2nd Letter from ACS with different dates ???

[rakim1]

I joined today to see if anyone else has received a 2nd 'duplicate' letter from ACS.

I originally received their threat in April 2010 about an illegal porn download and duly replied with my denial, thereafter a couple of months later I received their questionnaire, which I didn’t complete but did send another letter explaining my denial again.

Now, a further two months later, I’ve received almost a carbon copy of the original April letter, with different dates and times for the alleged download and the only other discernable difference is an addition to the ‘Commencing Proceedings’ paragraph which now suggests that my internet connection will be at risk.

Even if I had downloaded the ‘work’, how could I have done it twice? And why was there a further allowance by the court in respect of the same information?

Any views would be appreciated

[zoomboy]

Welcome to our world I would only think that this stands you in good stead. They obviously have mad an error in one of the claims, but which one? It is possible for you to have made it available for upload on different dates and got recorded in both of their so called evidence collections.

 

If it were for different material that would be another thing. But if they are already pursuing you for one allegation of copyright infringment with regard to the same file I would have expected them to add that to their supporting evidence, not file a separate claim.

 

Does it have a different date for the NPO court order attached?

[rakim1]

Thanks for that, to be honest I'd never heard of the 'work' they're accusing me of, so I thought the whole thing was wrong to begin with, didn't make me feel any better though; there are two different dates for the court order, about five months between them, so it is strange that they can ask a court for two orders which cover the same thing...isn't that wasting court time ??

[Curious_]

Im sending out my first LOD tomorrow basically telling them that im not paying nothing and ive done nothing wrong. Then im going to ignore all further contact with them even if they write back saying blah blah blah.. They are just out to get your money the [problem] artists!

[zoomboy]

Im sending out my first LOD tomorrow basically telling them that im not paying nothing and ive done nothing wrong. Then im going to ignore all further contact with them even if they write back saying blah blah blah.. They are just out to get your money the [problem] artists!

 

So your double negative implies you are going to pay up? ""im not paying nothing", so you are paying something. Be careful with the wording of your LoD.

[rakim1]

Bank Holiday Sale-

Now received a further letter advising that they're looking to claim £3k, 'however' if I pay £200 (down from original £495) they'll forgot all about it ??????????? Offer must end in 21 days

[andydd]

I joined today to see if anyone else has received a 2nd 'duplicate' letter from ACS.

I originally received their threat in April 2010 about an illegal porn download and duly replied with my denial, thereafter a couple of months later I received their questionnaire, which I didn’t complete but did send another letter explaining my denial again.

Now, a further two months later, I’ve received almost a carbon copy of the original April letter, with different dates and times for the alleged download and the only other discernable difference is an addition to the ‘Commencing Proceedings’ paragraph which now suggests that my internet connection will be at risk.

Even if I had downloaded the ‘work’, how could I have done it twice? And why was there a further allowance by the court in respect of the same information?

Any views would be appreciated

 

It is entirely feasible to allege the same download but at different dates and times, the company that ACS employ(ed) to track alleged illegal downloaders just took snapshots in time to identify the so-called infringers.

 

If you read any of the leaked-email spreadsheets, you will see that they identify the same infringers multiple times.

 

For example, someone is downloading a large file such as a film, P2P can be very slow so the film may take many days to finish downloading, during this time the tracking company could identify the infinger just once or multiple times at any point during the days the file was downloading..ie tusday 9.00am, wednesday 4pm, etc.

 

But of course many of the alleged infringers simply deny that they downloaded (in actually fact ACS are elleging that you 'made available for uplaoding' not downloading) at all but this is a different arguement. It is a common misconception that ACS are going after 'downloaders' this simply is not true and explains why many people get themselves in a mess.

 

I dont think anything has changed at ACS (aspart from they are in serious trouble), with regards to your legals position, a simple LOD or ignore them would do the trick.

 

 

 

Andy

[andydd]

So your double negative implies you are going to pay up? ""im not paying nothing", so you are paying something. Be careful with the wording of your LoD.

 

Ha..I agree, many people think they are smart in their replies to ACS BUT they may end up digging themselves in a hole, you hit the nail on the head with the phrase "I'm not paying nothing" ! Unless you are very well versed in the law or in peer to peer systems, dont try and be smart, send the simpliest of LOD's or just ignore ACS.

 

Andy