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

[cerberusalert]

His claim to fame is that he represented one of the Britons sentenced to prison in the ‘sex on the beach’ case in Dubai.

 

His client must've been prosecuted for illegal uploading.

[cerberusalert]

Errrr....she was found guilty if I recall.

He represented the fella & he was imprisoned.

[cerberusalert]

What's the betting that those they litigate will be the ones that have totally ignored them & they're hoping for wins by defaults.

[cerberusalert]

They've probably gone quiet because the world and his brother are investigating them.

[cerberusalert]

The New Part 36

As from April 6th 2007, payment into court no longer plays a role in the Part 36 settlement offer procedure. Instead, where an offer is or includes an offer to pay a sum of money, that sum must be paid within 14 days of the date of acceptance, and if not so paid judgment may be entered for the unpaid sum (see CPR 36.11(6) and (7)).

 

The (new) costs consequences following judgment are set out in CPR 36.14 as follows:

 

(1) This Rule applies where upon judgment being entered –

(a) a claimant fails to obtain a judgment more advantageous than a defendant's Part 36 offer; or

(b) judgment against the defendant is at least as advantageous to the claimant as the proposals contained in a claimant's Part 36 offer.

 

(2) Subject to paragraph (6), where Rule 36.14(1)(a) applies, the court will, unless it considers it unjust to do so, order that the defendant is entitled to –

(a) his costs from the date on which the relevant period expired; and

(b) interest on those costs.

 

(3) Subject to paragraph (6), where Rule 36.14(1)(b) applies, the court will, unless it considers it unjust to do so, order that the claimant is entitled to –

(a) interest on the whole or part of any sum of money (excluding interest) awarded at a rate not exceeding 10% above base rate for some or all of the period starting with the date on which the relevant period expired;

(b) his costs on the indemnity basis from the date on which the relevant period expired and

© interest on those costs at a rate not exceeding 10% above base rate.

 

(4) In considering whether it would be unjust to make the orders referred to in paragraph (2) and (3) above, the court will take into account all the circumstances of the case including –

(a) the terms of any Part 36 offer;

(b) the stage in the proceedings when any Part 36 offer was made including in particular how long before the trial started the offer was made;

© the information available to the parties at the time when the Part 36 offer was made; and

(d) the conduct of the parties with regard to the giving or refusing to give information for the purposes of enabling an offer to be made or evaluated.

 

The significant change between the old and the new regimes is that to escape liability for the Defendant’s costs, rather than ‘beating’ an offer a Claimant must now obtain a result ‘more advantageous’ than the Defendant's Part 36 offer and ‘at least as advantageous’ to the Claimant as the proposals contained in the offer. The stated purpose of the change was to provide an incentive to Claimants to settle claims.

[cerberusalert]

Why would anyone pay for something they are not responsible for? I know it's a bit long but have you actually read all this thread? All your questions will be answered if you do.

[cerberusalert]

I wonder whether this defence will work?

 

Florida man blames cat for illegal downloads

Griffin told police he had been downloading music, and that his cat jumped on the keyboard when he left the room. He said "strange things" appeared on the computer when he returned. Florida man blames cat for downloading child pornography | World news | guardian.co.uk

[cerberusalert]

I'll send you one;

 

Dear mr.ton,

 

You owe me £670.73, pay up or else I'll take you to court where additional costs will be added.

 

yours,

Cerb.

[cerberusalert]

Like i said, they may have gone to a court to obtain IP addresses -

All that has done is harvested a list of names & addresses of people who may or may not have been on-line at a particular time. It certainly doesn't prove that anything illicit was downloaded, only a forensic examination of the hard-drives would show that.

[cerberusalert]

Commissar Mandelson is aiming to criminalize what is in effect a civil action in order to swell the government's coffers at £50,000 a throw.

 

Surely music/film piracy cannot be singled out? What about other copyright infringements?

[cerberusalert]

recordings originating from programmes broadcast by the BBC, channel 4, Sky and the National Geographic channels,

I better get rid of my VHS recorder & Sky+ recorder then.

 

After all, I wouldn't want to infringe copyright would I?

[cerberusalert]

Just as the copyright organisations also received a micro payment for every blank audio cassette, blank vhs tape and blank cd and DVD sold.

If that's the case how can downloading mp3's be a copyright infringement as long as they are stored on the above?

[cerberusalert]

I find their response about generic responses absolutely amazing, they are equally valid wther they are a generic response or an individulaised one and as pointed out before all of their letters are just geeneric ones, lets hope this saga draws to an end soon.

Their next complaint will be that people have the audacity to use consumer groups for advice.

[cerberusalert]

Don't forget the gubberment are on holiday from 21 July 2009 until 12 October 2009.

[cerberusalert]

When Mandelson was in hospital the other day it wasn't for a prostrate problem, it was to surgically remove a record producer (allegedly).

 

What really galls me is that someone unelected can not only act on behalf of the Prime Minister from a foreign country, but also in effect create leglislation.

[cerberusalert]

Hi

I have been reading this forum ever since I received my first letter of claim in June.

 

I am grateful to all the advice given on this site, however, I have just seen on acs-law.org.uk that the following update has been posted,

"Update: the first batch claims have been prepared and were filed at court on Friday, 4 September 2009. Service of the proceedings will be made by first class post and will be with defendants by Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at the very latest.

 

The second batch of defendants will be selected on Monday, 14 September 2009. "

 

 

 

 

You'll probably find that the people they are taking to court are either the ones who have totally ignored them & they are hoping for a default judgement and/or the ones that have admitted and failed to make payment.

[cerberusalert]

They are doing what they are accusing their victims of doing.... using template letters. They will be going for the 'easy victims', the ones that haven't actually responded to them.

 

When they say you haven't replied to them they actually mean you have replied to them admitting the debt.

[cerberusalert]

So in essence I should refute their claims and say I am happy to attend any court hearing to defend myself....yes?

 

Yes.

[cerberusalert]

The call number Identification would make sense , oh well , wasn't sure how it worked . Thanks for the clarification.

That doesn't prove anything either, particularly on a wi-fi network.

[cerberusalert]

just looked at their web site and they say that the second lot will be selected next week.just a thought how do they select who they pick.if we are all so called guilty why do they need to pick and not send them all out in mass as they do with all their other letters:confused:

 

Mmm.... that's a hard one, let me see, if I was in their position I would go for those that acted like ostriches and buried their heads hoping it would go away rather than those that vigorously denied it and stated in no uncertain terms that they would defend.

[cerberusalert]

Surely ignoring an official court document is asking for trouble.

It is and would probably end up you having a CCJ by default. Besides, if you respond it gives you the opportunity to apply for costs against them.

[cerberusalert]

I'm aware of that, but if they took my laptop and did a search of my harddrive then the file would have been found as I did download it. Ah well, I've done the crime and done the time by paying it off, it's off my hands now, at least I don't have to get worried everytime the postman drops something through the door.

 

For a start they do not have the right to take your laptop, hard drive, first born son, pet hamster or anything else.

 

The only tenuous details they have that remotely involves you is your IP address & that does not reveal the computer used, nor does it tell them whether it was a wi-fi connection or not.

[cerberusalert]

Yeh, I'd start a petition against Meddlesome, an unelected member of the government who takes it upon himself to create Statute Law.

[cerberusalert]

According to that logic the 'infringement' is being a member of a P2P site because you have access to the file, not that you've downloaded or passed it on? If that's the case they might as well sue everyone with an internet connection because the file is in the public domain.

[cerberusalert]

So noone has heard anything of the supposed court action starting in September ?

Did they actually mention which year tho'?