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

[patrickq1]

Agree with that.

 

However, the SRA has worked extremely hard over the years to establish a spotless reputation as the 'regulator least likely to take action'

 

Short of a solicitor being caught red handed making off with a clients money, (complete with mask, stripy jumper and a bag marked swag over his shoulder), the SRA manage to excuse just about any action taken by members of their 'profession'.

 

We shall see.

 

David

hi cash

yes it is very very hard sitting on your bum and doing nothing so's you dont upset the applecart like the SRA WHO HAVE AN UNBLEMISHED RECORD OF DO NOTHING

AND SAY NOTHING they all P**s in same POT

patrickq1

[whereswally]

Well that's helpful.......

[robstanley1]

'Afternoon all,

 

The following has just been posted on another forum, and is reposted here with the absolute, written permission of the author:

 

Guys,

 

Before I say anything else, I just want to say that I have affiliations with ACS Law and do know fully what I am talking about.

 

I've followed your discussion board for a number of months and have deliberated on whether or not to actually post anything. But I need to make clear that I have no company loyalty to ACS Law, and have always believed that their actions were totally immoral.

 

So, here it is.

 

1) Yes, ACS Law do read this forum, and others in relation to this.

 

2) They have NEVER taken anybody to court in relation to this.

 

3) Unless they have categorical evidence that you infringed copyright, they will never take anybody to court in relation to this. Such 'evidence' is collected by different methods, including trawling the internet and forums such as this, perhaps by finding usernames posting questions about something they have illegally downloaded, and attributing that username to an alleged infringer on their system, or if there have been numerous instances of uploading.

 

4) Just to make it absolutely clear, ACS Law are NOT accusing you of downloading anything. They are accusing you of making something available for UPLOAD, for example on a sharing site like Emule.

 

5) In most cases, I have found it to be the case that this is a case of a THIRD PARTY using your internet connection to DOWNLOAD a file using YOUR wireless connection, which can then be UPLOADED by somebody at any time, if the internet is connected. You do not have to be in the house, awake, on the computer.

 

6) And now for the defence. When you receive a letter from ACS Law, if it's the first letter of claim, and you are innocent, ALL you need to do is write a letter back to them, saying categorically that you did NOT commit the infringement, you did NOT personally make the file available for upload, and as far as you are aware, it is a case of somebody using your internet connection illegally.

 

7) They will write back to you, asking you questions about your internet connection. You can, if you like, reply to this, give them more information than they really need, and be done with it - OR, you can just ignore it. Because once you've replied to the first letter, saying it wasn't you, that's all you need to say. If it's one or two instances of uploading, it won't go to court. They have no grounds.

 

8 ) They are only concentrating on taking people to court in the eventuality that their evidence is stacked against you. In the majority (99%) of cases, that is not the case.

 

9) ACS Law get their money by sending out huge numbers of letters to people like you, who are normally totally innocent, but pay out of fear or guilt. DON'T. You have NO need to pay this money if you didn't do it. Don't fund their ridiculous cause.

 

10) Andrew Crossley LOVES the media attention and doesn't care if it's positive or negative - he literally just enjoys the 'fame' that goes alongside it.

 

11) This case is only overlooked by Andrew; he signs the pieces of paper when he needs to and asks how much money's coming in, but beyond that, he's just sticking his name to this. The real work is done by the paralegals in the office, who, by the way, may believe you when you say you're innocent, but have to carry on pursuing you for money because that is where their income is generated. I've known of cases where extremely elderly individuals have no idea about all of this but pay up out of fear. THAT is disgusting.

 

12) The money is drying up in the company, which means the work of people in such a forum as this IS effective and you guys need to carry on, because you are having a huge negative impact on the company.

 

13) If any of you have the cash, take THEM to court. The minute this is taken to court, it will fall apart and there will be no such case in this country ever again (as happened in France).

 

14) Good luck, and I hope some of this information was helpful. They will not win in court, they won't even bother taking this to court, because it will FAIL. They will do anything they can to avoid going to court, and their threats NEED to be ignored. THEY WILL NOT TAKE YOU TO COURT. All they can do is continue to threaten you - if they are really p*ssing you off with all their letters, just send them all back RTS. They'll eventually get the picture. Besides, envelopes and paper get expensive. They'll end up spending more money on you than you'll ever spend on them.

 

Just to make it clear - THEY WILL NOT TAKE YOU TO COURT. It is the very LAST thing they want.

 

Whistleblower

[Shaggy123]

I sent my first letter of denial off last week so await their phishing survey. In short I havent done what they say I've done so unless they fabricate something they're wasting their time.

 

When they reply I wont be completing their survey.

[scooby555]

i went to the citzens advice and they said to ingore it and if i recived another letter reply to it

sorry never ment to say it as [causing problems] as i did

Edited February 12, 2010 by scooby555

[robstanley1]

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!)

[Huff&Puff]

It's good to have confirmation from the inside that what we'd worked out was by and large correct

 

I'm not sure that I agree about taking them to court though - I can't see any grounds for doing so. I fear that what they are doing, while utterly immoral, is perfectly legal

[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

[Caimbeul]

BBC News - Law firm's piracy hunt condemned - most have probably seen this articel but i had not spotted it before.

 

Sent a letter back catagorically denying it and offering possible alternative scenario's as to how they are mistaken etc and am now the recipient of a second letter saying (essentially) that they are corerect and i am wrong and any excuses will not wash and giving me 14 days to pay. There is a lot of grey/vague wording in the letter too. I am in the process of preparing a furhter response and seeking council from several practicing solicitors who are friends or aquaintences.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Caimbeul
Spelling/Grammar mistakes

[Shaggy123]

BBC News - Law firm's piracy hunt condemned

 

Sent a letter back catagorically denying it and offering possible alternative scenario's and how they be mistaken etc and am now the recipient of a second letter saying (essentially) that they are corerect and i am wrong and any excuses will not wash and givin me 14 days to pay. There is a lot of grey/vague wording in the letter too. I am in the process of preparing a furhter response and seeking council from several practicing solicitors who are friends or aquaintences.

 

You shouldn't have offered alternative scenarios.

 

Let them do the guesswork without playing into their hands.

[Caimbeul]

You shouldn't have offered alternative scenarios.

 

Let them do the guesswork without playing into their hands.

 

What now then?

[Shaggy123]

Well by offeirng alternative scenarios you've given them the opportunity to pre-empt your defence IMO. That's half their job done.

 

If for example you said "I have an unsecured wireless network so it could have been anyone" they now know a bit more about your situation.

 

I've told them nothing as I owe them nothing.

 

I dont know what you told them in your first letter so cannot say what you should do now but I know when I get a 2nd letter they'll get short shrift as i've laready told them its nothing to do with me.

[robstanley1]

Caimbeul -

 

If you are not guilty of what ACS are alleging, simply tell them so:

 

A second letter, simply stating that -

 

(a) You did not upload the work.

(b) Nobody else, to the best of your knowledge, uploaded the work.

© You have not given anybody else permission to carry out said upload.

 

This being the case, you are completely innocent of their claims, and will NOT be making any requested payment.

 

In addition, you feel (if this is the case, of course), that their letters and continuing accusations constitute a form of harrassment, with a view to pressuring you to pay 'damages', for which you are not responsible. This being the case, you will NOT be entering into any further correspondence with them on the matter, and will view any additional letters from them as grounds for a harrassment case.

 

As Shaggy has quite rightly said, they are NOT entitled to any additional information, or 'possible explaination' from you whatseoever; any suggestion on their part that they ARE is simply a fishing tactic, in the hope that you will say something which can be construed as potentially incriminating.

 

**Please note - the above does not consitute any kind of legal advice, and is a suggestion for consideration only!! Always use your common sense when replying to letters such as this **

[Caimbeul]

Cheers all. Will combine this will the legal advice. Also off to the Royal Courts of Justice so will let you know what they say...

[Huff&Puff]

My view is that you send one letter of denial, and then ignore everything after that, unless you get court papers. Playing letter ping-pong is a pointless waste of time.

 

If I ever got a letter from them, I would take a different approach, and ignore them altogether. Then if they tried to chance it in court in the hope of getting a default judgement, I would vigorously defend. That would leave them with a choice of discontinuing or actually taking it all the way, which would be fun. Either way it would cost them money I fully accept that such a matter is not for the faint hearted though.

[maxwell2]

I've tried to start this as a new thread but it is not showing up so here goes:

 

A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter from 'Tilly Bailey Irvine' on behalf of M&M GMBH with an 'offer of settlement' for p2p copyright fraud

 

*****

 

Hi everyone-

 

Any comments and advice from the community very much appreciated on this. I am in the position to pay their suggested 'fine' as a settlement but I did not d/l or share the file they state and I do not want the implied guilt of a 'quick settlement to get ot all sorted and off my mind' scenario.

 

I recently received a recorded letter from 'Tilly Bailey Irvine' a firm of UK lawyers representing 'Media & More GMBH & CO KG'. It does not appear to be a 'Part 36' letter as it is requiring a 14 day maximum response time (UK Justice Ministry guidelines state clearly clearly 'not less than 21 days' to respond to a formal part 36 and I cannot see the phrase "Part 36" anywhere on it which is also a requirement of a letter 'intended to have the consequences of a part 36'.

 

The letter included a copy of a spreadsheet with hundreds of other IP address on it- so I imagine other people will be receiving similar letters.

 

They allege I used p2p software to download porn: what they have identified I did not.

 

The company they used to trawl for IP was 'Media Protetcor GMBH' who have a website Stop-P2P-Piracy - Select Language

 

On their FAQ it states that it is impossible for their technology to identify an IP address incorrectly; or for your wireless connection to be hacked into so that an intruder can use your signal connection to download/ upload i.e. if this were the case then MP GMBH would pick up on that and not identify IP address in their trawl.

 

The TBI 'offer letter' appears markedly different from the ones being discussed such as the DL/ACS and Andrew Crossley situations.

 

For example it refers to a major case at the High Court in London (Justice Warren on 28th January 2010) and it says that there will be no more contact between them and myself unless I agree to their undertakings and make the three digit compensation- otherwise they will move straight to court proceedings. Here is the relevant text:

 

"Legal Consequences

The extensive file sharing activity is causing damage to our client's business. Our

client is therefore left with no alternative but to police its intellectual property rights

and enforce them against infringers.

 

In the event that it becomes necessary for our client to bring a claim against you for

copyright infringement, the legal costs of those proceedings will be substantial. We

must make you aware that if successful, our client will be entitled to recover from you

damages and a contribution towards its legal costs of bringing the claim to court. You

will also have to incur your own legal costs. We estimate that collectively such costs

would be several thousand pounds. In the event that you were not able to pay

whatever sums the court may direct, our client would have no option but to take steps

to enforce the debt against your property."

 

Next Steps —

payment and undertakings

You can provide the undertaking (referred to at 1 and 2 above) by signing the written

undertakings enclosed with this letter and returning them to this firm, together with

your payment, using the attached payment form. Payment must be made either by

cheque, bank transfer, credit card or SWITCH/DELTA. No other form of payment

will be accepted.

For the avoidance of doubt, these undertakings will represent an agreement between

you and our client and if you act in breach of that agreement, our client will have no

option but to take further action against you. The payment and undertakings must be

made and received by us within 14 days of receipt of this letter.

 

Next Steps —

commencing proceedings

In the event that either the payment or undertakings are not received within fourteen

days of the date of this letter, we are instructed to commence proceedings without

further notice. "

 

I am minded to send a brief LOD by recorded delivery but am worried about the phrase of " we are instructed to commence proceedings without

further notice" - this was not used by ACS.

 

Any advice on what steps to take much appreciated.

[cashins]

My view is that you send one letter of denial, and then ignore everything after that, unless you get court papers. Playing letter ping-pong is a pointless waste of time.

 

 

Agree, in fact I think it's positively detrimental.

 

The more you engage with them, the more encouragement it gives them.

 

david

[Shaggy123]

On their FAQ it states that it is impossible for their technology to identify an IP address incorrectly; or for your wireless connection to be hacked into so that an intruder can use your signal connection to download/ upload i.e. if this were the case then MP GMBH would pick up on that and not identify IP address in their trawl.

 

That's bull for a start

[Shaggy123]

For example it refers to a major case at the High Court in London (Justice Warren on 28th January 2010)

 

Probably more bull. It probably refers to the ISPs having to respond to a court order and handing over details of the people on their IP list.

 

Hardly a groundbreaking major case.

 

If you havent done it send them a letter saying you didnt do it. Dont go into detail about your network or give them any more information than they need. Let them do the work.

[G-Barb]

Hi, I'm new here and have been reading this thread all morning. Very interesting but I'm not entirely clear on the recommended first course of action.

 

Some suggest a LoD to the first thing they receive (perhaps after waiting a couple of weeks) while Flyyte and some others are saying you should ignore the first letter and wait to see if they follow up?

What are the risks in doing the latter and is it generally advised against?

[maxwell2]

Probably more bull. It probably refers to the ISPs having to respond to a court order and handing over details of the people on their IP list.

 

Hardly a groundbreaking major case.

 

If you havent done it send them a letter saying you didnt do it. Dont go into detail about your network or give them any more information than they need. Let them do the work.

 

On another forum they are saying what is different about this one (from the text I published from the papers I receivd) is that it only refers to emule and that this requires a 'user name' that can be used to identify someone.

 

But I have scoured web on this- as hoping the said username might identify whover hacked my wireless connection- and it seems that majority of user names are actually something default like 'project emule'.

 

Anyone shed any light on this?

[scooby555]

Hi, I'm new here and have been reading this thread all morning. Very interesting but I'm not entirely clear on the recommended first course of action.

 

Some suggest a LoD to the first thing they receive (perhaps after waiting a couple of weeks) while Flyyte and some others are saying you should ignore the first letter and wait to see if they follow up?

What are the risks in doing the latter and is it generally advised against?

i'm in the same sisution as you i went to citezens advice and they said to ingore and come back with a LOD if i get anything else through so i dunno

[G-Barb]

i'm in the same sisution as you i went to citezens advice and they said to ingore and come back with a LOD if i get anything else through so i dunno

 

Interesting that CAB advise to ignore it. I will contact my local one tomorrow and see if they advise the same

[maxwell2]

i'm in the same sisution as you i went to citezens advice and they said to ingore and come back with a LOD if i get anything else through so i dunno

 

 

The more I have read about this phenomenon (being a 'virgin' till the recorded letter arrived) the more annoyed I have become.

 

I have not downloaded what I am being accused of and neither let anyone else do it.

 

All the various contributions on here illustrate that this is a fundamentally unsound (and in some cases illegitimate) technology and that it is 'unsafe and unsound' as a means to establish guilt (in the UK certainly- entrapment and/ or no evidence that ISP 'owner' was present when alleged offence took place). There have been TV programmes apparently on UK TV showing how easy (and frequent) is the hijacking/ piggy backing / hacking of wireless internet connections.

 

I have come to the conclusion that this is indeed simply a fishing exercise to smoke out those who indeed know they are guilty ('fair cop guv' scenarios) or the nervy/ non-cognate people who will pay up to 'make it all go away'.

 

The fact that it is- for the moment- a legitimate practice for erstwhile bona fide UK law firms to engage in only makes it more annoying.

[scooby555]

Interesting that CAB advise to ignore it. I will contact my local one tomorrow and see if they advise the same

yes please do and post what ur CAB says