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

[floppydog]

I have a question - Chicken or egg ? Did they get the ip addresses with the content and then go looking for clients ? if this is the case how legal can that be ? I have read many posts but no one has ever commented on this.

[floppydog]

It appears that there is a new company entering this business.They are Gallant MacMillan a company based in Soho. My friend tells me that the letter the received has the same allegations that are not unsimilar to ACS. Anyone else received a letter ? Thay also post in the highly trackable and reliable second class post.

[floppydog]

@captain-123 . Apparently it is for £ 375 'ish around April 10 for alleged offence. Ministry of Sound I have been informed. However it says that Easynet has identified my friend as the owner of the IP address, but they are not with Easynet....strange !!

[floppydog]

@captain-123 I understand that, however if they say that it was Easynet who gave out the details, I know for a fact that the supplier was not affiliated to Easynet. Which then beggers the question, how did they get the details of my friend ? Is there file sharing going on amongst these solictors. How ironic would that be !! There is one big diffence in the letters they send out, if you are willing to pay the price they are asking, you can keep the downloaded file as long as you do not share it. The Gallant MacMillan web site is apparently www.pay-2-play.co.uk

Edited July 9, 2010 by floppydog
Bad spolling

[floppydog]

To help address the issue,Ministry Of Sound instructed a software company ( no idea who it is as it is not stated ) to identify occassions when it's music is made available for download on peer to peer ('P2P') networks without its concent.

 

The letter then states the IP Address Date & Time Name of P2P network.

 

It looks like its a cut down version of ACS letter. It also has the Settlement Agreement ( A Legal Contract ) asking you to sign it saying you will not download any songs from the ministry of sound and pay the sum of £ ( amount asked). You will be able to keep the alleged downloaded album for private use.

 

I am guessing a cloned or clonish ACS approach. However it is interesting to note that they do not tell you who the software company are who are monitoring for their works

[floppydog]

Please remember there are many companies out there who supply BT, Sky etc with access to the internet. It's like network rail owns the railways but many companies use them. With regards to them getting your details it would be whatever company was supplying these companies at the time would be asked for your details. e.g. Sky may be your ISP but the access they use could belong to Easynet or any other supplier of internet access.

[floppydog]

As far as I am aware. Most ISP use what is referred to as dynamic addressing. Which means that you do not have the same ip address all of the time. Please remember they will have a note of which person was allocated what ip address at a certain time and date and for how long.

[floppydog]

@kilotango22 - Thank you, you are perfectly correct.

[floppydog]

To hopefully try and clear something up. With regards to MOS and any of theirs' or other compilation albums. These companies take out what is referred to as a mechanical copyright. They basically pay for the priveledge of producing a compilation album. The costs involved are something like cost per track + quantity created (the more you make the better the discount). So they will pay someone normally MCPS who then distribute these charges for tracks to the copyright holders. MOS or who ever makes these compilations ( Now 1 - 78 etc) then get to keep all the money they then make. The album is sold with their "Trade Name" like MOS 80's blah blah in order to make money off of their copyrighted album name. Let's just call it Speculative Track Selection !!

[floppydog]

Ok should someone be silly enough to download Vienna as you have stated or any other torrent. The copyright for that particular track will belong to whoever compiled that particular compilation, either Ultravox themselves or MOS or HITS etc etc.

[floppydog]

It really is this simple - They have spent money in creating the compilation, as far as they are concerned they expect to make a certain amount of £££ from these albums. If it was myself that had created the album I would expect to get a return on it. But also take into consideration this fact - anytime that compilation is played on air they will get a renumeration for it, but also the original artists as well. The whole music industry is about making money, talent may be discovered along the way but if you consider how much is made through copyright, sheet music, air play, concerts etc etc - it really is a goose laying the golden egg. No one but no one in the industry wants to loose money, what they should consider is pricing it in such a way that everyone can afford it. If they asked you to pay £ 52.00 a year to stream any track(s) from any album(s) unlimited plaing that you wanted you would, but they won't as they can make more money by charging £ 8.00 - £ 15.99 per album. Then again consider that 4 - 6 months after the initial release of an album it normally ends up the bargain buckets of Tesco, Asda,Sainsbury's etc....you can bet that they are not losing money selling them at that price. Rant almost over - ask yourself this, how much does the actual person who wrote the song that topped the charts actually gets from all this speculative invoicing scheme ??? I do not have a clue but I am guessing it is the records companies who are making it and the actual artists are getting a few mouldy crumbs.

[floppydog]

Oh and the lawyers may make a few quid as well LOL!!!!

[floppydog]

@jamuir - by law all radio companies must produce their playlists and from what album / single was involved. I think that you will find that when it comes to MOS don't get a lot for their compilations, only the physical sales.

[floppydog]

Can all newbies & those who do not read all of the posts please remember that the only information these people have on you is the information that they receive from your ISP via the (questionable) Norwich Pharmacal Order from the court. This basically is the name of the account holder on the ISP and their address. It does not include you e mail address, your home or mobile telephone number, your marital status, your income, sexual persuation, your inside leg measurement or bugger all. Remember if you wish to call them you probably will give them your telephone number, if you e mail them they will then have an e mail address where they can contact you. They have no information on you except those that the ISP had to give them. They are constantly on the look out to trap you into giving them anything you are willing to give up. A recorded delivery reply (LOD) is all that is require. Just remember that anything that you are willing to give them may very well come back to bite you in the rear end.

Always ensure that your brain is working before you engage your mouth or writing hands.

[floppydog]

Just because they send you a letter by second class pigeon post does not prove you did not get it. They assume that because they have send it by Royal Mail and have a list of it then you cannot say you did not get it. I only say Recorded Delivery because you can then prove you sent something back to them. With regards to wether or not you have any files on your computer that you should or should not have is something that you would know. All I can say is if like me you did not do it, then by all means send a LOD. If however you did do it, try and make a more sensible offer than they are trying to extort from you. We are all on this site trying to offer you some guidance, if you are in the crapper so to speak I think that we would all recommend that you seek professional help.

[floppydog]

With regards to you have downloaded 1 and uploaded as many as they want you to believe. They cannot prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you did it. They can argue that that IP address that was allocated to you was being used to make this alleged upload / download. If they were standing over your shoulder looking at you doing it, if they had the police banging on your door when you were doing it, then you could put up your hands and say yep " I'm guilty". What they cannot prove is that the IP address that was allocated was in fact yours (not being spoofed, hijacked or otherwise) and that you were downloading / uploading as they are stating. It is all a game of we say you say. It's almost like Cluedo, Cascada - Evacuate the dancefloor - utorrent. Oh, is that wrong can I have another guess !!!

[floppydog]

Another BIG MISCONCEPTION. Because you are downloading you must be uploading. Anyone who truley knows torrents will agree that if you are downloading (leeching) you can set up the software to allow as many uploaders as you wish or NONE !!!!. Most downloaders setup their software to acheive this. The lawyers all assume that because you are downloading, you must be uploading (distributing) the file.

[floppydog]

From the pages of Wikipedia + a personal quote

 

Inference is the process of drawing a conclusion by applying heuristics (based on logic, statistics etc.) to observations or hypotheses; or by interpolating the next logical step in an intuited pattern. The conclusion drawn is also called an inference. The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic.

Human inference (i.e. how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology; artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference. Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data.

Greek philosophers defined a number of syllogisms, correct three-part inferences, that can be used as building blocks for more complex reasoning. We begin with the most famous of them all:

 

 

1.All men are mortal

2.Socrates is a man

3.Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

 

The reader can check that the premises and conclusion are true, but Logic is concerned with inference: does the truth of the conclusion follow from that of the premises?

 

The validity of an inference depends on the form of the inference. That is, the word "valid" does not refer to the truth of the premises or the conclusion, but rather to the form of the inference. An inference can be valid even if the parts are false, and can be invalid even if the parts are true. But a valid form with true premises will always have a true conclusion.

 

For example, consider the form of the following symbological track:

 

1.All A are B

2.C is A

3.Therefore, C is B

 

The form remains valid even if all three parts are false:

 

1.All apples are blue.

2.A banana is an apple.

3.Therefore, a banana is blue.

 

For the conclusion to be necessarily true, the premises need to be true.

 

Now we turn to an invalid form.

 

1.All A are B.

2.C is a B.

3.Therefore, C is an A.

 

To show that this form is invalid, we demonstrate how it can lead from true premises to a false conclusion.

 

1.All apples are fruit. (True)

2.Bananas are fruit. (True)

3.Therefore, bananas are apples. (False)

 

A valid argument with false premises may lead to a false conclusion:

 

1.All people who have a computer with an internet connection are pirates

2.You say that you have a computer and an internet connection.

3.Therefore, you are a pirate

 

How can logic be this simple ??

[floppydog]

@8of9 - try this, go to http://drs-software.com/download.php keep it in the German page. Then right hand click the page and translate with Bing. Now watch while your IP address changes magically !!!!

[floppydog]

Interesting article - http://www.newsintech.com/2009/10/german-anti-piracy-body-promote-illegal-downloading/700

[floppydog]

The shared folder is the default for all of these programmes like u torrent, bit torrent, firewire, limewire etc - so it concludes that if it is in that folder it must be dodgy !!. It is also the default for Microsoft software like, Word, Excel, Powepoint etc etc

[floppydog]

@count orlock - actually the ip address of Bing is - 65.55.175.254

[floppydog]

@kilotango22 - Just a little note to say that the ISP they are quoting is the one who had that IP address on line at the time. Please remember that O2, Orange, Plusnet, Sky etc etc rent lines off of other companies to make sure they can supply their quota.

[floppydog]

As you said about Talk Talk,I'am sure that they have more info than they are giving us. When they have asked for the ISP provider they will be given the info in the style of Be-Unlimited at that time used by B Sky B. So if it said Talk Talk they would obviously ignore it. IMO.

[floppydog]

Great News !!!........What is regretful is that he will still be able to continue his current line of letters until then.