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

[Time on my hands]

D_arkTrooper - perhaps you could drop by at **EDITED** or at the Being Threatened chatroom **EDITED**

Edited September 9, 2009 by car2403
Removing unapproved external links

[Time on my hands]

Firstly, I'm not surprised by this increase in letters - clearly following on from the man's recent boasts of forthcoming court cases, but also possibly influenced by escalaton of complaints to the SRA and an imminent appearance on Watchdog. Remember that he also recently went to court for another disclosure from ISPs via another Norwich Pharmacal order (no news yet on whether this was successful). Rumours are abounding as to whether he's wringing the last drops of cash from his current crop of victims before he starts afresh with a new lot.

 

Re the above letter - remember he's accusing you of uploading - not downloading.

 

Re the comments on BeingThreatened.com - they had their reasons for removing the link to this forum, which have already been listed, so I won't bother repeating them. To anyone questioning their motives - just remember where your LoD template originally came from!

[Time on my hands]

To all new recipients - this is not a [problem].

 

The speculative invoicing handbook (google it - I can't post links here) is a great place to start, as is the forum at another site that the mods here wont allow links to [cough] Slyck [cough].

 

Don't panic, you are not alone in this.

[Time on my hands]

Scooby Doo is correct that ACS are reading these forums and will jump on any chance to connect an online comment to one of their recipients.

 

Also this is a mail-merge letter numbers game for them. They stand to make far more from 100 scared people paying up out of ignorance than they do from taking 1 person to court and risking their entire business model being torn apart.

 

No matter what ACS say, as far as we are aware (and many of use have been following this for years now) no contested court cases have ever gone ahead.

 

Take independant advice in order to craft your LoD. Give away as little information as possible - don't mention anything to them about your WiFi setup. Any information that you give them will be turned around and thrown straight back.

 

Also, your letters of denial will invariably be followed up by a letter stating that they will not accept you denial because you 'sent them a template from the internet'. Don't be frightened - they're just fishing for more information.

 

If we keep up pressure we will win. Other law firms have already pulled out of this game for bad publicity. The only reason that ACS have not followed suit is because they have no reputation to protect.

[Time on my hands]

Does ACS's activity concern only P2P sites? Or could it concern streaming sites also?

 

P2P is being targetted because they can try to claim that uploading took place. Therefore you can probably assume that DigiDodgy and their ilk may begin to see any website that allows uploads to take place to be an easy target for monitoring and IP harvesting.

[Time on my hands]

Hi All ,

 

While i was at work last week werecived our first suggesting that a pornographic film had been d/loaded using our connection in her panic my wife emailed acs law and offered a repayment plan to them. Upon returning from work and reading up on Acs Law i fired off a LOD safe in the knowledge i had done nothing of the sort. Today i have recived another letter accepting the repayment plan. What are my options now as i tend to belive that they will accept this plan as a addmission of guilt :-|

 

Wow - that's a tough one. It may all hang on what your wife said to them, particularly if she interpreted it as a bill, not as an accusation.

It may also depend on who the letter was addressed to.

But I'm sure that Crossley would do his best to twist this.

Can anyone else help?

[Time on my hands]

jonnyboy86,

 

 

Use it in conjunction with the advice on this forum. Some people choose not to use the template as sometimes ACS send a stupid letter back saying they won't respond to templates.

 

I used it for guidance and wrote my own.

 

ACS Law send that as a standard reply. You will be accused on using a template whether or not you did. The reason for his is because unless you give them a line of attack, accusing you of sending a non-valid letter is the only reply they have.

 

Ok. This is strange. I have today received a letter addressed for someone else, who has clearly had the same kind of correspondence as the rest of us. I can't give too much away as i feel that either myself or the person in question may be identified. I have no idea what to do at this point. I've tried to find the person using the internet and failed. If anyone knows how i may be able to track someone down using alternative methods, please get in touch.

 

They are using a mail-merge to send thousands of letters. This kind of mix-up has happened before (reported on the other forum about a year ago).

[Time on my hands]

 

how do you know when a case has been dropped though? would acs:law have to write to us to confirm it has been dropped?

 

 

To date ACS Law has made some token gestures at dropping cases. However the majority of us have not. My last letter of claim was around 9 months ago and I've heard nothing since.

 

Crossley is very fond of keeping a Damocles sword hanging over us, and admitting defeat would give our cause far too much ammunition, particularly when there is so little to differentiate each case.

[Time on my hands]

Answering some questions:

ACS law's clients are the legal rights holders for the P2P distribution of the work. Copyright ownership can be broken down, so different people or groups may own the rights for different types of distribution.

 

One issue that was raised some time ago was that P2P distribution of pR0n titles is illegal as the vendor needs to be licensed - and Digidogy/ logistep have no such license. Therefore they'd be on pretty shaky moral ground in court.

 

Regarding why ACS and their clients are not demanding that torrents be removed - why should they? If the torrents were not there then their revenue stream would dry up - remember that they only own P2P distribution rights. They cannot profit from legal sales of any of these works!

[Time on my hands]

Regarding entrapment and ACS law breaking the law - remember that it is only supposition that their clients ever seeded these torrents themselves.

 

It's like speed cameras - they're just watching the traffic and taking names. They're not telling the car manufacturers to make the max speed 30mph!

[Time on my hands]

Did you get any idea (no matter how rough) of how much they charge to make ACS go away?

 

They wont make them go away or drop the case. ACS have a tick sheet for defendants and a reply via a lawyer like Lawdit will make them more likely to let you drop off the radar (but this is balanced against anything else you disclose about yourself).

 

The reason for the £300 starting price is that this is similar to the cost of instructing a solicitor to write a defence, so the defendant is likely just to pay off ACS law to get rid of them.

 

A general concensus is that you might as well follow the Speculative Invoicing handbook and fire off your own letters for the cost of stamps.

[Time on my hands]

To all of you who have received a nastygram - paying up just feeds them more incentives to carry on with their scheme.

 

I know how frightening these letters can be - particularly the second or third, and especially if they happen to coincide with one of Andy's press releases (although these have been thin on the ground as of late).

 

Please read the speculative invoicing guide, and please understand the difference between accusations of uploading and downloading.

 

Give them nothing - no personal details, no money. Remember, some of us have been playing letter pingpong for over 2 years, although my last letter was nearly 10 months ago - a sure sign that he's finding it more profitable to bully newbies into coughing up.

 

Stand up to bullies! You're not in the playground now - you can fight back.

[Time on my hands]

i just want a decnts night sleep now, i'm so tired of worrying, i've done everything by the book, i have never downloaded anything without reading the T's & C's carefully, as for torrents, to be honest, i don't see the point, i'm a sucker for a CD. i'm going for a cry..........

 

The initial letters are frightening, but you'll eventually come to see that it's all bark and no bite. Remember, like all bullies these lawyers want you to be afraid so that you'll pay up, but this is their only weapon. As long as people stand up to them they'll fall back.

 

Remember - no one has yet been taken to court in a contested case, and this has been going on for years.

 

These lawyers are continually sending out new batches of claims - they're relying entirely on breaking you down with the first one or two. Their entire business model is based on NOT having to go to court.

[Time on my hands]

can no one advise me ?

 

Yes - get proper legal advice. Lawdit may be a good start. Alternatively pay up the £370.

 

Having 'owned up' to them has probably got them rubbing their hands with glee, particularly with the levels of negative publicity doing the rounds.

 

On the other hand, their line about "7 other people had downloaded it" seems a bit dodgy - this is information that they could not possibly have on the strength of their 'evidence' and data. This could be an outright lie on their part.