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

[Renegade_BT]

Yes and no,

 

It is not the same as a DCA pursuing the case. In these cases there is no demonstratable loss that could be linked to an individual, we aren't talking technicalities with regards to collection of money, we are talking the entire premise of there being any debt at all being flawed.

 

They are not suggesting you are indebted to them at all. The evidence that would be provided for a CCJ with regards to debt collection in a county court is entirely different to intellectual property cases, of which there is no current UK precedent, which would likely be heard in the high court.

 

If you disagree then it's entirely your prerogative, but if you do choose to ignore the letters you are likely to be putting yourself at statistically greater risk than those that refute the allegations outright.

 

You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but I'd suggest you allow new posters to do their own research rather than encouraging them simply to throw the letters away and ignore them.

[Huff&Puff]

Wether you reply to the original ACS letter or nor is upto you BUT if you do receive any sort of court proceedings then you MUST reply to these.

 

It has been mentioned that on the few occasion that davenport lyons did begin proceedings it was against people who hadn't replied to any communications, it may be the case that ACS would be wary to start proceedings against people who reply and protest their innocence robustly and also show a knowledge of the law.

 

Andy

 

I agree completely. I don't think it matters a lot whether you ignore the initial letters or not, but if they do start proceeedings you definitely have to defend those. At which point they will almost certainly withdraw the claim, and it will have cost them money. There are so many dodgy aspects to these claims that I'd put the chances of them bringing defended proceedings before judge at about 0.0000001%.

 

If you ignore the letter they might bring a claim against you later. It should be easy to defend, but will involve more paperwork, but does cost them. Or you can send a LoD, and they'll probably go away after a couple of threatograms (which will most likely contain all kinds of extreme threats - don't worry they are just words).

[Guest DJMadMax]

As much as people may wish to think so, this is not a honeytrap, logistep et al simply monitor connections on existing files (followed by verification at the end of the monitoring period). They claim not to upload any data. There is nothing illegal about their data collection under current UK law.

 

Additionally, the ISPs are complying with a legal order to release details. If you ring them, they will state as such. However, they are not contesting these orders in court. This is why such fragile evidence is able to compel an ISP to hand over your details, the ISPs do not see it as in their interests to defend you. Again, the data handover is fully legitimate whilst unchallenged.

 

I'm afraid all of this is simply rehashing old questions though, I'd strongly encourage anyone finding this thread from recent mailings to do a bit of googling and further research around the matter before asking the same questions over and over!

 

Best of luck to all the new recipients. Don't panic, stand strong, you are not alone.

 

 

there is so much info saying that {logistep} are makeing fake files so of the files i have got the IP's for from the sites that the files that have been downloaded and there coming up as a IP address from germany were this {logistep} is basted all so they well not pass on the info on the way there finding out about this info that get it kicked out of court in germany.. i stand by what i say and will keep looking to find out the way they find out and 1 day i'll come back and say i am 100% that there makeing fake files but i'm going to have to try hard to track the IP's i have to fond out that may have to be put before the court if ever any of the pep's i'm working with to fight this new age of rip off....

[Guest DJMadMax]

in my head i think that the fines are not to go the the one's downloading the files but to the ones that make the file to download in the 1st place thats way there not going to want to make more files for you to download so then it will die down but no matter what they do they will all ways come up with new ways to get around the law

[Guest DJMadMax]

i did put a link on here telling you what there doing and it was taken off the like was not spam it was to do with this matter the BBC have said that it's not 100% they get it wrong as wrong as 2 70 year old's downliading GAY PORN ye i can see that some how lol the the guy and his wift all most died when they seen the fine and there pc's was looked at and there was no files at all found

 

if you want the link and it's ok to send to you PM me

Edited June 26, 2009 by DJMadMax

[BeingThreatened]

As the admin of the beingthreatened.com website, a site that was set up specifically to help people who have received these letters from ACS:Law, I am shocked and worried at the large amount of BAD information/advice floating around this forum thread.

 

I suggest that people who receive these letters do not ignore them and use the website at beingthreatened.com to inform themselves instead of the information in this thread. There are many people contributing to the website and many hours of collective research have gone into providing the best possible information and advice. It is also where recipients of these letters can convene in a chatroom to discuss things together and help each other.

 

The letters from ACS:Law are NOT a debt, and NOT a debt collection issue. While I realise that some of the posters here are experts in debt collection matters, they are certainly NOT giving the right advice concerning copyright law. And this is most definitely a copyright law matter.

[Guest DJMadMax]

As the admin of the beingthreatened.com website, a site that was set up specifically to help people who have received these letters from ACS:Law, I am shocked and worried at the large amount of BAD information/advice floating around this forum thread.

 

I suggest that people who receive these letters do not ignore them and use the website at beingthreatened.com to inform themselves instead of the information in this thread. There are many people contributing to the website and many hours of collective research have gone into providing the best possible information and advice. It is also where recipients of these letters can convene in a chatroom to discuss things together and help each other.

 

The letters from ACS:Law are NOT a debt, and NOT a debt collection issue. While I realise that some of the posters here are experts in debt collection matters, they are certainly NOT giving the right advice concerning copyright law. And this is most definitely a copyright law matter.

 

 

so you'll know then that {Davenport Lyons} was 1st sending the letters out but then stoped why.....????

[BeingThreatened]

so you'll know then that {Davenport Lyons} was 1st sending the letters out but then stoped why.....????

 

Because DL handed over their cases to ACS:Law.

[Guest DJMadMax]

they stoped because some of the info aka the tracked IP Address's was wrong and after finding this out and with the BBC's Watchdag being in on it they stoped working for them and now there with ACS:law.... and there saying the coming from ACS:law now {we are not makeing you pay we just want you to come to a deal with us} ye right what ever i also have the link whit ACS:law saying this live.... if you want it PM me

[BeingThreatened]

they stoped because some of the info aka the tracked IP Address's was wrong and after finding this out and with the BBC's Watchdag being in on it they stoped working for them and now there with ACS:law.... and there saying the coming from ACS:law now {we are not makeing you pay we just want you to come to a deal with us} ye right what ever i also have the link whit ACS:law saying this live.... if you want it PM me

 

Of course... after all you have been researching this for all of a few hours, whereas I and the people in our community have been researching this and getting these letters for almost 2 months now.

 

Dream on. Oh, and learn to spell.

[Guest DJMadMax]

come on think about it £500 plus there asking for without going to court and so far not one of there so called case's have gone and i can't see them going... itis a just the s**t you out in to paying

[BeingThreatened]

come on think about it £500 plus there asking for without going to court and so far not one of there so called case's have gone and i can't see them going... itis a just the s**t you out in to paying

 

I wish I could help you further but I can't actually understand what you are trying to say - try English.

 

Please stop giving people wrong information - they could very well end up in court if they base their decisions on some of the info in this thread.

 

Edit - you're welcome to come and get some proper information yourself, might help.

Edited June 26, 2009 by saintly_1
removal of link to unauthorised site

[Guest DJMadMax]

Of course... after all you have been researching this for all of a few hours, whereas I and the people in our community have been researching this and getting these letters for almost 2 months now.

 

Dream on. Oh, and learn to spell.

 

 

1. keybord playing up

2. been working all night

3. all the info i have come from them and the BBC also i am working with the paper & SRA to find out as much as we can to stop them from trying to get money from the wrong pep's

i'll PM you the links then you tell me then about all this work you have been doing:evil:

[Guest DJMadMax]

look at the vid and make up your mind this over guy must be working for them

BBC's Wachdog

[Guest DJMadMax]

One of the fundamental principles of English law is that you're innocent until proven guilty, and if anyone should know that it's a lawyer. But it's lawyers who are sending many of you frightening letters which appear to assume you're guilty of something that you might not have done, demanding money, and threatening even worse if you don't pay up.

Frightening letters

The letters are coming from a London-based company called Davenport Lyons, one of the most respected law firms in the UK. So much so, we've even used them here at Watchdog, but then we hadn't received the 18-page letter it sent Barbara Burch, asking for £600 compensation. It accused the mother of two of breaching copyright on a computer game called Two Worlds. "This is not right, I've not done it," Barbara told Watchdog. "I've never heard of the company, I've never heard of the game. It's not possible because I was babysitting for a friend's child at the time, so no, it's not possible."

But the letter from Davenport Lyons was quite convincing, saying that unauthorised use of the game had been traced to Barbara's computer system. Davenport Lyons said it was acting on behalf of the games rights' owner, Reality Pump, and it said it had proof of the date and time of the alleged breach of copyright. But when Watchdog sent Barbara's computer to expert Nigel Pugh from Forensic Footprints, it turned out that the game had never been on her computer at all.

Alan Guest received one of Davenport Lyons' letters, too. This time the firm said it was acting on behalf of another computer game company Atari, and Alan was accused of the illegal use of one of its games. He says: "I was 100 per cent confident I hadn't downloaded it. But, you know at the same time, you never know what can happen if it's your word against their word."

The letter asked Alan for £500 compensation because he'd allowed the games' copyright to be breached. He was also warned that he'd face much higher costs if Davenport Lyons had to take the case further. Alan's partner Heidi was so worried by the content of letter, she thought they ought to pay it, but Alan decided to fight it all the way. "I'm up for it - let them take me to court. I didn't do it, so bring it on - that's what I say." Watchdog had Alan and Heidi's computer checked out, too. And again there was no sign of the game.

Hard-core allegations

It's one thing being accused of uploading computer games when you haven't, but some of the accusations coming from Davenport Lyons are a bit more hard core. It has also been sending letters to people accusing them of breaching the copyright of a gay porn film. The film is so X-rated, we can't even tell you its title, but it certainly surprised the people, including a married couple in their 70s, who Davenport Lyons wrote to about it.

Online piracy

Davenport Lyons says it's writing the letters after being given evidence of illegal use of its clients' work on internet file sharing sites. These are sites where you can download and upload copyrighted material for free. It's online piracy and although Davenport Lyons' tactics seem heavy handed, they're actually acting on the instructions of their clients, the copyright owners.

Digital fingerprints

The accusations rest on evidence from internet tracking data. Every time you connect to the internet you leave behind a digital fingerprint called an IP address. According to Davenport Lyons, Alan and Barbara's IP addresses have been found illegally sharing their clients' works. Using a High Court order, they have then forced Alan and Barbara's internet service provider to hand over their names and addresses.

But Michael Coyle, a lawyer representing nearly 400 people who've had one of the letters, doesn't think using just an IP address as evidence is conclusive enough. He says: "Until you actually inspect the computer itself, there's no way of knowing if an individual has committed an act of copyright infringement, you have to take the hard drive and inspect it. It's nonsense to suggest that someone has committed a copyright infringement simply by an IP address."

That's because while fingerprints are impossible to fake, IP addresses aren't. According to Stuart Taylor from internet security firm SOPHOS, it's relatively simple, and the easiest way to do it is to tap into one of the many unsecured wireless internet connections most of us have these days.

Insecure wi-fi

Driving around a residential street in Hertfordshire, Stuart showed Watchdog how an IP address can be used without the owners' knowledge. With his laptop switched on, he picked up 30 to 40 wireless internet signals, most of which were secure with password protection, but three or four were not. Within seconds he was able to connect to one, and could have started downloading. If he wanted to download or upload anything illegal, he could have done so straight away, without the knowledge of the connections' owner. Was this how Barbara and Alan found themselves in trouble with Davenport Lyons?

Liability

Reality pump, who instructed Davenport Lyons to enforce the copyright of its game Two Worlds against Barbara Burch, sent a written response to Watchdog.

"Having an unsecured wireless network makes you liable for all the harm done using that network, because you set the cause for the harm done. It's comparable with installing a bath yourself in a bathroom located on a first floor flat. If it then leaks and water goes into the flat below, causing damage to property, you will be liable for all the damage caused." "We believe that letters are only sent to people who are liable for the copyright infringement of our product."

Shocked and disappointed

Games company Atari defended its decision to protect games from illegal copying but said Davenport Lyons was no longer acting on its behalf.

Atari says: "The costs and lost revenue caused by the widespread illegal copying of games causes much damage to our industry, directly affecting the many talented creative people developing the games, and also our customers. Taking action to defend our rights is necessary, but it is very important to us that any action taken is fair and appropriate. We believed that Davenport Lyons' methods were totally reliable and accurate. We were shocked and extremely disappointed when we found that they had incorrectly accused one household of illegal copying. As a direct result we told Davenport Lyons to take no further action on our behalf."

Davenport Lyons' response

"Intellectual property theft is a serious matter and these claims are by their nature complicated. Our letters reflect this and are legally correct. We write to account holders whose IP address has been used to upload our client's copyright material onto file sharing sites, and who therefore have a strong case to answer. However, we are happy to take on board people's comments and are reviewing the content of our letters with a view to making them clearer and easier to respond to."

[Guest DJMadMax]

this is the main bit you need to know

 

Digital fingerprints

The accusations rest on evidence from internet tracking data. Every time you connect to the internet you leave behind a digital fingerprint called an IP address. According to Davenport Lyons, Alan and Barbara's IP addresses have been found illegally sharing their clients' works. Using a High Court order, they have then forced Alan and Barbara's internet service provider to hand over their names and addresses.

But Michael Coyle, a lawyer representing nearly 400 people who've had one of the letters, doesn't think using just an IP address as evidence is conclusive enough. He says: "Until you actually inspect the computer itself, there's no way of knowing if an individual has committed an act of copyright infringement, you have to take the hard drive and inspect it. It's nonsense to suggest that someone has committed a copyright infringement simply by an IP address."

That's because while fingerprints are impossible to fake, IP addresses aren't. According to Stuart Taylor from internet security firm SOPHOS, it's relatively simple, and the easiest way to do it is to tap into one of the many unsecured wireless internet connections most of us have these days

[BeingThreatened]

1. keybord playing up

2. been working all night

3. all the info i have come from them and the BBC also i am working with the paper & SRA to find out as much as we can to stop them from trying to get money from the wrong pep's

i'll PM you the links then you tell me then about all this work you have been doing:evil:

 

Thank you for the link to a BBC Watchdog article about Davenport Lyons from 2008.

 

It is now 2009, and the law firm we are dealing with is ACS:Law. So not only is it old news, it's about the wrong law firm.

 

I suggest you have a look around our Reading room at **EDITED**. You'll even find the article you are referring to linked from there, among the more up to date information about the current situation.

 

Also, you are welcome to stop by for a chat in our chatroom at **EDITED** if you would like to educate yourself properly about the issue, or if you'd like to talk to our community about their efforts to get this issue more attention.

 

I just wanted to make sure you guys stop giving people wrong or outdated information, and I wanted to make sure they know where to find decent information and help instead.

 

I won't be responding to further PMs or posts but can be found on aforementioned community website.

Edited June 27, 2009 by car2403
Unauthorised links

[Guest DJMadMax]

Thank you for the link to a BBC Watchdog article about Davenport Lyons from 2008.

 

It is now 2009, and the law firm we are dealing with is ACS:Law. So not only is it old news, it's about the wrong law firm.

 

I suggest you have a look around our Reading room at **EDITED**. You'll even find the article you are referring to linked from there, among the more up to date information about the current situation.

 

Also, you are welcome to stop by for a chat in our chatroom at **EDITED** if you would like to educate yourself properly about the issue, or if you'd like to talk to our community about their efforts to get this issue more attention.

 

I just wanted to make sure you guys stop giving people wrong or outdated information, and I wanted to make sure they know where to find decent information and help instead.

 

I won't be responding to further PMs or posts but can be found on aforementioned community website.

 

 

thats were link number 2 come's in to it... were ACS:Law are chatting more about it ACS:Law intv

Edited June 27, 2009 by car2403
Quoting edited post

[BeingThreatened]

thats were link number 2 come's in to it... were ACS:Law are chatting more about it ACS:Law intv

 

Ah yes, that's the BBC Radio Four 'You and Yours' programme item. You'll find one of our community members also interviewed in that programme. There's a recording of it available on our 'In the media' page.

 

Good luck with your research, but I think you would save yourself a lot of time if you checked what is available on the site first

[Guest DJMadMax]

i'm looking for more info on the fake files there putting out to download to get your IP Address

Edited June 26, 2009 by DJMadMax

[Guest DJMadMax]

the one's that do it...

Logistep is a privately controlled, Swiss-based anti-piracy group that works not only in Switzerland but worldwide as well.

 

The company says it is at the heart of investigating copyright infringement and even has patented “LS-Technology” that allows the company to protect content such as movies, computer games, music and software. Logistep adds, "through our protected technology it is possible to identify files/ databases and their owners, respectively individual File Traders who seed File-Sharing networks with copyrighted material, in an absolutely clear and reliable manner. We recognize the problem and we offer effective solutions to prevent further economic losses, including compensation for the lost licence fees."

 

Logistep is similar to other anti-piracy agents such as the IFPI, BREIN and CRIA but Logistep is privately owned and not run exclusively by donations from the large record labels and other content owners. It is more similar to BayTSP.

 

Logistep vid

Edited June 26, 2009 by DJMadMax

[pelham9]

BUT YOU CAN NOT IGNORE THEM otherwise you will lose in court

.

 

You can and in my veiw must ignore them once you have sent a denial letter.

 

You must not however ignore court papers but must defend the case. If you ignore the court you will lose because then the judge will consider that you are admitting the claim and will make a default judgement against you without considering whether or not the case is proved. I do not conside that defaault judgements are just but are an expedient of an overloaded court system

[pelham9]

It is now 2009, and the law firm we are dealing with is ACS:Law. So not only is it old news, it's about the wrong law firm.

 

 

IF you had read this thread fully you would know that ACS:Law have not only used much of DLs web material but there is evidence that the have taken data from DL.

 

What applied to DL then applies to ACS:Law now- the are using the same modus operandi.

[car2403]

It has never been CAG's position to ignore any demand for money like this.

 

What it is worth doing, is replying, in writing, (so you can prove that you did so at a later date should the need arise) rebuking the claims made against you. There's plenty to pull a suitable reply together on this thread.

 

If you head up the letter "without prejudice, save as to costs", you'd be well within your rights to produce this letter in Court, if they do issue a claim against you and go on to lose. The legal effect is that you can recover your legal costs (even if that is just litigant in person time spent researching and preparing your response at the rate of £9.25 per hour) in that event.

 

Without replying to the letter, you're inviting the further action outlined in it, even if they don't go on and take it. For the price of a stamp, it has to be worth it to hedge your bets. (Oh, send the letter recorded delivery and ensure that you get proof of receipt - not quite the price of a stamp, probably +£1 something, but worth it for proof of receipt at the later stages)

 

We always advise never to ring. If you have the ability to record calls, you may want to, but documentation beats conversation when it comes to potential Court claims. Even if they are a "[problem]", as suggested.

 

[Guest DJMadMax]

IF you had read this thread fully you would know that ACS:Law have not only used much of DLs web material but there is evidence that the have taken data from DL.

 

What applied to DL then applies to ACS:Law now- the are using the same modus operandi.

 

 

it's not ACS:Law that are doing it it's {Logistep} there the one's tracking you then going to the copy rights owners then there going to ACS:Law but {Logistep} can not be 100% that the IP Address is your one it may be the same as your one but me and my bro tryed this one we made a test file with text doc's in a zip file and uploaded them on the one of the site's we the downloaded it with out useing any IP masking softwere and my IP address come up fine we then used the IP masking softwere and downloaded the same file and my IP address was some IP address from the US and i live in the UK so tell me this ACS:Law.... if your so called {Logistep} is so good to be 100% that the pep's in the letters did download the files your saying about why is it that we can mask are IP's to look like some from the US.... do that meen that the IP that i had will get the letter if i was Downloading files the info ACS:Law have is no good and all there doing is trying to SKAM you in to paying i say F them