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

[multi]

It would be a good idea to send that with your LOD. They prey on ignorance.

Start on the front foot, start as you mean to go on and never be intimidated into paying if you've done no wrong. Show them you are well prepared to fight.

The system of tracing infringers by IP is seriously flawed and these people know it. If they cannot prove how and when a specific person did it it would be nigh on impossible to do so in court.

I strongly suspect this is a business model, rather than protecting intellectual property rights.

 

No, it wouldn't. They have a stock template replies in these cases that their evidence is infallible. It is very unlikley you'll be able to argue them away. I wouldn't attempt to engage with them on points of evidence. If they're wrong they're wrong and you have nothing to fear. They don't even accuse you of committing the infringement as required by the CDPA 1988, as they have no evidence of that.

Edited March 8, 2010 by MARTIN3030
Google CAG instead.

[multi]

Aaaaannd you can see what I mean about mental moderators.

 

Is there any reason you edited my post, Martin?

 

I did not link and am trying to point people in the direction of useful information.

 

Why is this a bad thing?

 

I have notified the site team about your behaviour.

Edited March 9, 2010 by multi

[multi]

Just a word of warning, i was browsing the ACS-Law (i can think of a few appropriate acronims) website and noticed a small paragraph claiming that they will hold you responsible for copyright infringement if you quote or post things on forums from their website.

How pathetic are they?!

 

Could you point me to where it say that?

 

Rather rich, seeing as they committed copyright infringement themselves in articles on their website: ACS:Law Anti-Piracy Lawyers Are Copyright Infringers | TorrentFreak

[multi]

It's hardly BT's fault, they were ordered by the court along with all the other IPs to disclose the information, if they hadn't they would have been in contempt of court.

 

Not true. Utterly and completely wrong. We know for a fact that these solicitors send out a letter asking the ISP to veryniceleythankyouverymuch not challenge the NPO.

 

If they refuse, they are simply dropped from the NPO. TalkTalk have done exactly this and there has been...

 

No retaliation. Whatsoever. No contempt of court, nothing. They are simply not on any of the latest NPOs.

[multi]

Quite so. I wish anyone luck in finding an ISP that will guarantee to refuse to comply with a court order

 

That's easy.

 

TalkTalk.

 

Neutralize UK File-Sharing Legal Threats – Join TalkTalk | TorrentFreak

 

Although, to be technical, TalkTalk reply to the nice letter they are sent before the NPO with a negative answer. They are not persued any further. They are dropped from the NPO.

 

TalkTalk have stated that they are willing to defend their Choice to refuse the NPO in court if they have to.

[multi]

Haha really? which ones then?

 

All they can do is defend/oppose the court action and with the data bill about to get passed into statute I cant see any judge opposing a request for information.

 

S.

 

TalkTalk.

 

Neutralize UK File-Sharing Legal Threats – Join TalkTalk | TorrentFreak

 

ACS law are such cowards that they simply do not bother pursuing ISPs who refuse not to contest the court order. They are simply dropped from the NPO instead. Remember, they are working on a no-win-no-fee basis so any sort of expensive action to force ISPs to hand over the info directly eats into their profit margin. Also TalkTakl would have a very good chance of winning if it ever went to Europe on the issue of proportionality.

 

Everyone should be asking why their ISPs are not doing the same.

[multi]

Hang on if the info they are being given is possibly faulse, as in the p2p info, they how can we for certain say the court order is real?

 

As H&P has said b4 look at how many solicitors are not having action brought against them when they lie, use deceptive methods etc.

Bryan carter has been known to and the evidence posted on here to send docs that look like court docs and to a untrained eye they are. Also how many time have we heard on here that **** have sent letters saying they have contacted the courts ordering the pass judgement against you for failing to file a defence when they clearly know you have??

 

Have anybody actually contacted the courts re the order or even spoken to the ISPs legal team about it?

 

People from another site (sorry apparently can't link it, or mention it's name (cough beingthreatened, cough slyck) have been at the hearings. They are 100% real and appear on the court's lists of upcoming cases when they happen.

[multi]

Are they?

 

Which ones?

 

Read up. TalkTalk

 

I'm fully aware Talk Talk didn't comply. Who is to say it wasn't a one off and in future they will?

 

Who is to say the ISP you left wont stitch you up by adding your IP to the list next time the court order comes along?

 

They have refused to comply with more than one. This makes it - by defenition - not a one off. They have also stated that they will continue to do so, possibly even once the DEB is passed.

[multi]

You said ISPs.

 

so it's just the one then?

 

The TalkTalk group includes several ISPs.

[multi]

Like I said previously, good luck to people in trying to find an ISP who wont cough up when ordered.

 

That doesn't make sense. The date of infringement has been given as when he was with Talk Talk. Looks like your foot stomping has come to nothing and you're still with an ISP who coughs. Whatcha gonna do now?

 

Looks like at some point Talk Talk coughed. They might have stopped coughing now but it appears they have history.

 

 

I'm wondering what interest you have in this. You have a very odd attitude. You also apparently seem to think you have all of the facts. You don't and your insistence on proving an erroneous point in the face of clear statements and evidence to the contrary is tiring.

 

The key facts here will be the date of the NPO and the internal processes followed during the takeover.

 

As I have said several times now, ACS and TBI send letters to ISPs asking them not to challenge the forthocming NPO. TalkTalk respond to this letter with a negative. If the previous ISP already said they wouldn't challenge the NPO, then TalkTalk *would* be in contempt of court. They'd have no choice but to follow through.

 

Also, you have no idea how long the existing ISPs legal team were in place after the changeover. You have no idea of the internal policy being followed over this sort of thing. It is hardly mind bending to imagine that they'd keep them the same until they had a look around the business and would see how best to change things gradually so the existing staff are all up to speed.

 

When a company buys another company it is *very* unusual for every single minutiae of policy to change instantly. Especially when they're the size of Tiscali / TalkTalk. Stop pretending it isn't.

 

Furthermore, the point isn't whether they *have* rolled over or not (we know they have, and they openly admit they did) but whether they *will* in the future. They have not rolled over for any recent orders and have publicly stated that they will not in the future. By all means be sceptical - and if they do roll over then be outraged. In the mean time, stop being so indefensibly obtuse about it.

[multi]

Translation: I work for Talk Talk.

 

 

Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.

 

Very good. But keep taking the pills.

 

(Oh, BTW I can be unthinking and come to a knee-jerk conclusion as well:

 

Translation: I work for ACS:law)

[multi]

I had to laugh when Scooter popped up, we all knew what was coming next but I noticed they blurred out the name on the letter (ACS Law ?).

 

Andy

 

That was a bit bizarre...

 

I know Davenport Lyons (and particularly ACS law) can be a bit quick to jump to threats of legal action but it's not as if DL haven't been featured on the Beeb, and ACS don't actually send out the letters.

 

Very odd.

[multi]

 

BBC News - Lords pass controversial internet piracy bill

 

Digital rights bill passed.

 

People are grouping together to fight it here (booking day off work to make the most of it, but it's early evening).

 

Open Rights Group | Stop Disconnection without trial

 

ORG plans Digital Economy Bill protest | Games Industry | MCV

 

Slightly ambiguously worded article from the BBC there. It's been passed by the lords but the commons are yet to have heir bite of the apple. Progress of the bill can be tracked here: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html A date doesn't appear to have been set for it's commons debut.

 

Having said that a lot of people seem determined to push this lot through before the election. There is a real danger that the debate will be severely limited and there will instead be discussions between a select few frontenchers. There is advice on the Slyck thread (google it) about this topic with a list of who you need to write to to outline your views.

Edited March 16, 2010 by multi

[multi]

ACS LAW ATTEMPT TO SILENCE SUPPORT FORUM THREADS

ACS law have attempted to close down three threads at another site (which, apparently must not be named here - Ahem, Slyck, ahem). These threads in particular have been very useful in co-ordinating letter writing campaigns and providing support to those who are falsely accused.

 

For the full story:

 

Click here (possibly NSFW title)

 

and

 

ACS:Law – Back in the news again! OPEN BYTES – cave quid dicis, quando, et cui.

 

and

 

http://torrentfreak.com/uk-anti-piracy-lawyers-threaten-file-sharing-forum-100322/

 

Unfortunately for ACS law, the site has gone to the EFF for defence and has refused to back down as (a) the accusations appear to be groundless and (b) they do not have jurisdiction in the US - in particular New York, where the site is based.

 

Hilarious. This doesn't count as bullying tactics, then?

Edited March 22, 2010 by multi

[multi]

Someone should make a google cahce of both threads (assuming of course that such a thing is allowed) and this one in the event that any info or proof of their tactics gets taken down.

 

They are going to be archived and distributed ;o)

 

UK Anti-Piracy Lawyers Threaten File-Sharing Forum | TorrentFreak

[multi]

The DEB is not yet through completely or final (i believe). Also I do not believe that they can hold you responsible for the security of your wireless connection prior to any law coming into effect, only thereafter as the legeslation was not in effect at that time.

 

 

The DEB got through the commons and the lords. It received royal assent and is now law - The Digital Economy Act.

 

However, The technical measures and notification procedures are unlikley to be in effect for several months, possibly not until the end of this year / beginning of next year. There is to be deveral more periods of consultation and fiddling with it yet.

 

ACS:law have declared victory and, characteristically are misunderstanding it utterly. According to them, the DEA (Digital Economy Act) makes the person who owns the connection responsible for the infringment. This is 100% false. It does not change the sections of the CDPA 1988 in question and if they want to take you to court for financial damages they still cannot make the connection holder liable for them.

[multi]

Er, Was that really a "commercial" link, mods?

 

I would reccomend anyone interested in actually discussing this freely decamp to a certain forum threatened with libel. Also, check out beingthreatened. Google the speculative invoicing guide.