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

[stupiditto]

Depends what he wanted to use it for.

I certainly wouldnt hand it out to all and sundry. I'd change the WEP key periodically too.

 

Depends what he wanted to use it for. - ex. well he said to check his email, who knows if he d/l a file? Flaw

 

My next door neighbour (attached) moved out the other week, who says they didn't get access?

 

Please note the above are examples and are fictional.

 

So they can't hold the acc holder to Ransom.

[stupiditto]

 

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet but it is very interesting.

 

mmmmmmmmmm Money making schemes........

[BARFLY]

i agree: he is not doing anything illegal. he's just being disingenuous about his intended and ongoing litigation. it's just a licence to print money. i believe the only people who are going to stop this are the ISPs. the House of Lords; the SRA; Which; the One Show... the list goes on and on. none have halted him in his tracks. the only ones who can are the ISPs. when he requests the NPO from the court the ISPs should stand up to him. they surely know that there have been no legal proceedings in the tens of thousands of names they have provided except for one or two i believe in the DL cases where there were default judgements. there should really be a campaign against the ISPs rather than crossley

[kilotango22]

i agree: he is not doing anything illegal. he's just being disingenuous about his intended and ongoing litigation. it's just a licence to print money. i believe the only people who are going to stop this are the ISPs. the House of Lords; the SRA; Which; the One Show... the list goes on and on. none have halted him in his tracks. the only ones who can are the ISPs. when he requests the NPO from the court the ISPs should stand up to him. they surely know that there have been no legal proceedings in the tens of thousands of names they have provided except for one or two i believe in the DL cases where there were default judgements. there should really be a campaign against the ISPs rather than crossley

 

I agree, I am campaiging agaisnt my isp, no details will be given incase he links them to the real me, basically, he states I am a subscriber to a particular ISP, I'm not and never have been. I'm trying to find out from my isp why they have supplied my details to this other ISP, I also asked them if they stated to ACS that they would not oppose a court order. They didn't answer either question. Their reply, we have to comply with court orders. Second letter going out, told them a simple yes or no answers the question about opposing a court order, copying all letters to Information commissioner. I'm like a mad dog with a bone now.

[stupiditto]

I agree, I am campaiging agaisnt my isp, no details will be given incase he links them to the real me, basically, he states I am a subscriber to a particular ISP, I'm not and never have been. I'm trying to find out from my isp why they have supplied my details to this other ISP, I also asked them if they stated to ACS that they would not oppose a court order. They didn't answer either question. Their reply, we have to comply with court orders. Second letter going out, told them a simple yes or no answers the question about opposing a court order, copying all letters to Information commissioner. I'm like a mad dog with a bone now.

 

I think we all are

[BARFLY]

they might have to comply with a court order. however, i believe it's been noted elsewhere that ACS contact the ISPs beforehand to see if they will object to his application for the order. i believe only talktalk have stated they will. i don't think talktalk have been on any orders though i'm sure i'll be corrected if i'm wrong.

 

they can object to his application and give their reasons for doing so. being granted an NPO is not a foregone conclusion.

[Jamuir]

from what I can gather , all the GM/MOS ones are Sky.

[Shaggy123]

Depends what he wanted to use it for. - ex. well he said to check his email, who knows if he d/l a file? Flaw

 

My next door neighbour (attached) moved out the other week, who says they didn't get access?

 

Please note the above are examples and are fictional.

 

So they can't hold the acc holder to Ransom.

 

You've admitted allowing 3rd parties access to your router and had no idea what they were doing with your connection (although he may have been checking email). You should have just denied all knowledge of any one using it as this just opens you up to further questioning.

[stupiditto]

You've admitted allowing 3rd parties access to your router and had no idea what they were doing with your connection (although he may have been checking email). You should have just denied all knowledge of any one using it as this just opens you up to further questioning.

 

It was all fiction I haven't admitted anything. The LOD hasn't even been sent yet lol. I was just creating scenarios.....

 

I did not download or share this album and I also do not know who caused this infringement.

 

Sorry I can not be of more assistance.

 

Joe Bloggs

Not word for word but something like that.

from what I can gather , all the GM/MOS ones are Sky.

 

My ISP is Sky.

 

Why would they just be Sky?

[patrickq1]

How to crack WEP encryption (wifi security)

[Jamuir]

 

My ISP is Sky.

 

Why would they just be Sky?

 

Thats one for Sky & GM to answer.

[Goldy001]

 

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet but it is very interesting.

 

mmmmmmmmmm Money making schemes........

 

 

Just checked that out, cant belive it!!

[zero_flight]

If anyone responds to gallant Macmillan with a denial or a request for actual evidence of an individual infringing copyright and recieves a 2nd letter from them get in touch about it's content. I expect it to be more threatening in it's tone and demands. Cheers

 

If Gallant Macmillian go the same way as ACS:LAW you will not see any evidence of the infringement , because YOU DO NOT HAVE THE PROPER CLEARANCE TO REQUEST THE EVIDENCE IN QUESTION . Has noone ever woundered why people have left both companies ?

[zero_flight]

seems the SRA are dragging out their investigation even further. from slyck today:

 

"spoke to the SRA today - couldn't give me any more information than the fact that its still ongoing. I asked how long these things normally took and she said because they are still getting quite a large volume of complaints it will remain ongoing as they have to take all these into consideration also, especially as the format on some of the letters have changed! Asked me to call back in about a months time."

 

pathetic. should be the SRA that are being investigated. the old boys club. i hope the "format of the letters" statement doesn't refer to GM as they are a seperate investigation altogether. can't remember anyone suggesting the format of Andy's letters have changed to a more conciliatory tone! when it eventually concludes i've no doubt it will be a damp squid, with a smack on the wrists for Andy, but recognition that the tone of his letters has changed!!!!!????

 

it was being reported by broadband genie two weeks ago that the investigation was winding up and would be concluded at the end of July! the SRA are to solicitors what the CRS is to DCAs!

 

Well the more letters that are sent out the more complaints they will receive.

 

Why does the SRA tell these companies to stop producing these letters, the complaints will go down and they can conclude the investigation .

 

Does this sound correct or not?

[zero_flight]

This is interesting. "http://whois.domaintools.com/acs-law.org.uk"

[Shaggy123]

So is ACS law still carrying on this or have they stopped?

[Shaggy123]

This is interesting. "http://whois.domaintools.com/acs-law.org.uk"

 

Unsurprising. If he purchased it for ACS then he'll be the regstrant until it expires.

[BARFLY]

"Why does the SRA tell these companies to stop producing these letters, the complaints will go down and they can conclude the investigation ."

 

Because the companies are acting within the law. the SRA's findings will most likely concern the conduct of the solicitors concerned. where DL were concerned their letters were a touch too aggressive. i think it was noted earlier this week somewhere that GM contacted the SRA before commencing their mailshot. probably something along the lines of "could you just check the wording of these letters before we send them out"

"yeah, they're fine; go right ahead and send them"

 

so it goes

[BARFLY]

"So is ACS law still carrying on this or have they stopped?"

 

oh they're carrying on, shaggy. any day now BT have to provide them with the 12 000 or so names that they garnished from the November 2009 NPO. BT said it would take nine months to gather the data. that's right about now!

[Shaggy123]

"So is ACS law still carrying on this or have they stopped?"

 

oh they're carrying on, shaggy. any day now BT have to provide them with the 12 000 or so names that they garnished from the November 2009 NPO. BT said it would take nine months to gather the data. that's right about now!

 

Thanks.

[BARFLY]

np. they're operating within the law. nobody as yet has been able to halt their demands. it's a licence to print money for them so i can't see them stopping voluntarily. they're probably glad a bit of the heat has been taken off them with the emergence of GM. i believe i'm correct about the BT customers. i can't recall there were many on here after that order. i'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong. but id imagine they'll be a few demands to BT customers in the next few weeks for allegedly uploading material between a year and a year and a half ago!

[8of9]

I agree, I am campaiging agaisnt my isp, no details will be given incase he links them to the real me, basically, he states I am a subscriber to a particular ISP, I'm not and never have been. I'm trying to find out from my isp why they have supplied my details to this other ISP, I also asked them if they stated to ACS that they would not oppose a court order. They didn't answer either question. Their reply, we have to comply with court orders. Second letter going out, told them a simple yes or no answers the question about opposing a court order, copying all letters to Information commissioner. I'm like a mad dog with a bone now.

 

Some of the NPO court orders to the ISP's give them the right to ask (ACS Law) after 6 months from the date of the court order how many of the IP addresses supplied have resulted in court action. This is written into the order and is LEGAL obligation.

PLUSNET have requested this information from ACS Law and it is due tomorrow 4th August. (SKY for some reason do not have this option)

Check out the PLUSNET forum Plusnet will give your personal details to ACS Law with not informing you!! | Community Site

 

Also, the DEB, in its current form, will not stop ACSL, GM and any others that jump on the bandwagon as is does not address the issues and legalities of digital copyright infringement and how it can be proved or disproved (ie the validity of the evidence and how it is gathered). It focuses on the regulation of alleged infringers through the ISP's

[Guest mb4014]

Guys not sure whether this old news or if this has been posted before but found this link

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

 

Looks pretty promising in favour of the defendent if this went any further.

[Evacuate_the_acs_bs]

Thought I posted earlier but I can't seem to find it. I posted off my LOD to ACS regarding 'Evacuate the Dancefloor' around 4 days ago and got my 2nd letter from them yesterday saying I had 14 days to pay up. Just wondering what people have replied to this? Or did you just ignore it?

[Shaggy123]

Thought I posted earlier but I can't seem to find it. I posted off my LOD to ACS regarding 'Evacuate the Dancefloor' around 4 days ago and got my 2nd letter from them yesterday saying I had 14 days to pay up. Just wondering what people have replied to this? Or did you just ignore it?

 

You stated your position in the first letter. You dont need to get into any sort of postal tennis with them.

 

Ignore it.