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

[av0607]

hi there can someone pllease tell me how do i start a new thread please

[nickyorm]

Stressed out today!

recieved a second letter for a different file entitled busty babes of all things. when it was downloading i was three hundred miles away attending my mothers bloody funeral, i lost her after she battled brain and lung cancer for two years! these people make me sick!

[sneekes]

Hi all, I revieved one of these lovely letters in the post yesterday morning demanding I pay £495 for a video I apparently downloaded in March of this year. I contacted my CAB yesterday and they asked me too scan and email the document in to them which I did. I had a phone call from the lady today and was advised to basically send a LOD and then not enter into any conversation with them at all. Interestingly enough she said that the government had been in touch with all the CAB's nationwide and asked them to collate any details regarding this company. It sounds to me like the government are on to them I have also contacted a company called Lawdit Solicitors who deal with this type of thing and they have said that no case has gone to court at this present time.

[Flyyyte]

@ sneekes, post 4056:

 

Although I (and, presumably, many others here) hope the nice CAB person who spoke to you is accurately rendering the facts, the assertion about "government looking into" Crossley's operations seems markedly unreal.

 

Neither this Coalition Government, nor its Labour predecessor, are / were remotely concerned about consumer protection in the digital age.

 

Hence TalkTalk's CEO's current grumble about the impact of the rights act.

 

Hence the last Government's dismal failure to act against British Telecom for the illegal 'wire tapping' of customers' Internet activities as part of BT's nauseating Phorm campaign.

 

As one who played a minor role in the Phorm counter attack, I can assure everyone here that "Government" is seemingly staffed by self-serving incompetents to whom nothing matters. . .

 

Unless The News of The World is suspected of hacking an MP's mobile phone, at which point, of course, there's a huge hulabaloo *not* because the MP is upset but because, well, everyone in the UK is open to this kind of abuse and it really, really must be stopped, defence of people's rights and privacy and all that, doncha know.

 

Yeah. Right.

 

Truth is, everyone in the UK has been open to the kind of abuse practised by Crossley for a long, long time. That abuse has not gone unnoticed. It has even been lamented in The House of Lords.

 

And nothing has so far been done to stop it.

 

If it is the case that the Solicitors Regulation Authority, a body to whom the word 'solicitor' seems everything, but the words 'authority' and 'regulation' nothing at all, is now finally to take action against one of its own, then that's good.

 

But until I hear otherwise, let's not start giving premature credit to Government or regulation authority or anyone else: countless numbers of lives have been affected by Crossley's threats, and it is only online consumer forums -- run by the people, for the people -- that have shown a willingness to act.

 

Of all of 'em, CAG stands supreme.

[clark72]

LOD Signature

 

I've prepared my LOD but not sure whether to sign it by hand or use and electronic signature, advice on here seems mixed. What's the general consenus from people?

[STC12]

Not a legal expert, but it is probably best to print, then sign and send recorded delivery. Keep it simple then you are covered.oh, and keep a copy ! No point in getting into a side discussion on here about obscure points of law re electronic vs written signinatures !

[tommy591]

Got a letter this morning dated the 9th from ACS acting for Media CAT for a pornographic film. Was worried as I didn't have a clue about it. That was until I started doing some research and came across all the useful advice here and am planning on sending off a LOD next week. Looks like they have just send out a new wave of letters hopping that they get a certain hit rate. Checked the film out at a retail web site and it was released it 2001 and the studio seems not to have released anything since 2007. The film really didn't appeal either!

[car2403]

LOD Signature

 

I've prepared my LOD but not sure whether to sign it by hand or use and electronic signature, advice on here seems mixed. What's the general consenus from people?

 

Not a legal expert, but it is probably best to print, then sign and send recorded delivery. Keep it simple then you are covered.oh, and keep a copy ! No point in getting into a side discussion on here about obscure points of law re electronic vs written signinatures !

 

Use a digital signature

 

http://tinyurl.com/2he9ch

[Flyyyte]

Use a digital signature

 

http://tinyurl.com/2he9ch

 

The digital signature looks like fun for emails and such but it surely matters not where Crossley is concerned.

 

One LoD is sufficient and if the guy tries again (or anyone else) with a round-robin threat, then another LoD is all that's necessary.

 

There may be some arcane points of Law somewhere in this issue but to consider them is to acknowledge that, somehow, any document sent to Crossley will wind up as evidence in a Court action.

 

Why?

 

Crossley has never brought a single action because this entire campaign isn't rooted in Law but in fear.

[johnsmith999]

Stand by for more letters from gallant McMillan,they are in court again on Monday for the Ministry of sound against Plusnet. Not sure why they would be going after just one ISP, but that is all that appear on the court docket.. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_chancery_masters.htm

Proceedings Before the Masters - Chancery Division

 

Monday 20th September 2010

 

 

 

*

It is emphasised that the following list is provisional and subject to change until 4.30pm. Any alterations after this time will be telephoned or emailed direct to the parties or their legal representatives.

 

PLEASE NOTE THE CAUSE LIST IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. PLEASE CONTACT CHANCERY MASTER’S APPOINTMENTS ON 02079477391/6702 IN AN EVENT OF ANY QUERY.

 

Proceedings before the Masters – Chancery Division

 

*

 

ROOM 7.08

Before CHIEF MASTER WINEGARTEN

Monday 20th September 2010

 

At 11 o’clock

Mortgage Express v Rumary

 

At half past 2

Ministry of Sound Recordings Ltd v Plusnet Plc

 

If anyone has time to spare please be at the court and hear what is said, then tell the rest of us. Never before have we had so much notice of an application, and we should not miss this opportunity to see for ourselves what is said

[Crunchy5]

Hi - The thread seems to have taken a turn into talking about signatures!

I have received two letters - claiming I downloaded a movie - Twice - 4 months apart.

My IP address doesnt match that of the claimed ones listed in their letters - although may well have downloaded said film, despite no longer being on my laptop.

Considering going to CAB tomorrow.

 

Any advice greatly received.

[wittzend]

Stand by for more letters from gallant McMillan,they are in court again on Monday for the Ministry of sound

 

Doe's this mean that they have made as much as they can from their first batch of letter's,so time to move on to the next lot.Reading between the lines,the first lot that paniced and payed up have made it worthwhile trying their hand again.Hopefully that mean's an end to the harrassment of the original recipients.It's a shame we can't advertise this site and others on big billboards around the country with a massive one outside all solicitors offices:madgrin::madgrin::madgrin:

 

Monday 20th September 2010

 

 

 

*

It is emphasised that the following list is provisional and subject to change until 4.30pm. Any alterations after this time will be telephoned or emailed direct to the parties or their legal representatives.

 

PLEASE NOTE THE CAUSE LIST IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. PLEASE CONTACT CHANCERY MASTER’S APPOINTMENTS ON 02079477391/6702 IN AN EVENT OF ANY QUERY.

 

Proceedings before the Masters – Chancery Division

 

*

 

ROOM 7.08

Before CHIEF MASTER WINEGARTEN

Monday 20th September 2010

 

At 11 o’clock

Mortgage Express v Rumary

 

At half past 2

Ministry of Sound Recordings Ltd v Plusnet Plc

 

If anyone has time to spare please be at the court and hear what is said, then tell the rest of us. Never before have we had so much notice of an application, and we should not miss this opportunity to see for ourselves what is said

[car2403]

Hi - The thread seems to have taken a turn into talking about signatures!

I have received two letters - claiming I downloaded a movie - Twice - 4 months apart.

My IP address doesnt match that of the claimed ones listed in their letters - although may well have downloaded said film, despite no longer being on my laptop.

Considering going to CAB tomorrow.

 

Any advice greatly received.

 

CAB will probably tell you to pay. You really need to read this thread from the beginning, there isn't really a shortcut there.

[captain-123]

Hi - The thread seems to have taken a turn into talking about signatures!

I have received two letters - claiming I downloaded a movie - Twice - 4 months apart.

My IP address doesnt match that of the claimed ones listed in their letters - although may well have downloaded said film, despite no longer being on my laptop.

Considering going to CAB tomorrow.

 

Any advice greatly received.

 

Who does the claimed work belong to, MediaCat or Digiprotect? If you haven't done it then it doesn't matter if they say you have downloaded it one, twice, etc. etc. send a letter of denial.

 

I'm not sure how they could make two claims for the same work anyway, surely if the claim is that you have made it available for worldwide distrabution via the net then that's the claim. Hypothetically what if someone had a slow connection and took a long time for the download to complete, it is still only one infringement regrdless of how long it took.

[8of9]

Hi - The thread seems to have taken a turn into talking about signatures!

I have received two letters - claiming I downloaded a movie - Twice - 4 months apart.

My IP address doesnt match that of the claimed ones listed in their letters - although may well have downloaded said film, despite no longer being on my laptop.

Considering going to CAB tomorrow.

 

Any advice greatly received.

 

You probably have a Dynamic IP address. This means that it can change every time you access the internet. (If you were to have a Static IP address it would not change). Your ISP should have a log of what your IP address was at any given time. When a NPO is granted it compels the ISP to reveal the Name and Address of the IP that has been identified. No more.

If you think that you may have downloaded it then the CAB will probably advise you to pay up.

 

Who does the claimed work belong to, MediaCat or Digiprotect? If you haven't done it then it doesn't matter if they say you have downloaded it one, twice, etc. etc. send a letter of denial.

 

I believe that MediaCat own the distribution rights. Digiprotect are the company used to monitor the work and provide the IP addresses.

[STC12]

Slow download is not the issue - you are being accused of uploading the file !

digitial signatures is a side track issue.

 

If you did not use torrents to download ( and therefore unwittingly upload) a file, you are innocent.

 

Keep it simple : pay NOTHING and send a LOD. No One has been taken to court as these people know the evidence is flimsy and will not stand up in court.

 

Can we keep the forum on topic for all the new people getting letters demanding cash rather than interesting but irrelevant issues of law?

[car2403]

Can we keep the forum on topic for all the new people getting letters demanding cash rather than interesting but irrelevant issues of law?

 

Yes, the forum site team are already doing that

[nickyorm]

hi i sent my 1st LOD today regarding the two files i'm being accused of downloading/uploading. I stated in in it that i had not given permission for anyone to use my internet for this purpose and i myself had not done it either. i then went onto tell him that my computer has been hacked on several occasions and on the second upload date i was in fact 350 miles away at my mothers funeral. i then told him any further letter would be deamed as harrasment and adding to the already tremendous stress and berevement i am suffering.

[n11]

 

Doe's this mean that they have made as much as they can from their first batch of letter's,so time to move on to the next lot.Reading between the lines,the first lot that paniced and payed up have made it worthwhile trying their hand again.Hopefully that mean's an end to the harrassment of the original recipients.

 

 

my mate just recieved a second letter so they havent stopped the old campaign yet.

 

They have asked him for names of anybody else who *could* have done it and said the act has happened more than once, and now down to 14 days to pay up, even after he has denied it.

 

prob gonna send another LOD, but fully appreciate they will just keep sending letters until they get bored, so the rest will be going in the bin.

[captain-123]

I know that people are being accussed of uploading rather than downloading and I can understand why that is because they can charge more by saying that you allowed x amount of people to get a copy but can I ask if all someone did was download would that still not be a copyright infringement?

[mmmmmm]

I know that people are being accussed of uploading rather than downloading and I can understand why that is because they can charge more by saying that you allowed x amount of people to get a copy but can I ask if all someone did was download would that still not be a copyright infringement?

 

not necessarily so.

the way torrents work is you share tiny bits of a particular file among a large group of users.

you do not share the whole file with every user, it just wouldnt work that way.

 

to say they can charge more for that is wrong, you are still only uploading ONE copy or LESS of the file.

its many times faster to download than upload so by that you are never going to upload remotely close to that what you have downloaded.

 

the maximum they should be asking for is to cover ONE copy

[iaidoman]

got my letter on Friday apparently I have been UPLOADING a porn fetish film. acs were demanding £1,200.00

but after reading most of the week-end ( I only come home at week ends) I issued a L.O.D this morning by registered post I will also be sending a letter off to the Solicitors Regulation Authority this i got off the website beingthreatened. I will keep you all in touch.

 

my asp is bskyb and when I contacted them they sent me a generic e-mail out. not much help there. can I ask to see a copy of the court order/warrant?

[captain-123]

why so much? I thought that the sum was normally around £500 pounds

[iaidoman]

I have no idea. all I know is I can use

1;cheque

2;bank transfer ( they have given me all the bank details, As I am being accused of theft, this I find amusing)

3;credit card

4;debit card.

 

am I going to pay ......mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm no!

 

 

I forgot to mention the film is 32.02 GB yep that is right 32 gig,

Edited September 20, 2010 by iaidoman

[captain-123]

32 GB what the bloody hell was it? Was this in the name of MediaCat?