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

[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.

[kilotango22]

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.

 

I think you mean, which account it was allocated to.

[youtube]

Ok, here something intersting I never thought about when I received my letter a few months ago.

 

On the agreement they want you to sign it says something along the lines of "if a minor committed the infringement they should also sign"

 

Basically they fully admit just by saying this they have not a single clue who has committed this offence. They are a joke.

 

Even after a few months i still get that sick feeling when checking the post when I get home from work. I absolutely detest this excuse of a man, grow some balls and stop bullying. He will get his cumupense, hopefully very soon.

 

The one show moved the show to this Thursday, blame Will Smith for being on on Friday. (This show will host the article about all these file sharing allegations)

[twinkleb]

QC's view raises doubt on online piracy cases - Which? News

[floppydog]

@kilotango22 - Thank you, you are perfectly correct.

[Jasper1965]

QC's view raises doubt on online piracy cases - Which? News

 

That's interesting.

 

{From ACS Law website}

 

 

1. It is suggested that I never issue any claims. This is not true. It is fair and correct to say that I try to avoid litigation wherever possible and exhaust all other avenues falling short of litigation prior to proceedings being issued (open offers of settlement, extensive correspondence, CPR Part 36 offers, final warning letters and so on), but proceedings have been and will continue to be issued in appropriate cases. Litigation has always been the final option in the processes I invoke on behalf of my clients and the number and frequency of such actions is shortly to increase significantly. However, each case will be assessed on its individual merits before a decision is taken to issue proceedings.
   

Andrew J. Crossley

1st May 2010

 

 

Which? responds to Wyand's opinion

 

Deborah Prince, head of Which?’s legal affairs, welcomed the legal opinion. ‘This provides an insight into where UK law stands on this issue,’ she said.

‘Only one case on this issue has reached the courts [brought by a client of Davenport Lyons] in 2008 where the defendant did not turn up so a default ruling was made. It's still unclear where the law stands on this issue.

 

 

Who to believe eh?

[8of9]

If you didn,t do it and you're sure that no one else has done it. Theres no trace of the file on your HD and you're wondering if there is an explaination, maybe.....

 

Flaw could expose 'millions' of home routers ? The Register

 

 

If it happened to you, can it be proved or disproved?

[loopy77]

I have been browsing this thread for a short while since being asked to help with someone else's letter. I studied Law for a while, am no expert, but I wanted to share...

 

Your IP address is dynamic, unless you ask for a static one. At the time of the alleged infringements the IP address shown on the letter would have been assigned to you, but it probably is now assigned to someone else.

 

Easynet is owned by BSkyB, lots of Internet Service Providers are commercially known by other names.

 

Ignoring the letter is probably not the best practice, since you will be in default for not responding. Responding doesn't need to be scary, if you didn't do it - deny it, at least you won't be in default and you have satisfied the "rules of the game". If you haven't done what they are alleging then keep saying so.

 

It's easy to get scared these days, we are all breaking rules everyday without even trying! What the hell is left really - the pub!

 

Many people (like the person I know) have probably downloaded the file and NOT uploaded the file. I know many are very confused at this. I was confused of how to word the letter of response shall we call it.

 

I read the horrid letter a few times, so far the initial page states that "made available for download" which to me says - UPLOADED not downloaded.

 

Never answer imaginary questions, it can be tempting to supply all sorts of information - who uses the net, you have a copy but you bought it from somewhere and did this and that etc, and thus load their guns. Be to the point. Just reply to their allegations and do not elaborate.

 

The other point is that the alleged copyright infringement is traced to your IP and not you personally, but it is you being asked personally for compensation/settlement.

 

I would say there are so many gray areas, the Law Lords are currently likening these thieves to cowboy car clampers - I think that is about the best analogy I have heard. While the SRA are proposing some sort of statement next week.

 

The other thing - perhaps paranoia - why is it that only those who have either "downloaded and not uploaded", or neither, are on here, where are all the BIG file sharers? Surely they would also be on here? Makes me wonder who put the file out there in the first place! I wonder.....

[captain-123]

Innocent people caught up in this who would like the chance to make a difference might want to wander over to the slyck . com forum and message a user called factual.

 

These are the only requirements of volunteers:

* you must be innocent of the alleged copyright infringement according to the CPDA 1988

* you must be able to spare at least four hours during the next month (the timing of these four hours is up to you; they can be in a block, or spread out)

* you must be committed to stopping the speculative invoicing scheme

* you must not be an idiot

Volunteers will be given all of the materials they require. The action is wholly legal and respectable.

 

Anyone?

[wonkyfunk303]

Well I sent my Lod by recorded post months ago, not heard anything back at all. Even phoned them to make sure they got it! I think it was about April/may I sent it!

[kilotango22]

@Loopy77

 

I have read the code of conduct for Pre-Action conduct which is available on ACS website.

 

It states:

 

3.2 The letter of claim should:

(a) state that the letter follows this Code and that the defendant should

also do so;

(b) unless the letter is being sent to the legal advisors of the defendant, enclose a copy of this Code;

© identify the claimant;

(d) list the remedies that the claimant seeks;

(e) give details of any funding arrangements entered into.

 

You say on your post and I believe what you say to be entirely correct the following:

 

Ignoring the letter is probably not the best practice, since you will be in default for not responding. Responding doesn't need to be scary, if you didn't do it - deny it, at least you won't be in default and you have satisfied the "rules of the game". If you haven't done what they are alleging then keep saying so.

 

Now then, on the letters that ACS law send out, he states that his letter fully complies with the code of conduct, however section 3.2(b) clearly states he has to send you a copy of the code, not make it available on his website.

 

Surely by not adhering to the letter of the code of conduct this so called solicitor has not played by the rules himself?

 

The only reason for not sending the code is that it would add a considerable amount to his postage costs. He already sends his letters out on the cheap using Royal Mails mailsort service. Adding another 22 pages of A4 would almost certainly require him to use a packet service and may not be so lucrative.

Edited July 20, 2010 by kilotango22
Missed out a word..

[8of9]

Just read a post on the Plusnet forum with an interesting theory.

 

An application which can load up a torrent file downloaded from a torrent site, they then monitor all the incoming connections and log their IP addresses, they note the address as well as the date/time then ask the ISP to supply the information for the person who was using that IP address at that time on that date. Their software will only connect to the torrent to harvest IP addresses, if it started to share the file then by definition ACS (as a rights holder) would imply the rights to share are a given making any person who connects to them having the right owners permission to share the file and not in breach of copyright law.

 

Its a common belief that torrents have been placed to harvest IP addresses. So could there be something in this?

[youtube]

Just read a post on the Plusnet forum with an interesting theory.

 

 

 

Its a common belief that torrents have been placed to harvest IP addresses. So could there be something in this?

 

It would be just as hard to prove this as it would be to prove any individual shared the file they claim.

 

Too much thought is going into these things now, their system is hugely flawed. They present "evidence" that could of been completely made up. ONLY THEY have logged an IP ADDRESS, (somebody has paid for this service, and results make money) If the IP address was in fact ever used in the sharing they claim is impossible for them to prove. If they could prove it then they would have to prove it was "YOU" who downloaded it, again impossible.

 

(IP addresses can be harvested so easily. Even random number strings that fit standard IP address numbering by an automated program put into a whois type site would yeild hundreds and hundreds of UK ips on a daily basis, LOG, TIMESTAMP, "insert file name of choice here", get court order, send threatening letters, Profit)

 

Its a sure fire loss in court.

 

ACS "I represent my client who has paid this monitoring man to catch people distributing my clients copyrighted files and he says they did"

 

Judge "Please show your evidence"

 

ACS "here are some numbers and a file name"

 

Judge "Thats nice how do I know it actually happened"

 

ACS "because my monitoring man says so"

 

Judge ".......?????"

 

etc

 

An independent monitoring company would have to be used who have nothing to gain from this, only then can their evidence be trusted. Their monitoring company are probably getting a % of every payment received. So the more ips they produce the more profit they potentially make and the more potential for forged evidence.

Edited July 20, 2010 by youtube

[STC12]

Agree with youtube !

 

ACS need evidence that you - the person named on the letter - uploaded the file. They dont have this evidence, only that your IP address MAY have been used to upload a file.

 

So, send a LOD then its up to THEM, no matter how may letters they send you, to provide this evidence at court. They do not have this evidence !

 

To repeat for all newcomers, their "evidence" is not sufficient to prove, you the named person on the letter, infringed their copyright and their "evidence " has never been tested in court, as they know it will not stand up.

 

Reminder, when sending a Letter of Denial (LOD), stick to the basic facts and offer no further information to them at all. theories about torrents etc might be interesting for discussion but this forum needs to be a point of reference for first time readers : it helped me and we need to keep helping all new readers.

[8of9]

It would be just as hard to prove this as it would be to prove any individual shared the file they claim.

 

I was trying to explore the copyright angle rather than the validity if the evidence.

So, if a torrent has been placed to harvest IP addresses by ACS Law, then the copyright holder must have authorised it and its placement for download and therefore authorised it for sharing. Does this then imply that anyone who connects to this file has permission to share this file and is not in breach of copyright?

[youtube]

No idea mate, that's quite technical. Somebody like the guy at LAWDIT could potentially answer it.

 

Im guessing if the Rights holder has given permission for it to be Uploaded to ACS then yes. But ACS claim their monitors actively track torrents already available, which is BS. We all know they placed them and have no intention to try and remove them as they make more money with this scheme than actually selling their product.

 

Why are the same torrents people were accused of downloading over two years ago still active? the rights holders can have them taken down in a day.

 

What goes around comes around and these people are in for a WHOLE LOAD of terrible stuff if this old adage is true. I for one cannot wait.

Edited July 20, 2010 by youtube

[8of9]

I've no idea either. Just thinking "outside the box".

The rights holders have the opportunity to have illegal copies of their work removed from most torrent sites. As these torrents have been placed with the full knowledge of the rights holder then aren't they offering their work to share?

[youtube]

I guess yes, cant say for sure as im not an expert.

 

I know its not what your after but proving it is next to impossible so if it gives you some comfort knowing this and bolstering you about how bad their evidence is go with it. Grab anything that gives you more and more confidence to NOT PAY them.

 

I say this because innocent people are paying up, or paying up for on behalf of somebody else who abused their connection.

Edited July 20, 2010 by youtube

[8of9]

No intention of paying a dime.

Just trying to look at it from another angle and hopefully give another line of defence when someone is taken to court:lol:

[8of9]

Pirate Bay Tricks Anti-Pirates with Fake Peers | TorrentFreak

 

Does this still happen?

[loopy77]

Hi Kiltango,

 

I am not so informed regarding the ACS:Law letters, but if you haven't received a copy of the code of conduct then they have not followed procedure accordingly.

 

I am not sure whether this would invalidate the letter itself, and probably still best to send a LOD/LOR in any circumstance. It would be unwise in my opinion to rely on the fact you didn't receive a copy as any sort of reason for not replying, but I would also assume any Judge would not approve of operating outside of legal procedure.

 

I think next week the SRA are reporting their findings into ACS:Law regarding these letters, and given the quantity of people complaining I would expect that some have complained about their adherence to the code.

 

I must say I am not an expert, and if you are uncertain after having received a letter then a good idea to get qualified legal advice.

Best wishes

[kilotango22]

Hi Loopy77

 

I'm not sure it would invalidate the letter or not either. I just find it strange that if you fail to play by the rules you can loose and if ACS law don't play by the rules you could still potentially loose. I do believe if you have shown you have obeyed the rules, if anyone ever did find themselves in court then the fact that ACS law haven't could only go in your favour.

 

I have sent my LOD off, I have recieved my paperwork from the Solicitors Regulation Authority to fill in which I shall do now. I am also putting a covering letter with mine to highlight the fact that ACS Law hasn't followed the code. I fully expect them to sweep it all under the carpet though as it seems what ACS Law and the other companies are doing is not illegal which really surprises me.

 

If I were to write to someone and say, Hi, we have your address, we aren't accusing you of doing anything, but if we take you to court it would cost you a fortune to prove you didn't, even though its impossible to prove you didn't do it, so be a good chap and bung us a few hundred quid and we'll go away. I'm sure the boys in blue would come knocking at my door and ask what I'm playing at.

 

Its my intention if I start getting further letters after they get my LOD, which I am sure they'll reject as its a template to go to the police and make an allegation of harrasment against them. I think everyone else should do the same.

Edited July 21, 2010 by kilotango22
Spelt user name wrong, sorry mate :-)

[Billpayerr]

Just read a post on the Plusnet forum with an interesting theory.

 

, if it started to share the file then by definition ACS (as a rights holder) would imply the rights to share are a given making any person who connects to them having the right owners permission to share the file and not in breach of copyright law.

 

 

Its a common belief that torrents have been placed to harvest IP addresses. So could there be something in this?

 

Just to clarify..and this is to the best of my knowledge. It is believed (from leaked documents) that the original rights holder signs over the distribution rights of the file to the monitoring company. Thus….when/if they seed the file on the torrent site they are themselves legally allowed to, but…when the alleged infringer connects to ‘download’ the file he/she ‘uploads’ at the same time and thus infringes copyright.

[andydd]

I was trying to explore the copyright angle rather than the validity if the evidence.

So, if a torrent has been placed to harvest IP addresses by ACS Law, then the copyright holder must have authorised it and its placement for download and therefore authorised it for sharing. Does this then imply that anyone who connects to this file has permission to share this file and is not in breach of copyright?

 

I remember many years ago watching a real-life show about US cops, they put a cop dressed as a tramp in a doorway with some dollar bills hanging out of his pocket, not surprisingly, some passers-by helped themselves to the money, the cops then pounced and nicked them, seems like the above is just the modern day equivilant.

 

Andy

[d0nkey]

Billpayerr,

 

You are absolutely correct. In the case below:

 

A MOTHER says her life has been made a misery by claims her computer has been used to illegally download copyrighted pornography.

 

The original copyright for this film was owned by Pumpkin films who produced it, Darker Enterprises aquired part or all of the copyright who then granted distrubution rights to the "Monitor". I believe the role of MEDIA CAT is to orchestrate this process. ACS Law deal with the legal aspects of the operation and of course, send out the letters.