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

[Frodotoothache]

Hello,

 

I am in the same boat like the rest of you's, I received my first letter from ACS back in early May dated 5th May for a game called Two Worlds with their first office address (broom cupboard) 10 Hanover Sq on it.

I returned the favour and sent an letter of denial to them, the second letter came in early June that only gave me 14 days to reply with an new address on it and again another denial letter was sent to them.

 

Now early this week I have had my third letter from the ACS that came in two pages.

I heard there is a single page version out there, so is here the two page version I just scanned recently.

 

 

The question is did I do what they are accusing me?, answer is no.

I feel these people from ACS, DL and the clients they represent are trying to milk the cow for every inch of milk by using scare tactics, blackmail and extortion for money.

[car2403]

If they are really that serious, why the 2nd letter before action when they could have just started those proceedings after the 1st one?

[mr.ton]

They want details of your solicitor for their records...the cheek

It really is about time somebody did something about this bunch of rogues once & for all

[car2403]

Has anyone got anything back from SRA yet?

[Huff&Puff]

They certainly do talk some drivel What the bloody hell has it got to do with them whether you are in breach of any T&Cs with your ISP? IANAL and all that, but the reference to "duty of care" and "negligence" is just laughable IMO.

[mr.ton]

I noted the name Andrew Crossley on that letter...

Were have i seen that name before in the DCA industry...it looks very familiar

[cerberusalert]

His claim to fame is that he represented one of the Britons sentenced to prison in the ‘sex on the beach’ case in Dubai.

 

His client must've been prosecuted for illegal uploading.

[mr.ton]

Ive deffo heard that name with regards to the DCA industry in specific before as well??????

[cashins]

His claim to fame is that he represented one of the Britons sentenced to prison in the ‘sex on the beach’ case in Dubai.

 

 

Errrr....she was found guilty if I recall.

 

David

[cerberusalert]

Errrr....she was found guilty if I recall.

He represented the fella & he was imprisoned.

[william 3]

There is a lot of information on the Letter sending by ACS Law on the subject of Copywrite infringement on the web. We recieved 2 letters from them in June 09. Note that the second letter was recieved within the Time frame mentioned to 'Respond within a 31 day period. Both letters asked us to 'Admit Liability' by signing a Undertakings Sheet, pay £500 and promise not to do the same again. Please also note that what they did was to increase the scare factor simply by sending a second letter within the time frame they asked us to respond their first letter. We know nothing about the WORK thay refer to in their letters to as all.

If you recieve a letter for them write back to them and enclose the recommended responce outlined below:

ACS: LAW

18 Hanover Square

LONDON

W1S 1HY

REFERENCE: INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT - LETTER OF CLAIM. YOUR REFERENCE DIG ................ – RECEIVED 29 June 2009.

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing in reply to your letter of claim dated 25 June 2009 stating that my connection was used in an infringement of copyright, using peer to peer networks which allegedly occurred on the (P2P Protocol BITORRENT) took place last year on 14.05.2008 at 22:46:41 and concerns ‘Scooter- Jumping all Over the World.’ (THE WORK). You assert in your letter that the infringement was apparently traced to my internet connection. I note that I am not personally being accused of the infringement, as you have no evidence to this effect. Nevertheless, I categorically deny any offence under sections 16(1) (d) and 20 of the CDPA 1988. I have never possessed a copy of the work in any form, nor have I distributed it, nor have I authorised anyone else to distribute it using my internet connection. I note that section 16(2) of the act requires a person to either directly infringe copyright, or authorise someone else to do so. I have done neither, and you have not provided any evidence of my doing so. As such I cannot and will not sign the undertakings as provided by you.

As you seem to be perfectly aware, it is impossible to link an IP address to a particular person or computer without further detailed analysis, which requires a level of expertise I do not possess. Furthermore the delay in your sending of a letter of claim (407 days to be precise) precludes any such analysis. In your letter you state that “it is unlikely that a simple denial (without further explanation) will change our view of the circumstances”, unfortunately I do not have the expertise to provide a detailed explanation. As such I can only conclude that I have been a victim of foul play. As far as I am aware, there is no law in the UK under which you could properly hold me responsible for an infringement occurring via my internet connection, without either my knowledge or permission. I would be interested to hear you legal basis for attempting to do so. 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. The signature of the undersigned confirms the statement provided to be accurate and legally binding under the terms required by pre-action protocol in civil law.

Yours Faithfully

 

 

After this did this we nothing from them.

[car2403]

Even if negligence played a part, which it doesn't, as far as I can see, they would, if it did, need to go after your ISP - your ISP would then sue you, if you were negligent, vicarously. They cannot sue you for negligence, as you do not owe them, or any other "client" that they care to represent, a duty of care to protect their work - you may be infringing their right to have their copyrighted work protected, which would be more understandable, but you are in no way under any obligation to not breach their copyright.

 

Honestly, for a "Law Firm" (quotations given, because I have my doubts based on what I'm seeing here) they haven't really done their homework, have they! I studied Law, including contract/tort/copyright, at University, and even I know they are on a hiding to nothing here...

[mr.ton]

It does amaze me that the the biggest financial con ever to be played out on the British people like this has not been picked up by the newspapers

[cashins]

Honestly, for a "Law Firm" (quotations given, because I have my doubts based on what I'm seeing here) they haven't really done their homework, have they! I studied Law, including contract/tort/copyright, at University, and even I know they are on a hiding to nothing here...

 

I think that sums up what we have long suspected.

 

They are a bunch of cowboys set up primarily to make a quick buck out of anyone who is fooled into paying them.

 

David

[Delta82]

A new story posted on the ACS LAW website....

 

ACS Law to litigate

 

Our letters of claim have resulted in a significant number of payments from peer-to-peer copyright infringers and has led to the recovery of damages for our music, games and film clients worldwide. This is an exciting time for anti-piracy organisations, the movement is clearly gathering momentum with strong victories in the US, Germany and Sweden.

 

The UK will play its part. We have been instructed by various clients to issue court proceedings against identified peer-to-peer copyright infringers. In some cases, in a final effort to avoid litigation and resolve cases early, we have issued settlement offers under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Other cases will be going straight to issue, depending on the circumstances of individual cases. The first batch of proceedings will be issued next month. At ACS Law, we strive to be pro-active for our clients and will not resile from the need to issue proceedings when attempts to avoid litigation have failed.

[Huff&Puff]

Or to translate "people are getting wise to this [problem], and we need to ramp up the empty threats a bit more"

[cerberusalert]

What's the betting that those they litigate will be the ones that have totally ignored them & they're hoping for wins by defaults.

[count orlok]

forget i said that

Edited July 25, 2009 by count orlok
didn't read the part 36 properly

[mr.ton]

I cant help but think that all of this part of a wider conspiracy

[mr.ton]

ACS struggling to litigate

Our letters of claim have not resulted in a significant number of payments from peer-to-peer copyright infringers and has not led to the recovery of damages for our music, games and film clients worldwide.

This is a disapointing time, the movement is clearly against us with strong victories by consumer groups in the uk.

The UK authorities will play their part.

We have been instructed by various authorities to stop issue court proceedings against identified peer-to-peer copyright infringers.

In some cases we have invented settlement offers under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Other cases that consumers have brought against us will be going straight to issue, depending on the circumstances of individual cases.

The next batch of threats will be issued next month.

At ACS Law, we strive to con the public and will not resile from the need to defraud people when attempts to avoid litigation have failed.

[jpts33]

Nice one Mr. Ton, lol, I think your probably more accurate than ACS:LAW.

[spamheed]

I cannot believe that so much is being made of this.

 

We are a firm who may have a client involved in the media provision business.

 

We are making demands from people without even attempting to provide a legal standpoint for doing so

 

We have no reqal evidence that the persons contacted are even liable for the activities we refer to, that is of course if the alleged activities took place in the first instance. Oh, and we would like you to sign a letter of confession at the same time!!!

 

Despite the best attempts by Thatcher, Blair and Brown and a host of foeriegn ladies and gentlement who have far to many syllables in their names. We still live and work in the UK, under UK the law states that one is innocent until proven guilty. ie Prove that I did this on the day you said I did and provide evidence of same

 

One would think that until the court papers come through the door, there is no case to answer.

[car2403]

I'd personally like to invite all the guests reading this thread to register with CAG and share your own stories.

 

Don't for get that ACS:Law also have a right to reply - nothing stopping them contacting the site team, if they so wish to avail themselves of it - so lets see if they take that option.

[pridewat]

[,,,

Edited July 26, 2009 by pridewat

[pridewat]

Despite the best attempts by Thatcher, Blair and Brown and a host of foeriegn ladies and gentlement who have far to many syllables in their names. We still live and work in the UK, under UK the law states that one is innocent until proven guilty. ie Prove that I did this on the day you said I did and provide evidence of same

 

 

 

but i heard crossley is domicile monoco or canary island for tax purpose?