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

[NitrousOxide]

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=50891

 

I think because it has a swear word in the title it is being filtered out. The address has **** in it so will not display the page correctly.

Edited July 2, 2010 by NitrousOxide

[mrdebts]

The whole ACS Law/Slyck thing was hillarious....Crossley just refers back to his old debt collector default position eventually by using lanaguage such as "you have failed" lol

As with any debt collector or solicitor for that matter, the minute you put them in their place & tell them what is what they soon back off.

The only way people like Crossley even remotely succeed is because of the still many people out there who will cave into him from the start sadly.

[bigD27]

Hello all again, I have just received a 3rd letter. Whats worrying about this one is that I had only sent off my LOD to the 2nd letter last week.

 

Its totally freaking me out as I was thinking that it would be at least a month before I'd hear back from them again....if ever. I'm one of the MediaCAT bunch from February and received a 2nd letter at the begining of June. I did not do what I'm being accused of (well my IP is being accused of) neither did I allow anyone to do so.

 

Am now seriously thinking about getting intouch with Michael Coyle at Lawdit, as has been stated on this forum. Has anyone been in contact with him before? Did it help? It seems that this 3rd letter will be the last "good natured" one before a court summons. Got an FAQ letter attached in with the "invoice", not that it makes any difference to the fact that I never did it. Fee has not changed, and have 14 days to respond. Feeling some real pressure here......

[youtube]

He is trying to scare you into paying, this is how it works. The letters get more and more threatening, ranging from "last letter before court" or "part 36" offers etc. The chances of you going to court are slim but its that slim margin that usually is enough to scare people into paying, guilty or not. As a guilty person is actually in exactly the same position as an innocent person in this situation, as in you can not prove you didn't commit the offence.

 

Your options,

 

1, Ignore it,

2, Pay up and it goes away,

3, reply and probably get a 4th letter.

 

If you have clearly stated your case in your first and second letters, and do not want to pay then you are probably best to ignore it.

 

P.S, the reason his reply was fast is because it is coming to the end of this batch of invoices, he has another 45,000 ip's to sort out soon if nothing changes with regards to the law and judges handing out the court orders with out thinking of the consequences.

Edited July 5, 2010 by youtube

[Scooby Doo69]

He is trying to scare you into paying, this is how it works. The letters get more and more threatening, ranging from "last letter before court" or "part 36" offers etc. The chances of you going to court are slim but its that slim margin that usually is enough to scare people into paying, guilty or not. As a guilty person is actually in exactly the same position as an innocent person in this situation, as in you can not prove you didn't commit the offence.

 

Your options,

 

1, Ignore it,

2, Pay up and it goes away,

3, reply and probably get a 4th letter.

 

If you have clearly stated your case in your first and second letters, and do not want to pay then you are probably best to ignore it.

 

P.S, the reason his reply was fast is because it is coming to the end of this batch of invoices, he has another 45,000 ip's to sort out soon if nothing changes with regards to the law and judges handing out the court orders with out thinking of the consequences.

 

Paying up ISN'T the answer, unless of course if you are guilty (even then the monies claimed is out of proportion to the offence). All you are doing by paying up when innocent is marking yourself as a target for further claims. Yes, it may be a mistake or more than likely someone has hijacked your IP or spoofing it, so chances are more infringements will come to light.

 

Anyway, why would you pay if you hadn't done the infringement?

 

I've said all along, a single LOD stating the facts without giving away unnecessary information and advising no further correspondance will be entered into should suffice.

[beverly hills]

hi, new user, been following thread since page 110 when I got my first letter in march/april time, used the great advice here to construct my first LOD and everything else.

I need to reply to my 2nd letter soon but am struggling with what to write, wondered if anyone can help or point me in the right direction, i'm not stupid, but as this is legal stuff, detailed help would be great, thinking for myself is no good lol!

 

it's a media cat case, "no payment,satisfactory response" "response was template response,declined to accept at face value" "if it becomes necessary to issue proceedings" "therefore urge you to use this opportunity to settle"

 

also included is a fact sheet.

 

thanks in advance,

BH

[Scooby Doo69]

hi, new user, been following thread since page 110 when I got my first letter in march/april time, used the great advice here to construct my first LOD and everything else.

I need to reply to my 2nd letter soon but am struggling with what to write, wondered if anyone can help or point me in the right direction, i'm not stupid, but as this is legal stuff, detailed help would be great, thinking for myself is no good lol!

 

it's a media cat case, "no payment,satisfactory response" "response was template response,declined to accept at face value" "if it becomes necessary to issue proceedings" "therefore urge you to use this opportunity to settle"

 

also included is a fact sheet.

 

thanks in advance,

BH

 

First let me say I am no legal expert and you are advise to seek independent legal advise, but if you have already issue a LOD, my response would be that you note their contents and you position remains unchanged and refer them to your first LOD. The most important point is to advise them that you will not enter into any further correspondance. This way if they fish again it could be construed as harrassment.

[youtube]

Paying up ISN'T the answer, unless of course if you are guilty (even then the monies claimed is out of proportion to the offence). All you are doing by paying up when innocent is marking yourself as a target for further claims. Yes, it may be a mistake or more than likely someone has hijacked your IP or spoofing it, so chances are more infringements will come to light.

 

Anyway, why would you pay if you hadn't done the infringement?

 

I've said all along, a single LOD stating the facts without giving away unnecessary information and advising no further correspondance will be entered into should suffice.

 

Was just outlining all his options.

 

Oh by the way, one thing to note. No mater of your actions how you handle your particular case, you are at no way at more risk of receiving more letters for potential future cases no mater what you choose to do. If your ip address pops up on the lists, denied previous or paid. You will receive a new letter regardless. If evidence started falling out of the trees "ie made up" the people involved would have long jail sentence because of the millions of pounds claimed and received and more to come, I really doubt ACS would pursue this path.

 

The absolute worst thing you can do in any case is sign the contract thing you will receive with your first letter. This is a 100% admission of guilt and could lead to worse consequences if "you" are caught again sharing the file/files. So I would advise no body to sign this and if you are guilty of said offence contact a solicitor to bargain down the fee to a more reasonable level and insist on not signing this "contract" (I cant remember the legal name for it).

 

I wonder what the outcome of the Ofcom digital rights review will be. Discussion is due to end on the 30th of July, will be interesting.

 

Oh one quest i would like to ask, what was the outcome of the One Show thing? has it been cancelled because nobody was willing to appear in front of the camera because of the sheer embarrassment factor of being accused of sharing porn? Or will the feature continue with out an interview?

Edited July 6, 2010 by youtube

[johnsmith999]

OK ACS Law are back in court today to get more addresses,

Court Hearings - Proceedings Before the Masters' Chancery Division

Proceedings Before the Masters – Chancery Division

 

ROOM TM7.08

Before CHIEF MASTER WINEGARTEN

Wednesday 7th July 2010

At half past 11

Media C.A.T. v BE Unlimited

 

Prepare for a new batch of letters, unless we can get the ISPs to fight back as so far from the thousands of names and addresses and subsequent letters, not one person has been taken to court over this.

 

BRITISH JUSTICE.........i think not:cry:

[zero_flight]

OK ACS Law are back in court today to get more addresses,

Court Hearings - Proceedings Before the Masters' Chancery Division

 

 

Prepare for a new batch of letters, unless we can get the ISPs to fight back as so far from the thousands of names and addresses and subsequent letters, not one person has been taken to court over this.

 

BRITISH JUSTICE.........i think not:cry:

 

What on earth is going on now ?. Why is a single provider being taken to court ?. Maybe the provider has taken the company to court ?.

[cashins]

my response would be that you note their contents and you position remains unchanged and refer them to your first LOD. The most important point is to advise them that you will not enter into any further correspondance. This way if they fish again it could be construed as harrassment.

 

Agree

 

David

[johnsmith999]

BE Unlimited, the ISP on todays NPO are also one of the ISP's on the 19 Nov 09 NPO, which states in Clause 11.

Within six months of the date of disclosure referred to in paragraph 3 above, the Applicant shall provide to Respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 a written report stating precisely from the relevant names disclosed (1) how many of those persons were sent letters of claim, and (2) against which persons legal proceedings were issued."

BE Unlimited are Respondent 1. They should have got a report from ACS Law by now. If they have received it and it says what we all think it will say, that noone has been taken to court, then they should have contested the NPO.

 

Another ISP not standing up for its PAYING SUBSCRIBERS!!

[8of9]

BE Unlimited, the ISP on todays NPO are also one of the ISP's on the 19 Nov 09 NPO, which states in Clause 11.

BE Unlimited are Respondent 1. They should have got a report from ACS Law by now. If they have received it and it says what we all think it will say, that noone has been taken to court, then they should have contested the NPO.

 

Another ISP not standing up for its PAYING SUBSCRIBERS!!

 

 

So, does this mean that the other ISP's are?

Have any of them received a report as to how many have been taken to court? Have any of them confirmed that they have even asked for the information that is legally obliged to be provided?

It does seem to be curious that only BE Unlimited are being targeted on this NPO as all the others were targeted on the February order.

 

Could it be that they have, after all, been working together on our behalf, quietly and unassuming in the background, collecting their evidence, not wanting to alert Mr Crossley of their intentions, waiting for the right time to strike back to champion the innocent .......OOOPS, so sorry... I got a bit carried away!!!!!!

 

Anyway... it still goes on

[youtube]

Apparently the courts only list 1 defendant........... and as BE probably in alphabetical order would appear at the top the rest are (I am not certain) but probably on there.

[zero_flight]

Apparently the courts only list 1 defendant........... and as BE probably in alphabetical order would appear at the top the rest are (I am not certain) but probably on there.

 

 

Does this mean that there is going to be another batch of claim letters sent out ?.

[BARFLY]

Anyone with BT received an allegation from the November 2009 NPO? Just read on Slyck that it's possible these have not even gone out yet! There were 25 000 from BT on that NPO!

[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.

[captain-123]

@floppydog do you have any further information? Amount claimed, the song name, album, monitoring company etc.

[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 !!

[captain-123]

I think Easynet rent their bandwidth to other companies along the line of BT which rent to Sky at least I think that is the case.

 

So in the same ball parks as ACS. Do they mention the monitoring company?

Edited July 9, 2010 by captain-123

[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

[Scooby Doo69]

I think Easynet rent their bandwidth to other companies along the line of BT which rent to Sky at least I think that is the case.

 

So in the same ball parks as ACS. Do they mention the monitoring company?

 

You are right. Easynet lease their lines out.

 

Is this confirmed as a new player in the mailshot campaign?

[joe1979]

hi, i just registered here, by doing a search about a letter for galland macmillian, asking for 375 for filesharing a ministry of sound file, it states i can keep the copy but not to share it, it states the ip address, date and time, what do i do??? thanks for any answers

[captain-123]

MASTER WINEGARTEN

Tuesday 27th April 2010

 

At 11 o’clock

Ministry of Sound Recordings v Entanet International Ltd

 

Entanet International Ltd is a wholesaler of broadband - although generally to business / resellers rather than direct to the public.

 

This is what was posted on slyc . com

 

I'm not sure what has happened if your friends ISP has no affiliation with Entanet or isn't on the NPO. I don't think that solisitors are allowed to pass information to one another

[safe_hands]

hi i have received this same letter this morning any advice on how to proceed would be good as the mrs is blowing a gasket as the broadband is in her name