As far as I understand it, those links have previously been approved by the site owner (and posted previously in multiple threads). They're hardly links to phishing sites. And definitely not irrelevent.

Icy1, people have already pointed you in the direction of the other thread on CAG. Generally, the advice given from anyone with any legal training has been (if you didn't do it) to reply and deny.

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.

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

The digital economy bill is currently passing through the house of lords and ACS have been mentioned several times. See a previously post of mine for more information on how to write to a Lord and let them know your vies on the matter. If you click my user name you should be able to get to a list of all my posts. I shan't repost the post as I'm starting to feel like a right spammer

What you do is up to you, but there is a lot of help in the links I have posted above. I won't spam them again, it's getting a little repetitive and I don't want the mods to get annoyed

Scooby, I'm afraid Flyyte is dead wrong. All sorts of organisations send out all sorts of correspondence second class and they assume, since the royal mail delivery rate is very high, that you received the document. Cheap it may be, but it's not unreasonable or unusual. Court claims have to be sent first class, or by another method which gets there the next working day, to be counted as being served (according to Rule 6.3 of the CPR) but these aren't court documents. This is a pre action letter of claim according to the Civil proceedure rules. According to section 7 of those rules, you should reply to the letter. Now, of course, these rules aren't compulsory but in the INCREDIBLY unlikley event of it ever getting to court, poor pre action conduct could count against you. Sorry, mods I will stop spamming now. I need to get some work done.

Entrapment is not a concept in British law, and the only thing that comes close are rules which govern how agents of the state behave. Digiprotect are not agents of the state and this is a civil matter so those rules don't apply. You could argue that if they distribute the files they give implied licence, which is similar to what you're getting at but there is zero evidence that this has happened in this case. They simply don't need to.

Hi, everyone. I think if we've shown anything during the last few pages of, it's that we can have quite a potent voice when we can be bothered to use it. Several of the Lords are well aware of the level this scheme of Terence and Andy's is at. For some superb youTube footage of the lords in action see here: YouTube - acsflaw1's Channel It appears from letter sent by ACS:law themselves that they are angling to become an operator of the scheme when the three strikes legislation (The Digital Economy Bill) becomes enacted and they would like to have the power to send their nastygrams to anyone unlucky enough to be caught in their way. This cannot happen. The digital economy bill is next discussed on Wednesday, for the penultimate time at committee stage. If you are a recipient of a letter from ACS:law WRITE TO A LORD TODAY. PARTICULARLY if you have complained to the SRA and not heard anything as of yet. In fact, even if you have not had a letter - write to them anyway. If you have previously written to a lord and they have not spoken up, politely write to them and as them why not. If a lord has spoken in support, then write and thank them. Lords Lucas and Clement-Jones have been particularly good. Click on the big text for a link to writetothem. IT IS AS EASY AS FILLING IN A FORM. Type in the name of the Lord you are interested in writing to in the "interested in my topic" box and let rip. Send your letter to at least two, but a MAXIMUM of 4 lords. Here is a list of lords who have already spoken (and you therefore need to write to): High Priority Lord young of norwood green (Lab) Lord de Mauley (Cons) Earl Attlee (cons) Baroness Howe of Idlicote (N/a) Baroness Byford (Cons) Lord Wade of Chorlton (Cons) Baroness Hayman (Lab) Lord Maxton (labour) 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 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) Lower Priority (already aware) The Earl of Erroll (N/A) Lord Lucas (Cons) Lord Clement-Jones (libDem) Lord Razzall (LibDem) Lord Howard of Rising (Cons) Lord Mandelson (Lab) Finally, please bear in mind that after the house of lords comes the house of commons. We will need to write to our MPs soon. Or, even better - get an appointment and speak to them in person. The system is different here in that you can only lobby your own MP to speak out on your behalf. Be prepared, keep your Lord letter hanging around ready to adapt to whatever amendments are voted in by the lords.

Yes. Past experience is (and they say on their website somewhere) they will claim for around £3k if they issue a court claim.

Some very inept question dodging / publicity from Crossley there. Nobody is accusing him of being scared of court. It would be a wee bit of a handicap for a solicitor to be scared of court. Silly man.

Unfortunateley you are going to have to put some effort in to reading up on the matter and informing yourself. Besides, there is not much more to say other than reply and deny.

Well, this is potentially quite interesting. The offence they are accusing you of is the distribution of the file in question. Not the download or the "attempted" download. Generally they state that they download a chunk of the file from the target in order to avoid the problem which leads to them sending letters to printers. Their thinking is if they receive a chunk of the file, then you're not a printer or being spoofed. In this case, if what the original poster is saying is correct then it looks as though they are telling porkies. Bear in mind that Digirights (who do the monitoring on behalf of digiprotect) apparently use a modified version of the software that Logistep use. The logistep software has sent letters to users using "no upload" clients and hence it is impossible that they could have distributed any of the file. That shows you the fallibility of this software. We know that having your wireless hijacked / hacked is not even slightly the only way these schmucks could have mucked up. If you could drop me a line at penumbra (at) beingthreatened.com or PM me with further details that would be much appreciated. The guys from ACS monitor this forum very closely so I wouldn't advise giving any more detail on your case in public.

Well, this is just semantics. As long as we're singing from the same hymn sheet. Personally I wouldn't go near the words prove or proven in a civil situation which is why I use show. The burden of proof is of course on ACS in this situation.

No, not prove. This is a civil case. They have to convince a judge that, on the balance of probabilities (i.e. convince a judge 51%) you did it, or are at least are responsible for it. Otherwise, good advice. Also, they are also accusing you of distributing the file, not downloading it. When people in the past have tried to submit their hard drive for examination, this has been refused as it is "irrelevant to their case". They have evidence your connection was used, but not who was using your connection at the time. This on it's own is probably not enough but to find out you have to take it to court which, they never have. As Huff&Puff says, they will also only be able to claim for actual damages which they will have issues arguing for more than a few pounds. However, again, it all depends on the judge and your legal representation. Don't worry - nobody has yet gotten that far. They have not even come close to a contested case in court. The only concrete example of court claims that have been issued (basically one up from a letter of claim - still not a court case) have involved people who have used nicknames on public forums which are linked to their real name somewhere who have then proceeded to either confess openly to sharing the material online, or frequent file sharing forums.