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

[BARFLY]

I think it'd be 'download' by super furry animals

lol. with upload on the b-side

[stupiditto]

Hopefully this is what happens to GM

[unclebulgaria67]

thanks guys, some good advice as always. My major concern is that, after making a payment, GM pass on my details to the next shysters saying that I'm ripe for plucking, so to speak...and we have the same scenario in another three months

 

I can't believe that anyone would contemplate paying anything to a company running a 'speculative invoicing' process. No court proceedings have been taken at this point and in the view of most people it is unlikely, as difficult to prove. If you live in a household with many people, they can't sue a household. Difficult to sue the person who owns the internet line, as they cannot be proved to be liable for the breach of copyright.

 

Once you pay anything, you have admitted liability to the copyright owner and this could leave you open to very expensive further claims.

[letsdothis]

being that he used to be a DJ (that's disc jockey, not district judge) what do you think Andrew's favourite song is? i reckon "money for nothing" by dire straits..

 

Probably this one.

 

[video=youtube;nkqfa-kaRFM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkqfa-kaRFM

[stupiditto]

Probably this one.

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Mr Anonymous]

seymourtitty

 

If you get further claims, just send LOD.

You probably just paid the first demand is the letter frightened you to death and just wanted to get back to your normal stress-free lifestyle.

We too had a high level of stress for a while and a payment was tempting just to ease things.

But having waited and had time to investigate i found their letter factually incorrect, so off went the LOD.

 

Take your time if you receive anymore and study their so called 'facts'.

 

Best of luck.

[8of9]

Probably this one. Ivor Biggun

 

Sums him up completely.

(Not heard this for years. Got this on a vinyl 45rpm single. Those were the days... no copyright infringement issues then, only dodgy bootlegs on cheap cassette tapes which usually messed your player up and broke within weeks .... ah.... those were the days)

[Giant555]

Just received letter from GM saying that I have not responded to their original correspondence from beginning of July. Quote " In the absence of a repsonse within the next seven days, our client reserves its right to commence court proceedings and to show this corresponence to the court". I had written a carefully worded LOD & posted it recorded delivery over 14 days ago!!! Where does this lot get off? They send 2 letters (bad templates,bad photocopying) by 2nd class which arrive on a Saturday (so that gives you 1 less day from date of letter to respond) and somehow my recorded delivery letter has not arrived!!!!!!!

Now I have to send a REGISTERED delivery letter just (costing more money) - wonder if they'll lose that letter too! Watch this lot they seem iffy/cowboy!!

[televisionuser]

Ignored the first letter from GM today just got another one so think its best to send a LOD and say I don't know anything about this.

And Have changed my sercuity settings.

[Giant555]

Tracked recorded delivery through Royal Mail (at least they are competent!) & was signed for at GM the following day. I have saved the electronic signature - take that to court!!!!!!!!!!!! These lot are so disorganised, they don't even know who has responded or not, how does that work?

[Guest Wardy0982]

My Partner received a letter about a month ago about a single song she supposedly downloaded last October. I sent a LOD as advisded on here, and today she received a 2nd letter noting that my LOD was a version of a template on the internet and so they weren't accepting it as a satisfactory end to the matter. They've now given her another month to pay the £295 they are asking for. Is it best to send a second LOD or ignore this, as is seems no-ones been taken to court and she is adament she didnt download the file in full and certainly not the song the claim is against. Any advise would be greatly appreciated

[youtube]

The advise usually is to send another letter basically saying you stand by your original letter and no further discussion will be entered into on the mater. Any further correspondence will be deemed as harassment.

[daylight_robbery]

First post on here, but have been following for several weeks since i received a letter from GM accusing me of downloading "MOS - Annual 2010", followed everyones advice and sent an LOD using a template from this site, received a response this weekend after about 4 weeks of waiting from GM, here is how it reads:

 

Dear xxxx,

 

We refer to your letter of xx xxxx xxxx.

 

We note that your letter takes the form of a standard template response obtained from the internet. You do not attempt to respond to the specific allegations made against you.

 

Moreover, contrary to what your response says, our letter of claim makes it very clear that our client does consider that you have personally infringed its copyright(or have authorised

someone else to do so). This claim is evidenced by (a) the software that identified the IP address responsible for making the work available on the P2P network on the date and time set out in our earlier letter;

and (b) your having been identified by your ISP as the subscriber associated with that IP address.

 

The fact that you are the individual who was, at the relevant time, in control of the internet connection used to infringe our client's copyright raises an inference that you(or someone authorised by you) carried out that infringement.

 

The court's rules require that parties co-operate with each other before proceedings. They have to exchange information in writing to understand each others position and to make informed decisions about settlement and how to proceed.

You will find more information about the practice direction relating to pre-action conduct in this link:

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_pre-action_conduct.htm

 

Your letter merely makes a series of unsupported denials, including:

 

1. Denying any liability under the CDPA 1988;and

 

2. denying possessing a copy of the work, distributing it or authorising anyone else to distribute it using your internet connection.

 

Mere denials are incompatible with the practice direction. In the absence of a proper explanation as to why you are not liable, the inference of wrong doing remains.

The same comment applies to your unsubstantiated conclusion that you have been a victim of foul play.

 

Our client has no desire to pursue individuals who have done nothing wrong. They are however entitled to identify and pursue infringer s. The practice direction obliges you to give a full response to

the allegations that we have made but you can be rest assured, if that response shows, on proper consideration, that you are not responsible for the infringement, our client will take no further action.

 

If, for example, there were other users of your computer, or other individuals in your home sharing your internet connection at the time the infringement took place, you should identify those individuals

so that our client may approach them. It is certainly unnecessary to involve a forensic expert at this stage.

 

In summary, therefore, we have advised our client that, as matters stand, an inference has been raised that you are responsible for the infringement alleged in our letter of claim and the nature of your response

to date has failed to rebut that inference.

 

We would again recommend that seek independent legal advice.

 

We would ask for your response to this letter within the next 14 days and shall reconsider the position in light of any further information you then provide.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Gallant Macmillan LLP

 

As i stated guys, i received my original letter about 4 weeks ago, and promptly responded using the template LOD, i'm thinking that i should now re-iterate my points from my original letter in my own words and see what comes of it.

 

For the record, i have never heard of the ministry of sound and have never donwloaded anything, i have re-typed the above word for word from the letter i received in response to my LOD, has anyone else received this letter format, seems mildly hypocritical that they should

respond to me using a template letter accusing me of doing so???

[Mattyhatty]

Very clever wording in the rejection to the template denial letter.

 

Its brilliant how theyre twisting it to state that you have not given enough sufficient evidence in regards to your defence! When in fact its THEM that should be providing FULL undeniable evidence to accuse you with!

 

''The fact that you are the individual who was, at the relevant time, in control of the internet connection used to infringe our client's copyright raises an inference that you(or someone authorised by you) carried out that infringement.''

 

Thats wrong, because how can they proove that 'you' were in 'control' of the internet at that time. Account holding and internet useage is two different things surely!

 

id ask them to define 'control' in this context. Or would that just be another step to a ping pong game?

 

At least they were soft to mention about forensics and the kind heartedness of the client not persuing those who have done nothing wrong. But a joke when a letter of denial doesnt get you any where.

 

I cant wait to see the 2nd letter.

[youtube]

"client does consider that you have personally infringed its copyright(or have authorised someone else to do so)"

 

Aload of BS, what info they have on you can in no way shape or form point to you personally for doing either of these actions. As with any of these letters and the content within them is al pure scare tactic to make you pay when 100% innocent as the case seems to be. Although as GM are currently an unknown as these are the first letters they have sent out their actions could be different to what we expect from ACS:LAW although they could just as easily change their approach on the situations.

 

Just remember there is a good reason no contested court cases have been entered into with regards to these allegations. That is because they know their evidence is loose at best.

 

Now no one can really tell you what to do, just give you their advise.

 

My advise is if innocent to NOT pay anything as you haven't done anything wrong. Why would you pay for it? would you give somebody £300 in the street because they said they would tell the police on you because they saw you mugging an old lady (obviously you didn't).

[car2403]

If they take you to Court on that basis, without fully disclosing their claim and evidence to support it, it will be be THEM that will be in breach of the PD!

[floppydog]

From the pages of Wikipedia + a personal quote

 

Inference is the process of drawing a conclusion by applying heuristics (based on logic, statistics etc.) to observations or hypotheses; or by interpolating the next logical step in an intuited pattern. The conclusion drawn is also called an inference. The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic.

Human inference (i.e. how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology; artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference. Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data.

Greek philosophers defined a number of syllogisms, correct three-part inferences, that can be used as building blocks for more complex reasoning. We begin with the most famous of them all:

 

 

1.All men are mortal

2.Socrates is a man

3.Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

 

The reader can check that the premises and conclusion are true, but Logic is concerned with inference: does the truth of the conclusion follow from that of the premises?

 

The validity of an inference depends on the form of the inference. That is, the word "valid" does not refer to the truth of the premises or the conclusion, but rather to the form of the inference. An inference can be valid even if the parts are false, and can be invalid even if the parts are true. But a valid form with true premises will always have a true conclusion.

 

For example, consider the form of the following symbological track:

 

1.All A are B

2.C is A

3.Therefore, C is B

 

The form remains valid even if all three parts are false:

 

1.All apples are blue.

2.A banana is an apple.

3.Therefore, a banana is blue.

 

For the conclusion to be necessarily true, the premises need to be true.

 

Now we turn to an invalid form.

 

1.All A are B.

2.C is a B.

3.Therefore, C is an A.

 

To show that this form is invalid, we demonstrate how it can lead from true premises to a false conclusion.

 

1.All apples are fruit. (True)

2.Bananas are fruit. (True)

3.Therefore, bananas are apples. (False)

 

A valid argument with false premises may lead to a false conclusion:

 

1.All people who have a computer with an internet connection are pirates

2.You say that you have a computer and an internet connection.

3.Therefore, you are a pirate

 

How can logic be this simple ??

[kilotango22]

I'd be almost tempted to ask them what proof of innocence they would accept. Lord Lucas made a speech in the lords, and in that speech he stated, it is impossible to prove your innocence. You could say you were on the surface of the moon at the time, their reply, sorry, we don't accept that as its not you we are saying did it, it was someone using your interent connection. Oh well sorry you say, I didn't give anyone permission to do that, sorry they reply, we don't believe you. I would post a link to Lord Lucas's speech but I can't find it myself.

[stupiditto]

I'd be almost tempted to ask them what proof of innocence they would accept. Lord Lucas made a speech in the lords, and in that speech he stated, it is impossible to prove your innocence. You could say you were on the surface of the moon at the time, their reply, sorry, we don't accept that as its not you we are saying did it, it was someone using your interent connection. Oh well sorry you say, I didn't give anyone permission to do that, sorry they reply, we don't believe you. I would post a link to Lord Lucas's speech but I can't find it myself.

 

A few video from you tube but not sure if it one off them

[kilotango22]

http://vodpod.com/watch/3780159-acs-law-lord-lucas-how-the-game-works-and-if-the-sra-wont-do-anything-about-them-then-we-will

[youtube]

I really dont know how they sleep at night, lets hope the floods in pakistan subside and land somewhere more appropriate wink wink . I'm thinking directly on somebody's head and then straight out to sea. Lets see if they fare so well with real sharks.

[stupiditto]

http://vodpod.com/watch/3780159-acs-law-lord-lucas-how-the-game-works-and-if-the-sra-wont-do-anything-about-them-then-we-will

 

Good video - He did bumble a bit but he got the msg across. My LOD is going off tomorrow morning recorded post. These people really do make me sick.

 

I want to know if they chase people that may have shared it in America or such?

Was this file planted to catch people out? - Seems a very corrupt way of doing things dont you think?

 

Viewing that video tells me what a solicitor said to be jokingly - by replying to them and saying 'well take me to court!' Could actually scare them away as I think we all know the evidence they have against any of us would never stand up in court, and to be honest the Crown Prosecution Service would never allow it to go that far.........

[seymourtitty]

OK I'm not sure who remembers my position but anywhere here goes...I received TWO letters last Friday from GM regarding the MOS album. (30th Jul) They were identical except for a different IP addresses. I called them to clarify, and they said that this was a clerical error, and that they only want to pursue a claim of £375/£350 per person. They agreed to correct this and issued the following letter:

 

"I am writing to confirm that we will only be pursuing one claim against you, ref X. We have sent you letters for the same claim under two different references due to a clerical error and for this we apologise. We will not be pursuing claim ref Y, and will instead deal with this infringements as part of claim ref X.

 

Thus, all the infringements we have identified from your IP address will be dealt with as one claim, claim X. The details for all infringements are as follows:

 

List of 5 infringements dated 2nd Dec '09, then 2nd/3rd/5th/6th Jan '10

 

Yours sincerely, GM"

 

Therefore, a few points:

 

- They have 5 infringements against me

- I am wary of sending a LOD because the file is on my computer, and elsewhere in the thread people have advised me not to.

- Therefore should I try and negotiate a smaller settlement?

 

I know that people have said it would be crazy to pay up, so I would still welcome any advice.

[stupiditto]

@ Daylight Robbery

It is certainly unnecessary to involve a forensic expert at this stage.

This comment makes me laugh - I think they know that the are just clutching at straws - Who knows everyone may have got a new laptop. So it would never work.

 

The letters seem to be getting more threatening - How quick were they to respond? and yes i'm sure they did use a template letter.

[8of9]

 

..."I am writing to confirm that we will only be pursuing one claim against you, ref X. We have sent you letters for the same claim under two different references due to a clerical error and for this we apologise. We will not be pursuing claim ref Y, and will instead deal with this infringements as part of claim ref X"....

 

Makes you wonder how many more "clerical errors" they have made.