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

[mmmmmm]

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?

 

i can't see how they can know who your computer is 'talking' to regarding this, so how can they possibly know how many people you have shared it with? i'd say they have either;

 

* counted how mant ppl are sharing the file and used this

* counted how mant ppl are sharing the file and guessed a proportion of this

* lied, and picked the number out of their arse

 

i believe number 3 to be most likely

 

no way for them to tell who you have shared with. they can only know that you shared with their computer

[notafanofgm]

So to recap

Tilly Bailey, Irvine. Ceased

Davenport Lyons, Ceased (but transferred clients/work/staff to ACS)

ACS: Law, continuing but referred to SDT

Gallant Macmillan, initial and follow up letters sent. No court cases listed and no 3rd letters sent (but would be due sometime soon)

 

I have two questions.

1. If you send a Lod, receive a 2nd letter from GM and decide not to respond is it possible for GM to get a default judgement? Or would you have to receive a summons sent by the court itself?

2. Which quoted £75000 to defend one of these allegations (http://www.which.co.uk/news/2010/03/file-sharing-accusations-from-tilly-bailey-irvine-205193) can anyone verify or counter this? I thought small claims court claims were limited, even if you added "costs" on after a failed defense, surely £75k is high!

 

And a final random thought.

If ISPs are not held liable for what passes over their network, how can an end user? Be it encrypted or open WiFi.

[STC12]

One LOD is all that is required - They cannot get a default judgement if you have sent a LOD.

I have received a second letter from ACS saying they do not accept internet template LOD - they can say what they like, but it remains a valid LOD. I am sending today a second LOD in my own words, stating clearly : 1. I did not download / upload the track in question 2. I did not authorise anyone else to upload / download the track. Hopefully this will stop the letters.

But remember : they have to prove that you did what they claim - it is not up to you to provide them with any evidence. Do not enter into discussions with them about your wireless security, (eg you turned it off one day to let your kids use their Ds), or about other people staying in your house etc. this just gives them more to write to you about.

 

If you didnt do it, tell them that - then its up to them to PROVE that you ( and you alone as the recipient of the letter) DID do it. This is something they cannot do and they know this. They just keep writing to you in the hope that you eventually pay them some cash. Remember, they have taken not one person to court as they know they cannot prove you did it.

 

What they are doing is legal but relies on you being scared into paying them cash - dont pay them as this gives them more cash to scare more people into paying them.

[STC12]

 

i can't see how they can know who your computer is 'talking' to regarding this, so how can they possibly know how many people you have shared it with? i'd say they have either;

 

* counted how mant ppl are sharing the file and used this

* counted how mant ppl are sharing the file and guessed a proportion of this

* lied, and picked the number out of their arse

 

i believe number 3 to be most likely

 

no way for them to tell who you have shared with. they can only know that you shared with their computer

Completely agree with you - the amount of cash they claim from you is based on a random number of people they THINK you have shared the file with.

Again this has never been tested in court.

Also, the copyright law they claim to be relying on states that the copyright has to be "wholly or substantially" infringed.

Even if you did download / upload the track, bit torrents work by uploading tiny fragments (bits) of the file : Is this wholly or substantially ? Again, this has never been tested in court, for good reason as ACS and GM could well lose this argument, meaning the amounts of cash they claim off you would be questioned !

[Jd 1984]

I don't understand why it would cost £75,000 to defend yourself, if that's the case then we will all be paying up innocent or guilty. No wonder none have ever gone to court if it costs that much to defend yourself.

[the_shadow]

2. Which quoted £75000 to defend one of these allegations (http://www.which.co.uk/news/2010/03/file-sharing-accusations-from-tilly-bailey-irvine-205193) can anyone verify or counter this? I thought small claims court claims were limited, even if you added "costs" on after a failed defense, surely £75k is high!

 

Copyright claims are not heard in small claims, I beleive they come under multi-track rules hence the no limit on costs but stand to be corrected

 

S.

[notafanofgm]

As I had no idea what multi track was until you posted that.....I'll defer to your knowledge

[8of9]

I don't understand why it would cost £75,000 to defend yourself, if that's the case then we will all be paying up innocent or guilty. No wonder none have ever gone to court if it costs that much to defend yourself.

 

You might read this first......

 

http://torrentfreak.com/wrongfully-accused-of-file-sharing-file-for-harassment-100831/

[BARFLY]

Anyone heard from ACS regarding a new claim since the tribunal was announced?

[wittzend]

Has anybody had any further letters off Gm?I sent my LOD nearly 5 weeks ago and havent heard anything else since.I suppose its to much to hope that the've crawled back under their stone!

[notafanofgm]

I had a reply of GM within 3/4 weeks and have sent a further LoD as their reply didn't offer any proof or conclusive evidence that I did or authorised any file-sharing. It simply added another IP address which they claim strengthens the "inference of wrongdoing".

 

What did you put in your LoD to make them go away?

[blashey]

i havent recieved anything since i sent an offer of £100 4 weeks ago from gm ?

[wittzend]

I had a reply of GM within 3/4 weeks and have sent a further LoD as their reply didn't offer any proof or conclusive evidence that I did or authorised any file-sharing. It simply added another IP address which they claim strengthens the "inference of wrongdoing".

 

What did you put in your LoD to make them go away?

 

 

My LOD was pretty much the same as everyone else's.I'm just hoping recent developments with ACS has them deciding to drop the [problem].

[wittzend]

I had a reply of GM within 3/4 weeks and have sent a further LoD as their reply didn't offer any proof or conclusive evidence that I did or authorised any file-sharing. It simply added another IP address which they claim strengthens the "inference of wrongdoing".

 

What did you put in your LoD to make them go away?

 

Nothing different to anyone else.Thats wy I'm curious to know if there has been any other letters delivered.May'be theve quietly given up.

Edited September 2, 2010 by wittzend
spelling mistake

[BARFLY]

Anyone heard from ACS since the tribunal announcement in regard to a new claim? The deadline for BT to supply the names from the November 2009 NPO was 19th August or thereabout. 10 000 names supposedly! Not like ACS to hang around...

Anyone know whether ACS can trade any names that they obtain through their NPOs? When DL ceased their actions did they pass on their information to ACS?

[notafanofgm]

Nothing different to anyone else.Thats wy I'm curious to know if there has been any other letters delivered.May'be theve quietly given up.

 

Ahhh if only I doubt it very much yet. You probably just confused their tickboxes. Maybe they only have 2, paid, or not paid.

They're having to redesign their xls now to add a line in for "offered lower sum".

[kilotango22]

Anyone heard from ACS since the tribunal announcement in regard to a new claim? The deadline for BT to supply the names from the November 2009 NPO was 19th August or thereabout. 10 000 names supposedly! Not like ACS to hang around...

 

 

Anyone know whether ACS can trade any names that they obtain through their NPOs? When DL ceased their actions did they pass on their information to ACS?

 

I've not heard from them for a while and its a shame. I only get bills and junk so getting these demands from him makes me feel kind of important, its a bit like having a special friend

[stanwixman]

I have not heard back from ACS law since i sent my lod off in june but i have had a second letter from GM saying they acknowledge my lod but as I didnt say why i didnt do it then they will still pursue this matter something about practice direction. they say i provided no alternative explanation as to who might have done so. They say mere denials are incompatible with practice direction and that in the absence of a proper explanation as to why i didnt do it then the inference of wrongdoing remains. They say that if i give them details of anyone over the age of 16 who may of done it then the letter of accusation will be channged to them and the case against me will be dropped. that is my wife an she certainly didnt do it. Its my birthday tomorrow so nice birthday im going to have !! how can i prove i didnt do it and what will happen next if i deny it again . i cant afford to pay the fine let alone any costs that might come of this.

[wittzend]

I have not heard back from ACS law since i sent my lod off in june but i have had a second letter from GM saying they acknowledge my lod but as I didnt say why i didnt do it then they will still pursue this matter something about practice direction. they say i provided no alternative explanation as to who might have done so. They say mere denials are incompatible with practice direction and that in the absence of a proper explanation as to why i didnt do it then the inference of wrongdoing remains. They say that if i give them details of anyone over the age of 16 who may of done it then the letter of accusation will be channged to them and the case against me will be dropped. that is my wife an she certainly didnt do it. Its my birthday tomorrow so nice birthday im going to have !! how can i prove i didnt do it and what will happen next if i deny it again . i cant afford to pay the fine let alone any costs that might come of this.

 

You dont have to prove you didn't do it,THEY have to prove you did,if you didn't do it relax,have a great birthday try not to worry.Nothing is going to happen apart from the w@nkers sending you more letters.As long as you send a LOD youv'e done your bit.If you haven't already done so complain to the SRA and your MP.

[wittzend]

Ahhh if only I doubt it very much yet. You probably just confused their tickboxes. Maybe they only have 2, paid, or not paid.

They're having to redesign their xls now to add a line in for "offered lower sum".

 

 

Or a new line for" told to F@CK OFF":lol:

[8of9]

I have not heard back from ACS law since i sent my lod off in june but i have had a second letter from GM saying they acknowledge my lod but as I didnt say why i didnt do it then they will still pursue this matter something about practice direction. they say i provided no alternative explanation as to who might have done so....... .

 

Have GM replied to the letter you sent to ACS Law or have you had a letter from both ACS Law & GM ?

[stanwixman]

I havent had a reply from acs law yet? I got a letter from GM yesterday and its freaking me out. THey say that LODs cannot be accepted and that My reasons were not enough. They say if I cant prove it wasnt me or give good enough reasons it wasnt me then their clients will still pursue the case. I cannot afford the fine let alone court costs if it ever came to that. I am paranoid that my pc was compromised in someway for sky to show me as downloading the said tracks. How can I prove other wise? I was under my gp last year for depression and this is the last thing i need right now. I have written a second lod but havent posted it yet. I have said that I cant possibly prove it wasnt me and that I know nothing of file sharing etc and my health is suffering -and to ask them again to drop their claim> should i send this. I am also dreading anotheer letter from ACS law as its been three months now and no reply to my original lod. Please can someone advise me and help put my mind at rest thanks

Edited September 4, 2010 by stanwixman
grammar

[wittzend]

Interesting article. Sums everything up nicely.

 

 

 

http://www.hellmail.co.uk/postalnews/templates/postal_industry_news.asp?articleid=2381&zoneid=3rticle.

[baffledbygm]

I havent had a reply from acs law yet? I got a letter from GM yesterday and its freaking me out. THey say that LODs cannot be accepted and that My reasons were not enough. They say if I cant prove it wasnt me or give good enough reasons it wasnt me then their clients will still pursue the case. I cannot afford the fine let alone court costs if it ever came to that. I am paranoid that my pc was compromised in someway for sky to show me as downloading the said tracks. How can I prove other wise? I was under my gp last year for depression and this is the last thing i need right now. I have written a second lod but havent posted it yet. I have said that I cant possibly prove it wasnt me and that I know nothing of file sharing etc and my health is suffering -and to ask them again to drop their claim> should i send this. I am also dreading anotheer letter from ACS law as its been three months now and no reply to my original lod. Please can someone advise me and help put my mind at rest thanks

 

Read the "speculative invoicing handbook- what to do if you get a questionnaire". Though you didn't get a questionnaire it should reassure you. I haven't recieved a reply from my LOD yet but I've decided I'll reply once again and that will be the end of it as far as I'm concerned. They have to prove you did something wrong. Its not up to you to prove you didn't- how can you? You can't! Its impossible. It's something that supposedly happened 8-9 months ago. You might not have the same computer or hard drive. If you say you weren't in at the time they could say "well that doesn't stop your computer being on". If you say it could have been someone else in your house they'll say "well who?" and it you say your Wifi might have been breeched they'll say "it's your fault for not securing your connection" which is bullcrap because there is no law to back this up- I've been told you cannot be held responsible for someone else misusing your connection without your consent. Whatever you say they won't accept it and they'll know more about you so don't bother. If they do decide to drop your case they won't have the decency to let you know because they don't have to and they don't give a crap about the welfare of you and me. The fact that you cannot prove your innocence was pointed out in the House of Lords months ago and it's well known.

 

I've lost sleep and sanity over this too, but the longer I go without a letter from them the more relaxed I feel. I've complained to my MP about this and they know how much it stinks.

 

No court cases have happened yet that weren't default judgements or people who confessed. I can't honestly imagine this even getting to court for so many reasons.

 

I know I've repeated what a lot of people have already said (sorry!). But I'm coming as a scared newby who isn't worried anymore. This thread has been invaluable.

[wittzend]

http://www.beingthreatened.com/resources/The-Speculative-Invoicing-Handbook.pdf