Ok maybe a bit much and maybe not so off topic but there is a hell of a lot Knowledgeable folk here and maybe could point me the right direction or maybe shed light on how it works and the like... I know its a debt site but you know ..worth a ask and all that So the question ... I'm wanting to track down my father.. no contact for about 15 years now... Now were do you start off or if someone has done this sort of thing b4 were did you start...?

Update of sorts Seems 1 of the posts by Michael Coyle over at Lawdit has been removed .. but still in Google cache ACS law - Copyright Law Articles and News - Lawdit Reading Room Not sure what to make of it all at the moment ..

Proceedings Before the Masters – Chancery Division ROOM TM7.08 Before CHIEF MASTER WINEGARTEN Monday 11th May 2009 At 11 o'clock Topware Interactive Inc v Be Un Ltd

No its a credit to "Beingscammed" ... he/she is a member over at torrentfreak and caught up in this damn fiasco and went to the hearing and reported back So congrats to she/him

Credit to Being scammed at TF . . I attended the court proceedings this morning between Topware and BE UN LTD, much to the angst of Andrew Crossley. Not sure if he even knew that courts are public and as such anyone may attend and observe (provided that you don't interrupt / interfere, and you ask the judge nicely). Now the link between Davenport Lyons and ACS: Law became oh so more clear. The link is about as close as possible without them being the same company. Even in the minutes preceeding the hearing, a representative of DL was giving prepatory documents to Andrew Crossley for him to use at the hearing... During the hearing the Master even had to ask if this was the same case that he saw previously with DL, and wasn't that them in the corridoor? Also in attendance was a Miss Camilla Balleny from ARNOLD & PORTER LLP. Arnold & Porter LLP - Camilla Balleny As far as I could tell, she was representing A&P who represent Virgin Media and BE UN Ltd. The end result of the hearing today was that this hearing and two others (similar but with other ISPs) until Monday 8th June 11am, same place. What was so interesting were the claims that Andrew Crossley made to Master Wintergarten during the proceedings. That 1500+ letters had been sent out, and that a significant proportion of people pay the demand (35-40%). This is SO much higher than what we (collectively on the forums) had thought. Not sure if it's bull***t or bravado, but of course there wouldn't be any docs available to back that up. It was more that he was convincing Master Wintergarten that they were doing the right thing, and having success, and that if they weren't guilty why would they pay etc. That means that if some 500 people have paid up, each at around £600, that's £300k going into someone's pockets. Makes the whole thing worthwhile... almost... until you get sticken off as a lawyer for all this, and get made to pay the money back (perhaps). I spoke to Camilla Balleny (think I freaked her out a little) after the hearing, and asked her if she knew how they got the IP addresses, and if she knew that the method that they got them was illegal or dubious at best, and had been thrown out of court in other european countries, and that a lawyer got struck off for 6 months for doing this.... Although I wasn't expecting any answers, her surprise, discomfort and silence spoke volumes. I even offered her to see the letter that ACS Law had sent me, though by this stage I think she just wanted to get the hell out of there. Camilla - if you're reading this, the offer stays open, I'm sure plenty of us would be happy to send you eformat versions of our letters. So, where from here? Well, I was going to go over to Hanover Square and visit Andrew Crossley, but after seeing him in the flesh, and having him validate in front of me all that we had previously suspected, I just didn't see the need. He is taking this seriously, making a lot of money from it, and although seemed a little disorganised he was doing a fair job of convincing everyone else - who either didn't have the knowledge or information to know better. The hearings were adjourned because the ISPs hadn't had time to verify all the facts (times, IPs etc) of the NEW batch of IPs to be churned through this ever growing fiasco. So thank you at least for that much, that the ISPs are checking that they're not giving out the wrong details this time.

Ive been checking over the Slyck forum and it seems ACS Law are not registered under the DPA so what that means is a puzzle in itself so to speak to me lol due to being fairly under educated in the practices of law and the data protection act etc In honesty contacting Virgin is pointless as they wont part with any info other than the usual we were given a court order blah blah blah but worht a shot I suppose.

Ive still a issue with the IP Adress thing.. someone over at digital spy mentioned a few questions and while mulling them over No 2 is bold as that's maybe whats happened with some of us perhaps...? or if anyone can shed any light on the questions or answer them Credit to morphocypris at digital spy 1. Is it possible for an IP address to change without your knowledge during the year? 2,. Is this "new " IP address you get from a "pool" of IP address numbers that may or may not have previously belonged to someone else ? 3. How far does an ISP go to trace all owners of an IP Address on a certain date? 4. Is the search Number and date driven?. 5. Does the ISP just pass on the name and address of the holder , or does the ISP support the name address with records of the duration of that number against the address on the date in question ? 6.Does the ISP provide the owner of the data a copy of exactly what data it has passed on?

Over at torrentfreak there was a post about the legal document from the high court ... there is a few errors but how much that holds is doubtful and a possible clutch at straws so to speak. http://www.acs-law.org.uk/images/rea3.pdf There is also this Proceedings Before the Masters – Chancery Division ROOM TM7.08 Before CHIEF MASTER WINEGARTEN Monday 11th May 2009 At 11 o'clock Topware Interactive Inc v Be Un Ltd Credit to "The Judge" and "Say what" over at TF for the snippets.

Agreed.. and downright underhand.

Valid point Car2403 but IMOit puts another spin on things so to speak I would look at it as someone taking a more serious view and have some valid points of what ACS are doing but I agree it raised my blood pressure a touch after reading as there is a air of truth to it. Also I noticed your near Newcastle... me 2

Someone left this comment on TorrentFreak .... You need to take this more seriously, and realise that the company involved is playing for millions and is a law firm. They have already made you ISP dance to their tune, so they won’t have much trouble with you. Homespun wisdom about innocence and guilt could cost you a lot of money. Firstly, it is not a criminal action, but a civil action - so the standard is not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, but is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. And against that yardstick you’ve probably lost already as the High Court has accepted that it should force an ISP to release your details. You should immediately seek legal advice from a law firm with a good IP track record and who are versed in the Davenport-Lyons case - like Lawdit or DMH Stallard, to do what you can to hamper the legal challenge. You should then make contact with your MP, MEP, the police and the press. There are some bigger issues where I believe this case can be won or lost. My understanding is that under EU law the company concerned needs to prove reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence, but their whole MO is based on threat of a civil action. As these orders are still going to the High Court, maybe a challenge can be made to one of them on this basis. Secondly, it seems that at least some of your personal data was obtained by Davenport-Lyons, but is now in the hands of ACS:Law, who don’t appear to have a Data Protection Act registration. So perhaps a challenge can be mounted on misuse of data. Thirdly, you should write to the local and national press, BBC, Sky, etc. But be careful. Davenport-Lyons put their case to the press very eloquently, and you don’t want to appear as a grubby forger fighting their righteous crusade. Don’t make too much of your guilt or innocence, but the fact that this company stands to make £12m each round of threatening letters which is disproportionate to any losses that could have been incurred, and that because of the lack of legal clarification this is a blackmailer’s charter. Point out that the age of likely offenders means that parents all over the country are now in the blackmailer’s notebooks and stand to lose their savings. Point out that other EU countriess have outlawed this practice. ACS:Law WANT you to be little. Think carefully, and thing bigger….

If you didn't do it: Either write a short letter denying their claims yourself, or get a solicitor to do it for you. In the three years that this sort of thing has been going on nobody who has replied and denied their accusations have ended up in court. Keep it brief. Their evidence is not as strong as they like to make out and they know that. Previously, people have been sending letters back and forth for months (years in some cases) debating points of evidence. The briefer it is the less protracted your correspondence is likely to be. Make a point to specifically deny breaching the parts of the CDPA 1988 which they allege were breached using your connection. It is usually sections 16(1)(d) and 20 of the act. (It might also be worth noting that, section 16(2) of the act requires you to directly infringe copyright, or authorise someone else to do so. ) It might be an idea to write something along the lines of "I have never possessed a copy of the work in any form, nor have I distributed it, or authorised anyone else to distribute it using my internet connection.", obviously changing it for your specific situation. There is no law in the UK under which they could sensibly hold you responsible for someone using your internet connection, without your knowledge, for illegal activity. Failing to secure your wireless or keep your anti virus up to date is not illegal. Note that if you read the letter carefully they don't accuse you of committing the infringement. The only say an infringement occurred which was allegedly traced to your connection. This subtle point is important to grasp. They have no evidence you did anything, and admit as much. You should remind them of this. Loudly. [*]If you are writing your own letters, it may be an idea to inform them you are levying a charge (of say £50 per letter) on any future correspondence which will form part of a counter claim. There are provisions in the civil procedure rules (specifically section 52, rule 48.6) regarding how much a lay person defending themselves can charge. It will not deter them from pursuing the matter, but at least you will be able to claim expenses if you win in court. Keep thorough records of how much time you are taking researching the matter and writing letters. It might be an idea to put a sentence in your letter reading something like "Please inform your clients that if they wish to pursue this matter, I will seek to recover all my costs to the maximum permitted by the Civil Procedure Rules.". [*]From past experience, they almost certainly will not listen. Instead, they will simply try and intimidate you further. If it was a self drafted letter they will probably tell you to seek representation (or tell you to stop taking advice from internet forums), and they will almost certainly make claims of successful cases awarding them £16,000. Despite the quotes from David Harris in that article, this case (involving the mysterious Ms. Barwiniska) was entireley undefended and not contested in any way, so it is worthless as a precident. They could have asked for a million bajillion pounds in the shape of a swan, and the judge would have awarded them it. Keep your head. Repeat your denials, ask them for full evidence and if you feel out of your depth, contact a solicitor and ask for legal advice. Taken from http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=45330

there's also this from that same site : What to do when you receive a letter of claim - Copyright Law Articles and News - Lawdit Reading Room Looks like I'm a one man band for now as I don't have £ 230 + to hire the solicitor... bugger.

I would like to make this post as a thank you to all who have contributed and got involved in this. What started out as a simple case of some friendly advice has now turned into something a lot bigger than I first imagined... Its opened my eyes to a lot things concerning matters like this and how to deal with them and in the process can now help others if need be...

HMMMM

You have a valid point but needs more confirmation and solid evidence of why and how hes involved . There is is also the issue of some Virgin employees knowing there was a court order and some not There is also the Davenport linked with ACS issue and also the contact form hyperlink taking you to a google search page... But such is life

Agreed ,I for one will not be renewing my contract with them when its up in a month or so due to this little fiasco.

That response was left on a Forum that Topware run for the game some have been accused of sharing Just had a copt infringement letter for 2 Worlds - ZuxxeZ Forum

Me too ..especially this part : Call me cynical, but this appears to be little to do with protecting copyright and everything to do with making easy money through fright tactics, particularly when you consider that the the solicitors get the lions share of these fat cheques. I suppose it was inevitable that with expensive lifestyles, some in the legal profession would start looking at 'bread & butter' money to keep them ticking over when things aren't so great, but these people are vampires. It wasn't so long ago that Davenport Lyons name appeared in a case involving a retired Scottish couple, that left it with egg on it's face, and with the evidence being no cast-iron guarantee that the accused were actually involved, its little wonder that defended cases have been dropped like a stone. What a fiasco this is starting to turn into now.

From were I live and commitments here its no go for me. Im busy checking the various threads that have now popped up on the Google search on this matter and now in the process of making a denial letter as I'm not going to ignore them as that seems to be the worst possible thing to do and I have nothing to hide so good old paper and pen time for me

Yeah sure does....

Or to cut to the chase.... "Okay, first of all: ACS and Davenport Lyons are officially authorized by TopWare Interactive. So this isn't a [problem]. Now... I'm no lawyer and from here I can't make any direct inquiries about your cases. But of course you are innocent until proven guilty. So if you are sure that you haven't done anything illegal, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. I realize that this must be frustrating and annoying for you. And I apologize if you may have been accused by mistake. But I hope you can also understand that we're just trying to protect our game. However, we'll definitely keep an eye on it and eventually take measures if the complaints about the mentioned law firms should be accumulating. " Complaints accumulating... bloody hell lol

Evil...

I was about to do this thank you Mine is exactly the same but I got the joys of having two sent to me one for £730 and one for £860 even though it states they will only be "seeking one payment of damages from you" Annoying to say the least

ACS-Law Solicitors that is the proper URL there is a .co.uk that displays the blank page but the .org.uk takes you there no problem.