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

[andydd]

And so the ACS: Law chronicle continues to unfold.

 

It begins with a single, frightening perception: an elite London law firm, operating out of some of the most expensive real estate in the world, has you in its sights.

 

The firm is called ACS:Law. Its address is 20 Hanover Square, Mayfair, London. And a letter in your mailbox from ACS:Law has just identified you as an illegal file sharer.

 

You must, therefore, mount an urgent and definitive defence of your position, or pay forthwith to ACS:Law a substantial sum of monies otherwise what ACS:Law may do next could well cost you infinitely more.

 

You are, of course, most likely not an expert on how the Law is supposed to work. Or how lawyers are supposed to conduct themselves.

 

You are most likely not an expert, either, on Internet technology, so are unaware of the difference between the alleged identification of an Internet address as a medium for illegal activity, and the alleged identification of the actual individual responsible for that activity.

 

All you know is that you have received disturbing correspondence whose letterheading certainly ain’t that of some single lowly practitioner working from an upstairs room in a low-rent street in a small provincial town.

 

It’s a Big League address. Which could only belong to a Big League law firm. Which means you are, unquestionably, in Big League trouble.

 

This perception of your distressing vulnerability is further confirmed when you hunt around the ‘Net for information: “the law firm” says this, “the law firm” says that. That’s right. The law firm at 20 Hanover Square, Mayfair, London. The Big Time operator that you fear is ready, willing and more than able to steam-roller you flat.

 

Just to make sure your perception is correct, you visit the firm’s website.

 

You don’t actually notice that the domain is a dot.org address. So you don’t wonder, as others might, if everything is indeed as perceived.

 

But not only do you fail to notice the oddity of a major law firm running a domain address that’s typical of a charity or not-for-profit organisation.

 

You don’t remark, either, on the website’s notable absence of corporate information: nothing about the various senior and junior partners who could be expected to staff so prestigious a practice; nothing about the record of success that has enabled this firm to prosper to such extent that it can today afford to be quartered so impressively, and so expensively, at 20 Hanover Square.

 

All you know is that you’re not a lawyer. You’re not a millionaire. And you’re not an illegal file sharer, either. . . but that if a law firm with what must be the massive fee income, massive client list, and massive resources to finance a Mayfair address is accusing you, then oh boy: better start worrying, and start worrying now.

 

Perception. How it works.

 

Or: how it seems to have worked. Before other people began to take an interest in this situation.

 

 

* Andydd: thanks for that.

 

But are you sure that 20 Hanover Square is not brimming with Andrew Crossley’s partners, associates and employees?

 

 

ACS:Law must surely have at least a floor, or office suite, there.

 

The alternative, that an individual would rent an accommodation address so as to acquire an impressive letter heading on correspondence intended to exert pressure on the recipient into paying over a substantial sum of money is, frankly. . .

 

. . . as unthinkable as that any solicitor, anywhere, would choose to embark without proper regard to fact or consequence on an activity that risked inflicting needless distress and anxiety upon persons wholly innocent of any offence, and in so doing bring the legal profession itself into disrepute.

 

Andrew Crossley cannot have done something like that.

 

The building rents out lots of floors/office space so companies come and go, mind you this was about 8 months ago, redundancy loomed soon after but luckily ive just started a new job, still, hanover square was nice place to be, maybe Ive walked past Andrew or even sat next to him in the park having a sarnie or perhaps having a beer in The Duke Of York or The Loop around the corner

 

Andy

[andydd]

I would have them put their name to the account. Easiest way to avoid any problems.

 

 

Huh !?. That wont work, Im in the same situation, I rent out a room and the broadband account is in my name and the connection is shared, it wouldnt be possible to have seperate broadband accounts in different names.

 

It is possible to use a domain and server and block certain sites or block the ports that torrent sites use (or keep a record of which PC or MAC address accessed what) but unless you are an expert in IT not very practicle.

 

Andy

[andydd]

it seems like crossley is actually enjoying all the bad publicity: File sharing litigation results

 

"Copyright infringers generally buckle when litigation is formally initiated."..Odd..because as we all know ACS have initiated bugger all litigation, sending threatening letters is not litiagtion Mr Crossley !

[andydd]

Just rang the SRA.... the offical line is that its still be investigated so there is no news how ever the officer leading it is Ian Roberts who can either be written to at their offices or emailed via [email protected]

 

Terran

 

Something seems fishy here, the SRA are STILL investigating davenport lyons and that was from a few years back, how long does it take !?

 

Andy

[andydd]

Yes, I would advise against trolling for a doctors letter / similar unless you're 100% actually affected and completely genuine.

 

Being stressed out over something doesn't necessarily mean you have a clinical problem.

 

Whenever I see the letters A C S I come out in spots

[andydd]

Interesting. The questionnaire does sound new. I have PMed you.

 

Certainly sounds 'iffy', the questionaire could be used to against you depending on your answers, personally I'd ignore it or maybe write back saying that you will fill in the questionaire IF ACS re-imburse you for the time spent on it.

 

As we all now, there is no need to reply/answer/fill in anything unless court action is actually impending, but that i mean it is actually happening in reality not in Mr Crossley strange imagination.

 

Andy

[andydd]

That questionaire is very dumb !.. No.15 indeed..ha..idiots.

 

It refers to 'The' internet connection, what the hell does that relate to ?

 

It asks was the connection unsecurred without giving any dates.

 

I truely hope no-one has replied to this !. I may post one off to ACS Law and have some fun with them though !

 

Andy

[andydd]

Scooby - you may want to edit your post; it's REALLY important that any newbies coming onto this thread don't get the impression that ACS' letters are any kind of [problem].

 

Technically, they're ABSOLUTELY NOT a [problem], and could potentially have real, legal ramifications if Crossley ever did decide to go down the route of testing a case in a court of law.

 

In this instance (however unlikely), failing to reply to the initial letter could actually count against you in court, and so is not recommended.

 

By all means, send ONE letter of denial, stating that you are not guilty of either downloading or uploading the work, and that you have not given your permission for anyone else to do so either, and THEN Leave it at that, if you're so inclined.

 

(It should go without saying that this applies even moreso if a Part 36 offer lands on your doormat!)

 

Wow..Deja Vu..You'll see from my very early posts on this thread that I asked people not to use the phrase '[problem]', and some even argued against that, not helped by dud information given out by ISP's anmd in some cases C.A.B.

 

Andy

[andydd]

Yes but l did not know that it was malwear or anything about the company as when every l clicked the icon on my desktop it took me to there home page of a proffessional looking website.

 

There was contact details and everything. so it was hard not to believe they were not proffessional.

 

People/gangs who nick credit card info and clone new ones are very clever and professional.

 

Andy

[andydd]

can someone explain to me how the IP address system works? how they can be sure it was your IP address if the continually change or do the ISPs keep a recored of every IP address assigned to you?

 

In theory, yes, although a mistake at this stage would identify the wrong person and its not really in the ISP's interest to 'help' ACS law.

 

Andy

[andydd]

yes but other ISPs are standing on a principle and not giving in.

 

HHmm..The above link about Talk Talk is very interesting although its not 100% clear that ACS Law didnt chase them (in fact Tiscalli) because they didnt roll over and hand over their customers details (like the other ISP's did).

 

Lets face it though, I think it won't be too long before this sorry saga will be bought to an end one way or another, unfortunatly Mr Crossley will be rolling in the money he has received from this dubious process.

 

Andy

Edited March 12, 2010 by andydd

[andydd]

Hardly worth bothering with tbh. The letters were briefly touched on but very little mention of the process of these letters.

 

I was impressed with the guy from Talk Talk though.

 

Yeah..TT was good, and |I thought that it may be a good selling point for them in the future, they arnt going to roll over and hand out your details to any tom dick and harry..(or andrew !).

 

The 'tech guy' bit was crap, he did nothing techinical apart from look and see what films people had on their PC's and his wifi hacking bit was not realistic !

 

I had to laugh when Scooter popped up, we all knew what was coming next but I noticed they blurred out the name on the letter (ACS Law ?).

 

Andy

[andydd]

 

BBC News - Lords pass controversial internet piracy bill

 

Digital rights bill passed.

 

People are grouping together to fight it here (booking day off work to make the most of it, but it's early evening).

 

Open Rights Group | Stop Disconnection without trial

 

ORG plans Digital Economy Bill protest | Games Industry | MCV

 

 

"But despite criticism, the government said it was still committed to giving courts the power to block websites which are infringing copyright."

 

EErr..How..?. They are nearly not based in the UK ..or are we gonnma end up with net police like in China.

 

Heres my prediction, in a few years time the internet will be totally screwed up and unusable, you won't be able to access any illegal downloads, any copyrighted material, anything pornographic or viewed offensive, websites will be like papers..gagged at every turn, no stories about footballers and their affairs, no stories like MP's expenses, we will end up with a totally sanitized controlled internet, controlled and manipulated by the party in power,...you read it here first...

 

That is the way its heading !

 

Andy

[andydd]

i Thought This Thread Was About Acs:law ?

 

I Was Not Aware That They Were Standing For Election.

 

Although The Pirate (Bay) Party did and did quite well

[andydd]

Mr Crossley said that "some are in court at the moment".

 

Really Andrew ?, you say this time and time again, by my estimation, there must of been in excess of 100,000 -200,000 letters sent out but still not a single court case that anyone can confirm.

 

It's finally good to see ISP's taking a stand, with Talk Talk to be congratulated for taking a firm stance, lets hope its not just words.

 

Mr C goes on to say "He declined to identify any of the clients represented by DigiProtect, beyond saying "there are a variety, some in music, some computer games and some in adult content movies".

 

HHmm..They are all just a bunch of washed up loser games, porn films and crap music that no-one is buying anyway so they have to case innocent people to try and make money.

 

Andy

[andydd]

HHmm..Interesting stuff from Slyk, but surely if you call Andrew Crossley a tw*t, he would have to go to court and prove he is not, and surely he'd lose

 

Andy

[andydd]

Whoooaaaaa!!!! Look what I just found!

 

This would explain his departure from ACS:Law, I wonder if his new employers know about the company he was previously involved with...

 

Terence Tsang - Practitioners - Cramer Pelmont - Solicitors

 

What a podgy looking lil boy he is

[andydd]

Guys,

 

Let's not make it too personal please. Whilst it detracts from the main aim, it's also not good. Even people like Terence deserve their dignity.

 

Just my opinion.

 

HHmm..I'd beg to differ, he and (ex) ACS cohorts have put themselves in the spotlight with their horrible underhand tactics by trying to extort money from innocent people. I don't think my comments are any different from comments made by (for example) Rouge Traders on BBC, who uncover scamsters and embaress and humillate them.

 

Lets face it the CAG is full of ****takes of Debt Collectors, I don't really think that ACS law deserve any more respect than them.

 

Just my tuppence worth.

 

Andy

[andydd]

You're spot on there Scooby. There's no way a decent law firm will allow it's name to be sullied by one area of it's field. Like you say it may take years, if at all, to recover. DL will forever be remembered for what they did. Difference with acs law is it's a tiny fish in a huge pond so doesn't care about reputation only generating as much revenue as possible.I bet Mr Crossley thinks he hit the jackpot. Pity really.

 

Excellent point, the name of Davenport Lyons is sullied forvever, much like Ratners was a few years back.

 

Andy

[andydd]

I notice that the ISPA (Internet Service Providers Association) has just announced their finalists for Internet Hero/Villain of 2010.

 

UK ISPA Awards Reveal Internet Hero and Villain Finalists for 2010 − ISPreview UK

 

If they recognise ACS law as Villains, why aren't they doing something about it rather than wasting their time on meaningless "awards"

 

Yes..instead, the majority of their members just roll over and hand over the info (our info !) to the court, even more worrying (especially if you read early posts), is the utter confusion/wrong information which was supplied when customers phoned their ISP to ask about ACS.

 

Andy

[andydd]

Not sure if this has been posted on this forum before, but check out these links on wikileaks:

 

Davenport Lyons and DigiProtect Actionpoints for filesharers, 14 Jan 2009 - WikiLeaks

 

Davenport Lyons and Kornmeier Monetary and Working Correspondence, 19 Mar 2008 - WikiLeaks

 

Very Interesting !. The first would seem to imply that the less you say the better, but i wonder what difference being on benefits or having a solicitor would make ?

 

As for the 2nd one, am I correct in my reading of clause 2, where Digital Protect admit to putting copyrighted works on P2P networks with the aim of using them as bait to catch people ?

 

Andy

[andydd]

@ shenme & wonkyfunk303 - thanks for the replies.

 

I dont really know anything much about p2p but I dont see how P2P networks can throw random IP addresses into the swarm - surely they can only communiate between genuine IP address?

 

So far as my wifi being hacked - I will have to bone up on wifi and keep it switched off until then!

 

Again TVM

 

P2P IP address may not actually exist or they may be geniune users hiding beind a proxy or perhaps a spoofed IP address, this was demonstrated on TV recently, was it 'Click' ?. I cant remember now.

 

Obviously nothing is 'unhackable' but wifi routers should be pretty safe.

 

It should have:-

 

1. WPA2 turned on (the higest level on encryption, other options are WPA and WEP

 

2. SSID turned off, (so other can't 'see' your network).

 

3. Change the derafult IP address, its normally 192.168.1.1 or maybe 192.168.0.1 (Sky routers)

 

4. Change default name & password, these are normally admin & password or something equally guessable.

 

5. MAC Filtering (this only allows specific puters to use the network).

 

As you can see there are lots of options, although normally only the first one is considered essential.

 

If you need help, if you have a router from your ISP they should help you, or if not Netgear support is good, I havnt used other makes.

 

A wise move is to make a backup of your current settings before making too many changes.

 

Remember DO NOT make any admissions to ACS about your router or anything, a simple LOD is all that is needed.

 

Andy

[andydd]

Probably not. Companies frequently use their solicitors address as their own registered address. Larper could be in any sort of business and may just be clients of ACS.

 

Recently sent a firm LOD myself having received one of the Pron variety demanding £495.00. I anticipate the boringly predictable follow-up with the ludicrous accusation of 'template' usage / and or 'questionaire' in due course.

 

Whilst there seems to be plenty here about LODs, etc, there doesn't seem to be much discussion regarding the level of 'damages' levied by ACS Law

on those who may be guilty?

 

In the event you DID upload (say) a film. How many copies would you have uploaded (just a partial copy? one copy? more?). Remember your upload bandwidth will be significantly less than your download.

 

What does that equate to in lost profit? On one £15 DVD - less than £10. Plus costs - a quid or so for the court paperwork, standard letter, etc?

 

So EVEN IF you were guilty - why on earth would you pay these ridiculous amounts of 'damages'? Why not offer, say, £50, in full and final settlement? Obviously ACS would try and extract more, but would they have a leg to stand on if you had offered them an entirely realistic (even generous?) sum?

 

Ill think youll find that their arguement is that if you uploaded one piece of copyrighted material and that was then sitting on a P2P site and was downloaded say 100 times then they've lost 100 x £5 = £500, at least I think thats what they are saying.

 

Andy

[andydd]

"Ill think youll find... that was then sitting on a P2P site....at least I think thats what they are saying"

 

To be blunt then, I don't think you do know what you're saying at all. With Bittorrent you do not upload data to some remote location and park it there for all and sundry to grab in sequence like a sweetshop - you share it in real time from your drive.

 

If that is the extent of your knowledge, then I would recommend some research if I were you.

 

The reality is that most download far more than they upload. If a 'normal' download of anything is 1 copy - then, on average, a 'normal' upload is likely to be less than one copy.

 

Nevertheless, if you just fall over and accept whatever "they are saying", clearly you should pay up whatever they say too? Which is their whole game, isn't it?

 

As I work in IT Support I am well aware of how P2P works thanks you very much, I know that the actual (whole) copyrighted files in question here do not sit in a central location, although the actual 'torrent' files do reside in a central location (and many courts across the world have taken this fact to be enough to close P2P companies down and/or fine them, Napster, Pirate Bay, being the most high profile).

 

But the end result is very much like your sweetshop analogy, to the end users, the reality is, we can all go online and grab all the 'sweeties' we want.

 

Anyway, my main point is still that in my opinion, ACS would use the same arguement in court (if they ever had the balls to show up), their claims have never been that you downloaded a single file, it is that the file was available from your IP address for others to download, thus depriving their clients of a certain amount of money.

 

I did not say in my post that people should roll over and pay up and am puzzled at how you could reach that conclusion.

 

Andy

[andydd]

So based on Andys theroy if l put something on my comp then they could demand l pay the company for the fact its on my comp. What if l had already paid the company for the said item as now dvds are comming with a downloadable disc that you can put on any hard drive.

 

I believe thats the case, (well, not just in your comp, but in the folder used by P2P programs), even If you've bought the DVD/CD in question,. that is for your own personal use, it would be a breach of copyright if you:-

 

a) made copies and gave them to your friends

or

b) Store the file on a location on your HD that was connected to P2P traffic, thus allowing people to download the file from you (of course in reality they are only downloading 'bits' from you and 'bits' from other users).

 

Note: b) is often refered to (wrongly, even by me in my earlier post ) as 'uploading' a file, although the reality is you don't actually physically do that.

 

What ACS are 'claiming' (although with not much to back them up in law) is that by having the file in question sitting on your hard drive and available to P2P users is the same as you standing outside HMV giving away CD's, punters then take the CD from you instead of buying it in HMV, depriving the artists (Scooter ! ) of money.

 

ACS's 'proof' is that at some point Digital Protect or whoever they use, identified the file on a P2P site and one of the IP addresses was eventually tracked down to you, or at least, your home, of course a lot can go wrong in this tracking down process.

 

Andy