You're quite right, leanne. However, I'd check the list of rights holders represented by ACS / digiprotect first before relaxing too much. In the past they have come after people for a second file and, seeing as they had admitted file sharing once have upped the amount demanded to over £1000. After all, you have form and have admitted it previously (goes their reasoning).

I think he means the solicitors regulation authority (SRA).

Actually, this is a new development - and a welcome one. The SRA have started to compile information on ACS, which they have shown no interest in doing previously. Anyone who has previously contacted the SRA in connection with this matter should do so again and supply their details and fill in their questionaire. It is very easy to be an armchair critic in all of this and sit back letting apathy take over. PEOPLE NEED TO MOBILISE ON THIS! SPEAK TO YOUR MP! ANSWER THE CONSULTATION! If you do not do this, it will just carry on and on. That will be your fault.

I'm sorry to hear that has been your experience, but it is by no means universal. Did you see your MP in person, or did you just write a letter? Many people have been assured by their MPs that they will be looking into their case. Only by more people seeing their MP will this gain any momentum. Furthermore, the more MPs are aware of this, then the more chance, when the digital Britain reforms are passed through, our voices will be heard and this whole racket will be stopped.

Tom watson MP has linked to a wiki (called myrandomstuff [dot] wikispaces dot com) that has the addresses to send your replies to. Googling his name in conjunction with it might get you to it. You can submit your answers by email or letter. Here are a few of my thoughts on the consultation: As piglette said, they have a set of specific questions they want answers to, but more generally: You should make clear you are a member of the public being falsely accused of copyright infringement by ACS:law (if that's what you are) and that they are demanding £500 off you and are threatening court action if you do not pay. If you're speaking in any other capacity then make that known. You can add a little information on your own situation if you like and the horror and distress caused by having this hanging over you. But be brief. They aren't looking for rants. Think about whether you think penalties for sending out false allegations are appropriate. What should they be? Think about the time limit there should be for them to act (it can take them a much shorter time than it does now). Think about the standard of evidence which should be required. They are thinking of making it on the balance of probabilities - essentially the same as now. Should there be a limit on how many notices a rights holder can serve in a certain period? £500 is awfully steep for a single file. Do you think this is right? How much do you think they should be able to ask you for? The real threat in ACS' letters come from the boogeyman of legal costs. Even if they managed to claim a more reasonable level of damages of, say £30 off a file sharer in court, the legal costs will be thousands of pounds. this is where the fear mongering comes in. Should this be allowed, or should there be limits on this? Think about whether it is appropriate for there to be a valid business model in threatening mass litigation such as this where the more IPs they can harvest, the more letters they can send out, the more money they can rake in. Do you think that encourages them to be as thorough as possible in sorting the guilty from the innocent or examine the validity of their evidence? Do you think that rights holders should be allowed to take you to court before they have made attempts to stop a person infringing / warn them their connection may be being hijacked? Or should they be allowed to do both at the same time? There is a full list of questions beginning from page 30 of the consultation pdf. You should attempt to answer at least some of the questions, although if you don't have an opinion or experience of them simply leave them out. The deadline for the consultation is the 29th of september, so get writing!!!

Can I urge people to also speak to their MP and reply to the consultation on illicit file sharing? Unfortunately links are banned on this forum, but if people search for my username on slyck, I have posted all the info you need over there. I cannot emphasise enough how much of a golden opportunity the consultation is. We get to put our views directly to the people who are going to be making the policy in this area. They must not be allowed to have a feasible business model based on bringing litigation for copyright infringement! It closes very soon, so time is of the essence! Any questions, PM me.

Oh dear.

You're correct that it wouldn't be a jury trial in the UK. It'd be more along the lines of you, your solicitor, ACS law and the judge sitting down having a chat. The various trials in the US are wholly different to what is happening here, a fact which ACS obviously aren't interested in pointing out. For a start, many of the defendants there admitted guilt and actually did do the infringing. This is not the case for a significant proportion of letter recipients here. Furthermore, the copyright holders have much more power in the US - they are allowed to impound your computers, etc for detailed analysis which would not ordinarily happen in a civil trial in the UK. Because of this they had an awful lot more evidence than ACS have. There's also the point that at the time of the infringements occurring in the US, wireless networks were nowhere near as prevalent as they are now, and ISPs were not doling them out like candy without any sort of encryption switched on. ACS and the rightsholders in this case want to avoid going to court. They don't want the evidence challenged and it is bad for their business model to incur court costs. If you are innocent, a robust denial stands you in good stead if the unthinkable should happen and they actually follow through on their threats (which they have not done so far).

Hi all, Penumbra here visiting from other sites which are not allowed to be linked to from here. Like the one which provides the template letter most of you are using. I just felt the need to pop in to clear up a few things. Whilst I appreciate the paranoia some people may feel when dealing with dodgy / fake debt collection companies THIS IS *NOT* A DEBT COLLECTION MATTER. At this point in the game NOBODY owes anyone ANYTHING. This is a real solicitors sending out real letters on behalf of real rights holders in connection with INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY or COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Please would those who are saying this will end up on the small claims track, etc, etc pipe down as you are horribly, dangerously, wrong. You DO NOT have to abstain from signing the LOD. Please just go ahead and sign it once you have read it, understood it and CHANGED IT TO MAKE IT ACCURATE FOR YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES. They will not lift your signature and use it on a cheque or in identity fraud. As dubious and as vile as their revenue scheme is, and however many SRA judgements Andrew Crossley has received, they are not conmen. This is not a [problem] (in the usual sense of the word). It is real and if you ignore it you are at real risk of ending up in court (the patents court, on the mixed track). Sign the LOD and then you are making it an official document. If you are innocent the advice of anyone with any legal training whatsoever has been, from the start, to reply and deny. Do not ignore these letters. Engage with them and deny it. If you did do it, well frankly get a solicitor ASAP and start negotiating. Nobody who has replied and denied has ended up in court so far. Thanks for listening.

Don't worry.

Nothing to see here.

Tra la laaa

I was going to pounce on you for saying he went to court and lost, but you actually make it clear it wasn't for the infringement Needless to say, the post on the ACS page is inane blustering. IT wasn't allowed by the judge because he wasn't named on the order. The "brilliant argument" or whatever was about this, nothing to do with the evidence whatsoever.

Seems reasonable. He wrote that expressing concerns about the outfit. Now they've boon shown to be at least real (if not reputable) he could reasonably change the post. Taking it down is perhaps a bit much, but these lawyers are very libel conscious .

Information about - Chancery Division "The Chancery Division of the High Court is based in the Thomas More Building at the Royal Courts of Justice in London and is divided between Chancery Chambers and Bankruptcy and Companies Court. The Office hours are 10.00am to 4.30pm"

While I broadly agree with every other point you make, it's a bit of a misnomer to say they have "won" anything. You cannot "win" if there has not been a contest. No contested case has been seen in court. The judge had no choice in the the cases heard so far.

We sent a letter to the ICO trying to get them to issue guidance on the legality, and prevent the future release of data The ICO responded with a "It's legal, complain to the ISP/MP/anyone but us no go away". From their response letter:

This isn't a criminal matter But yes, there are massive holes in the DPA for the release of data for "the pursuance of justice" or words to that effect. Other EU countries have tightened it up to only allow release for criminal matters, but the UK still allows it for civil matters. You're broadly correct, tho

I refer you to car2403's point above. This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. The evidence standard is "balance of probabilities" not "reasonable doubt". i.e they only have to tip the judge 51 in their favour to get you stitched up like a kipper.

While I sympathise with you points, I'm sorry, but this is bordering on dangerous. Although you're right that they have no powers to enforce any kind of money collection at this point, this is not a debt enforcement matter. It is a "warning shot" for alleged copyright infringement. Although you don't have to pay a penny at this stage there is a very real risk of being taken to court for this. They state in their letters that if you don't pay, they'll take you to court. If you reply and deny it becomes a very small risk (nobody who has replied and denied have been taken to court in the last three years). I don't know what people are saying about the phone numbers not working. They have been for other people. The ones on the letters are the same as for the entry in the law society database. There are very real questions to be asked about this whole palaver, but immediately screaming [problem]!!! does not help one iota. As rubbish as the copyright and data protection laws are in this country, the copyright holders are allowed to protect their rights. Sure, this isn't the way to go about it (I find it utterly abhorrent, myself) but such histrionics are not helpful at all.

Hi, SBF. As you indicate the 'fine' they mention is no such thing. They are asking for a massive amount when it comes to a single album or single. The reality is they have no place in setting damages - the only person with that power is a judge. As you admit to doing what they accuse you of it might be an idea to send them a cheque for the sum of the album and leave it at that. There is some advice on how to handle yourself over at Slyck forums and other sites.