Jump to content


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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3827 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Just got this info from another forum THANKS [from bbc today]

 

Quote:

Ministers in copyright concession

Ministers have given a concession over what critics claimed were "draconian" powers which would enable them to crack down on online copyright infringement.

 

A clause in the Digital Economy Bill would have allowed ministers to amend existing laws on online piracy without the need for further legislation.

 

Google and Facebook were among firms to complain about the measure, saying it would hamper digital innovation.

 

Officials said they were "refining" the proposals after heeding concerns.

 

'Reserve powers'

 

Critics said the proposed powers were disproportionate and would damage one of the UK's fast-growing industries.

 

Section 17 of the bill, which has attracted the most anger, would give ministers "reserve powers" to draft fresh laws to tackle net-based copyright infringement without needing parliamentary approval.

 

Ministers argued that such powers were needed to support copyright laws against future, more technically advanced forms of piracy.

 

But Conservative and Lib Dem peers had both threatened to vote against the measure when it is considered next in the House of Lords.

 

In response, the government has tabled several amendments.

 

These would mean existing copyright laws could only be amended by statute if they was a "significant" new threat of infringement and would provide for more parliamentary scrutiny before this happened.

 

'Clarity'

 

The bent Department for Business said it was not "backing away" from the controversial clause and its core objectives but had listened to concerns about how it was being targeted.

 

"The Government remains squarely behind the aims of clause 17," a spokesman said.

 

"We have tabled a series of amendments which aim to clarify the breadth and scope of the clause and further reinforce the transparency of the process and the scrutiny of Parliament."

 

Separate proposals in the bill to disconnect so-called peer to peer file-sharers continue to cause concern among internet campaigners.

 

More than 30,000 people have signed a petition on the No 10 website saying the measure would penalise innocent people, arguing that persistent pirates would simply hack into other people's accounts.

 

Ministers insist people would only have their net connections slowed down or suspended as a last result and not before their cases were first considered by a tribunal.

 

The Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) has accused the government of focusing unduly on enforcement rather than making it easier for people to download content legally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Just a thought.

 

If the data protection laws have been compromised as Lord Lucas suggests they might have. Then surely someone ought to turn the tables on these [problematic] and send them a letter demanding a sum of money or they will be taken to court for invasion of privacy.

Everyone put this in their letters and watch the sparks fly.

 

DSP in Lincolnshire

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has just been a massive filesharing defeat for copyright holders in the British Courts. I'm not sure quite how ACS Law anticipate being able to bring successful legal action against anybody (who defends) when Teeside Crown Court found Alan Ellis not guilty of an offence despite him making 100's of 1000's of pounds through his website (Oink) and provably facilitating in the sharing of more than 21,000,000 copyrighted files.

This is a right kick in the teeth for the copyright owners who still struggle to understand the legalities of file sharing (pre Mandelson anyway :mad:).

 

From "The Times"

 

A man accused of running a sophisticated music piracy website used by more than 200,000 members was acquitted of conspiracy to defraud today.

 

Alan Ellis, 26, was accused of making hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Oink website, which he ran alone from his own bedroom.

 

But a jury at Teesside Crown Court unanimously cleared the software engineer of the charge. Mr Ellis, from Middlesbrough, smiled as the jury foreman returned the not guilty verdict.

 

During the trial, Mr Ellis had told the jury that he set up Oink in his home in an effort to brush up on his computing skills while a student at Teesside University.

Related Links

 

He told the court that he had set up the website “to further my skills. To better my skills for employability”.

 

When police raided his terraced house in October 2007, they found almost $300,000 in his accounts.

 

Peter Makepeace, for the prosecution, said: “At the time this website was taken down, there were approximately 200,000 active members.

 

“Those users had access to about 200,000 audio files.

 

“This site had facilitated a staggering 21 million downloads of those available files.”

 

He added: "This is not about prosecuting some poor minnow who has taped a record one night and circulated it to their friends.

 

“This is about large scale, professional, clever, technical ripping off.”

 

But Mr Ellis said the money was used to pay for the rental of the computers that ran the website, and that any “surplus” was intended to eventually purchase a server.

 

He added that the website was developed from a free template, which included with it a “Torrent” file-sharing facility — a popular method used by some to download music illegally.

 

The court heard that users on the site were required to make a donation to be able to invite friends to join the site.

 

The site did not hold music itself, but it had allowed members to find other people on the web who were prepared to share files with others, allowing people to get hold of music for free.

 

Mr Ellis, who was born in Leeds and grew up in south Manchester, studying A levels in Cheadle, argued that there was no intention to defraud copyright holders. He had a full-time job as a software engineer and said running the site was a hobby.

 

The prosecution said he told police officers: “All I do is really like Google, to really provide a connection between people. None of the music is on my website.”

 

The prosecution said that when interviewed by police, Mr Ellis refused to answer questions about money, and said it was “out of my hands” what his site’s members did.

 

The prosecution argued that none of the cash made by way of donations was going to the music industry.

 

“Every penny was going to Mr Ellis,” Mr Makepeace said.

 

“He hadn’t sung a note, he hadn’t played an instrument, he hadn’t produced anything.

 

“The money was not going to the people it rightly belonged to, it was going to Mr Ellis.”.

 

Mr Ellis declined to answer questions on leaving court.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites
There has just been a massive filesharing defeat for copyright holders in the British Courts. I'm not sure quite how ACS Law anticipate being able to bring successful legal action against anybody (who defends) when Teeside Crown Court found Alan Ellis not guilty of an offence despite him making 100's of 1000's of pounds through his website (Oink) and provably facilitating in the sharing of more than 21,000,000 copyrighted files.

This is a right kick in the teeth for the copyright owners who still struggle to understand the legalities of file sharing (pre Mandelson anyway :mad:).

 

From "The Times"

 

A man accused of running a sophisticated music piracy website used by more than 200,000 members was acquitted of conspiracy to defraud today.

 

I'm afraid this has little to do with civil copyright infringement (apart from the website he was running). He was facing criminal charges of fraud. Sorry.

 

As yet, no contested case from ACS:law has got anywhere near this far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's happening with ACS? I thought more demands were meant to be sent out in early January.

 

More demands were indeed sent out last week and have been arriving with people since Wednesday or so. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
ACS Law made a hash of their round 1 of letter sending...so what makes them think that this time round will be any more successful?

 

The thing is, we have no idea how successful they are being. We know they aren't successful with the people that find CAG and fight, but we have no idea how many others out there are just rolling over and paying up :( The private parking [problem] works well enough to keep plenty of scamsters going after all, why should this [problem] be any different?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is, we have no idea how successful they are being. We know they aren't successful with the people that find CAG and fight, but we have no idea how many others out there are just rolling over and paying up :( The private parking [problem] works well enough to keep plenty of scamsters going after all, why should this [problem] be any different?

 

Huff and Puff is right.

 

My missus was all for paying. Took ages to convince her not to.

 

I bet they are making plenty on this, if not why keep sending further threatening requests. I have not heard since May last year and hoping they have disappeared.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"We have tabled a series of amendments which aim to clarify the breadth and scope of the clause and further reinforce the transparency of the process and the scrutiny of Parliament."

shame they dont use this clause with the banks huh

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Halfords /Scooter it would be nice if you could at least inform site team/Admin about proposed meets being represented by CAG.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its gone so dead on here A.T.M whats up? has evary one give up the fight?:confused:

 

It would appear that ACS Law have given up the fight with those who defended thmselves but unfortunately still made enough from those too scared or unable to defend themselves to justify another round of thousands of demands from different people for the same thing.

 

Clearly this Scooter song would have been number 1 in the charts for months such is its alleged popularity, strange then how nobody had ever even heard of it.:|

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would appear that ACS Law have given up the fight with ONE OF those who defended thmselves but unfortunately still made enough from those too scared or unable to defend themselves to justify another round of thousands of demands from different people for the same thing.

 

Fixed that for ya. :|

 

Unfortunately it's the same old same old. ACS' random outcome generator ticks on.

 

In other news, the lords who are currently debating this seem well aware of the situation and are trying hard to change the digital economy bill to stop ACS in their tracks.

 

Lord Clement jones has been particularly vociferous:

 

My Lords, I support the amendment....: 20 Jan 2010: House of Lords debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)

 

My Lords, I support the amendment. Whether or not it stands up legally, it is a good peg on which to hang a short debate about the activities of this operation, ACS Law. Like many noble Lords, I have had an enormous postbag about the activities of this law firm. It is easy to say "of certain law firms", but this is the only one that I have been written to about. That is the interesting aspect of this.

ACS seems to specialise in picking up bogus copyright claims and then harassing innocent householders and demanding £500, £650 or whatever-a round sum, in any event-in order to settle. Some people have been fighting off this firm's claims for several years. One letter says that a close friend of the writer's has been the target of regular bullying by ACS Law since September 2007 for alleged illegal file-sharing and currently has no means by which to prove his innocence, and so on; I could go through a whole series of letters on the subject. Someone has written eight letters to protest their innocence and answer the questions but the case has yet to be dropped. Someone has been asked how old their daughter is and what games console she has, when they have only a Nintendo DS.

This amount of intrusion is unacceptable. If someone has a claim, they need to issue a summons and go to court; but this bullying, which never results in a court action that can be tested, is the worst kind of harassment. This is only too common. Even though the Government may not favour this particular way of dealing with it, I hope that in some creative way, whether by direction, by ministerial statement or by some other mechanism, they can deter bodies such as ACS Law from engaging in this kind of activity.

 

Unfortunately some Lord seem to be under the impression that we haven't bothered to contact the SRA:

 

Lord Young of Norwood Green said:

 

My Lords, I am not sure how the...: 20 Jan 2010: House of Lords debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)

 

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that these actions are appalling and unacceptable, but nobody has referred them to any of the regulatory bodies. I find that strange. We are saying that we have had thousands of these cases yet nobody has said that this law firm is acting in a totally unacceptable way. I should have thought that the legal regulatory bodies would by now have been involved and I am puzzled why they have not been.
If you have been effected by this, WRITE TO A LORD TODAY.

 

Particularly if you have complained to the SRA, ICO or anyone else and they haven't done anything yet.

 

To do this, go to writetothem.com/lords and type the name of the lord in the "Find a lord interested in my topic box" and click on the top result (it will be the lord you searched for).

 

Lords Young, Clement Jones and Lucas are a good place to start. Generally only lords who have already spoken continue to debate during comittee stages so for your convenience, here is a list of all lords so far to have spoken on the bill:

 

 

  • Lord Clement-Jones (libDem)
  • Lord young of norwood green (Lab)
  • Lord Lucas (Cons)
  • Earl Attlee (cons)
  • Lord Howard of Rising (Cons)
  • Lord Mandelson (Lab)
  • Baroness Howe of Idlicote (N/a)
  • Baroness Byford (Cons)
  • Lord Wade of Chorlton (Cons)
  • The Earl of Erroll (N/A)
  • Baroness Hayman (Lab)
  • Lord Maxton (labour)
  • Lord Razzall (LibDem)
  • Viscount Bridgeman (Cons)
  • Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LibDem)
  • Lord Triesman (Lab)
  • Lord Birt (N/A)
  • Lord Whitty (Lab)
  • Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
  • Lord de Mauley (Cons)
  • Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
  • Baroness Buscombe (Cons)
  • Lord Steel of Aikwood (LibDem)
  • Lord Puttnam (Lab)
  • Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (N/A)
  • Lord Mayhew of Twysden (Cons)
  • Lord Mackay of clashfern (Cons)

As you are not represented by a single lord, as you are represented by a single MP in the house of commons, you can write to several. Feel free to write to two or three (or four). Don't mailshot the whole lot, however as this will only annoy them.

Edited by penumbra
Link to post
Share on other sites

With ACS activites now coming to light and being labelled bogus in the House Of Lords, what are the chances of those indiviuals who have already paid up through fear or not really knowing what they are doing now launching a claim to get ACS to refund the monies paid to them due to their bully tactics and lies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
With ACS activites now coming to light and being labelled bogus in the House Of Lords, what are the chances of those indiviuals who have already paid up through fear or not really knowing what they are doing now launching a claim to get ACS to refund the monies paid to them due to their bully tactics and lies?

 

Very slim, I should imagine. They will argue that people who paid up have in effect admitted doing the deed and I would think you're looking at quite an expensive court case to get your money back, with no promise of victory. :(

 

If you've the money for such a court case, then you probably wouldn't be worried about paying up £500 to any muppet who comes along.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What do the latest batch of demands claim is being shared?

 

The usual mix of porn, music and games. Some of the infringement dates go back over 18 months, despite ACS / Digiprotect only asking for the details this December just gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What happened to the MediaCat application that was put to the courts?

 

Jeebus, mr curious. :razz:

 

MediaCAT letters have gone out and are appearing.

 

I think the statutory obligation on ISPs is six months. Anything over that is optional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys!

 

I'm a Kingston Communications customer, and my wife received one of ACS' legenadry letters this morning (complete with a copy of the High Court order, forcing Kcom to release her details, as the IP they have 'logged' identifies our router :?)

 

Apparently, they are alleging that our IP was used to share '101 Housework Songs' on P2P Networks...despite this not being the case, so far as either of us are aware!

 

My wife is both physically disbled and has neurological problems, which affect her memory and - to an extent - thought processes. This aside, she is still remarkably capable and, as you'd imagine, today's letter has distressed her more than I can tell you.

 

So far as I am aware (I'm at work presently, and so cannot check just yet), we do not own a copy of the CD referred to, and I'm fairly certain that none of the other folks who have used our laptop would download any music.

 

I'm assuming that a standard letter of denial is our first course of action (presumably sent Recorded Delivery)?

 

FYI, ACS are asking for £400 as a settlement for their client's 'damages'; as my wife lost her job, due to her becoming disabled, and I don't command anything approaching a decent salary, it goes without saying that this is money we simply don't have :Cry:

 

Hope you're able to give some advice and (hopefully!) a little reassurance?

 

 

Very many thanks in advance,

 

Rob

PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING

WRITE TO A LORD ABOUT ACS LAW (It's easy) http://www.writetothem.com/lords

Contact the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) http://www.sra.org.uk

Contact the ICO(The Information Commissioner’s Office) http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Contact Which? Magazine [email protected]

Contact the BBC Panorama http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/contact_us/default.stm

Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3827 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...