'd be good to know if they'll take a little less!!

 

I'm in a similar boat myself, I'll be honest and say (on here) yes I do download occassionaly but mainly TV shows from the states as I hate waiting, but to my knowledge I have not downloaded MOS back to the 90's like GM are accusing me of, so I'm in a kinda pickle, do I send a LOD and risk someone scrutenising my HD or just pay and as said before, if you do pay does that mean next time, next 'customer' they automatically send me a bill as an easy target, I hate these f###ers

[8of9]

to gallant and mcmillan

 

Unfortunately I tend to agree with the previous post by Witzend.. If you have said that you have downloaded it to GM then, what they have from you, is an admission of guilt. I dont think it would be wise to now write them a letter saying something different as I would presume that their calls would be recorded in some way.

There seems to be a lot of inconsistancies in what you have said and what you intend to write. I am not a legal person but damage limitation is probably your best course of action now. Therefore, in your situation, it might be wise to seek legal advise.

 

(BTW downloading to listen to isn't a very good excuse as there are plenty of sites on the net where you can listen for free.)

[blashey]

bugger i didnt realise i wrote on first letter i deleted it then second letter i bought it im in trouble

[STC12]

Silver wood - If you did not download / upload MOS, then tell them that in you Letter of Denial. (LOD). Your LOD should say you did not download it, and that you did not authorise anyone else to download / upload it. Remember you are being accused of UPLOADING the file - that way they can claim bigger damages against you. ( torrent files work by uploading tiny 'bits' at the same time as downloading.

 

They cant take your computer away to do a check without a court order - and my guess if they ever got an order, which they wont, you would probably have "changed" computers by that time so there will be no computer for them to check ,if you get my drift lol.

 

Remember, its there job to provide evidence that you have done this- it is not your job to provide evidence to them.

 

 

Send you LOD and await the second letter, and follow the advice on here. You didnt do what they claim, so send the LOD.

[andydd]

bugger i didnt realise i wrote on first letter i deleted it then second letter i bought it im in trouble

 

Doesn't make any difference anyway, you've made a mess of it by admitting you downloaded the file, simple as that, as you have now realised, this was rather foolish.

 

The arguements you put in your letter(s) are not a defence they are a admission and a mitigation, (i.,e they might treat you less harshly), but the reality is, this is nothing to do with protecting MOS's copyright, its a '[problem]' (although legal) to try and earn some extra money due to poor record sales.

 

As I've learnt from experience when responding to legal/court documents (or even when questioned by police, etc), DO NOT spout out the first thing that comes into your head, think about what they are asking, why are they asking and give an appriopiate response (which may be nothing !) and/or seek legal advice.

 

Andy

[gifer]

I wonder if Gallant Macmillan has the rights to use General Motors' logo... With or without the underline it still looks exactly the same as General Motors... LOL

[Jd 1984]

Silver wood - If you did not download / upload MOS, then tell them that in you Letter of Denial. (LOD). Your LOD should say you did not download it, and that you did not authorise anyone else to download / upload it. Remember you are being accused of UPLOADING the file - that way they can claim bigger damages against you. ( torrent files work by uploading tiny 'bits' at the same time as downloading.

 

They cant take your computer away to do a check without a court order - and my guess if they ever got an order, which they wont, you would probably have "changed" computers by that time so there will be no computer for them to check ,if you get my drift lol.

 

When I first received my letter of claim I stupidly rang them up to ask what it was all about, they said I shared it with x amount of people.

 

How can they prove this?

Can they get a court order to get your laptop with this being a civil claim and not criminal?(nothing to hide just asking)

 

please help I need to understand it all

[Huff&Puff]

They aren't going to be taking anyone's computer for analysis,. it costs many thousands of pounds to forensically analyse a computer disk. The [problem] works because all they are paying at the moment is postage, they would soon stop if they had to spend real money to gather evidence

[captain-123]

blashey, please keep us updated though as it'd be good to know if they'll take a little less!!

 

I'm in a similar boat myself, I'll be honest and say (on here) yes I do download occassionaly but mainly TV shows from the states as I hate waiting, but to my knowledge I have not downloaded MOS back to the 90's like GM are accusing me of, so I'm in a kinda pickle, do I send a LOD and risk someone scrutenising my HD or just pay and as said before, if you do pay does that mean next time, next 'customer' they automatically send me a bill as an easy target, I hate these f###ers

 

 

@Silverwood Can I ask would people be able to use your internet without your knowledge, unsecure wireless etc?

 

I can understand people getting letters if they have downloaded or if they have unsecure wireless but if people are getting letters just because they have used torrents then that would leave most of the open source comunity open to these letters which are legal uses for torrents. This would be a very scary situation as it would mean that there is no checking of data. I've read somewhere that they are supposed to get a list of the IP addresses and then connect to the IP addresses and then download at least some small amount of information.

 

If this is the case then at least it would rule out torrent site admins poluting the IP pool with fake IP addresses as even if someone was using torrent software they would have to connect not only to your machine but also be offered at least a small amount of the file they were monitoring and not just because they could connect to a torrent client program.

 

This would seem to leave the possibility of

 

a) you actually downloading the file

b) your connection being used without authorisation / wireless hacked

 

That is of course if they do check that they can connect not only to a torrent client but also to the file being monitored. If not then anyone using torrent software for legal purposes and unlucky enough to have their IP address placed in a pool of IP addresses by a site admin could get a letter despite only downloading Linux distros.

 

Just trying to understand the situation really

[Huff&Puff]

I've read somewhere that they are supposed to get a list of the IP addresses and then connect to the IP addresses and then download at least some small amount of information.

 

If they actually did that, the trackers would give themselves away to the torrent sites, and would be blocked. This is why IP address spoofing works, because the trackers cannot actually download anything without giving themselves away.

[silverswood]

@Silverwood Can I ask would people be able to use your internet without your knowledge, unsecure wireless etc?

 

Possibly, I did have to run the router on occassions last year with the security turned off as the kids wanted to connect their DS's through it and it did'nt like the WEP code or something like that, since then my brother inlaw has sorted it out with a different type if password thing that allows it but keeps the network secure (really dont get all this, you may be able to tell) is there a log or anything in the router that would show when it was/wasn't enabled?

[8of9]

This all boils down to the accuracy of the evidence.....

 

Tracking companies such as Media Protector and Logistep are always super-confident of the accuracy of their systems, even though they are never confident enough to open them up to scrutiny. Lawyers are always quick to point out that the evidence is good enough for the courts to grant orders for the disclosure of user’s personal information, but it’s a one sided process and the defendant never gets the opportunity to contest before their identity is revealed.

 

In the interests of fairness and transparency, the sooner these companies have their systems opened up for scrutiny, the better. If the systems are proved accurate, then this strengthens the position of anti-piracy tracking companies and enhances their credibility, so one has to question why they are so reluctant to reveal their techniques.

 

Perhaps of more concern is why courts are so willing to accept this data as foolproof when seemingly no-one knows how it is collected. And when defendants are denied this information too, fairness seems a distant concept.

And that is why no one will be taken to court. It would open up their evidence to scrutiny and cross examination.

 

Some really useful stuff here http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/info.php

Edited August 30, 2010 by 8of9
Added link