Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

For discussion of the threatened legal action surrounding the alleged filesharing of pornography, computer games and music. (Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK)
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

Welcome to this forum, should you have received a letter do not panic, read the threads and make a (hopefully more informed) decision on how you want to proceed.

To avoid repeating previous posts, please familiarise yourself with the following information before posting.

Summary site (BeingThreatened.com) and Chat (IRC) or Chat (WebClient)

Speculative invoicing and “pay up or else” schemes for copyright infringement - Citizen's Advice Bureau

Speculative Invoicing Handbook

I've received a letter, what should I do? and Davenport Lyons - What can we do as a group?

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby oldbean » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:01 am

in case you haven't seen it yet... http://vimeo.com/15463930 :lol:
oldbean
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:31 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby Stardust12 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:09 am

domBigwood wrote:
Stardust12 wrote:Anyone listening to radio 1? Absolutely horrendous! MOS coming off so well on there if you didn't know the story.


I heard it this morning. It was one sided as they only had a statement from MOS but were asking for anyone who has received a letter to get in touch. So if anyone on the forum has received a letter get in touch and hopefully they'll report the other side to the story as well (about the countless innocents caught up in this).


They've just done a much longer story on newsbeat at lunch time, I heard it this morning too but it was headlines on lunchtime newsbeat. They had quotes from people who'd had letters and they all sounded guilty - not sure whether all the guilty people had called in or whether they had just edited it like that!! :tinfoilhat:

If it's on listen again later it is worth a listen, they had quite a long piece with the ministry of sound guy and he was saying that if he owned a shop and people robbed off the shelf he would prosecute them and this is the same thing. It was an incredibly biased piece. Made me very angry! :pissedoff:
Stardust12
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby Billpayerr » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:13 am

Stardust12 wrote:
domBigwood wrote:
Stardust12 wrote:If it's on listen again later it is worth a listen, they had quite a long piece with the ministry of sound guy and he was saying that if he owned a shop and people robbed off the shelf he would prosecute them and this is the same thing. It was an incredibly biased piece. Made me very angry! :pissedoff:


He also stated that they do not make any money from it. I'm not sure if he was just referring to taking people to court or the actual pre-court part. Would be good to get the full transcript.
Billpayerr
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:20 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby Billpayerr » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:16 am

ah just found the link to BBC Newsbeat report http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11484113

It's not the whole thing though
Billpayerr
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:20 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby bpaw » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:17 am

I've not had chance to listen to it, but could it be MoS are on the offensive because of DDoS?
"Hatton & Berkeley, which provides financial services to small businesses, sent the letters on behalf of its client TCYK LLC to Mrs Drew. Robert Croucher, managing director of Hatton & Berkeley, said: "They [the letters] are part of what's referred to as a pre-action protocol. We send them before action...They don't actually make a demand for money."
Source Link: BBC News
bpaw
 
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby Navarre » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:25 am

I haven't seen this discussed anywhere (apologies if I have overlooked something) - it is a recent comment by Michael Coyle of Lawdit (who are defending a large number of alleged infringers) on the company's website.

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/ro ... yright.htm

In response to Chief Master Winegarten's recent comment that "I can't understand why ...no-one has been sued", Coyle says "I am aware of two of my clients that have been sued (both entirely innocent) and who will win their case."

As this report is dated a week ago, it would seem that 2 cases may be currently being brought to court?

Anyone have any more info?
Last edited by Navarre on Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Navarre
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:09 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby samanthaj » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:25 am

I'm curious how BT intend to challenge this as they say that rights holders need to be able to protect themselves without worrying innocent people.

This statement doesn't seem to make sense really, to me at least
LARPER LIMITED c/o ACS LAW SOLICITORS
samanthaj
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:43 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby ohnonothim » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:34 am

samanthaj wrote:I'm curious how BT intend to challenge this as they say that rights holders need to be able to protect themselves without worrying innocent people.

This statement doesn't seem to make sense really, to me at least
Why not? BT seem (to me) to be saying, without wishing to prevent rights holders from asserting their rights, they do want to prevent rights holders from accusing innocent people. I can't see any contradiction in that. It may not be what you want, but I can't see what other position BT really could take.
ohnonothim
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:12 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby Offthehook » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:38 am

ohnonothim wrote:
samanthaj wrote:I'm curious how BT intend to challenge this as they say that rights holders need to be able to protect themselves without worrying innocent people.

This statement doesn't seem to make sense really, to me at least
Why not? BT seem (to me) to be saying, without wishing to prevent rights holders from asserting their rights, they do want to prevent rights holders from accusing innocent people. I can't see any contradiction in that. It may not be what you want, but I can't see what other position BT really could take.


And that involves coming up with a way that doesn't involve sending out thousands of letter to the person who's name is on the bill threatening large damages because they cannot know who infringed the copywrite.
Offthehook
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby samanthaj » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:38 am

ohnonothim wrote:
samanthaj wrote:I'm curious how BT intend to challenge this as they say that rights holders need to be able to protect themselves without worrying innocent people.

This statement doesn't seem to make sense really, to me at least
Why not? BT seem (to me) to be saying, without wishing to prevent rights holders from asserting their rights, they do want to prevent rights holders from accusing innocent people. I can't see any contradiction in that. It may not be what you want, but I can't see what other position BT really could take.


What I meant was what is the method to allow this to happen?
LARPER LIMITED c/o ACS LAW SOLICITORS
samanthaj
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:43 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby bpaw » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:40 am

ohnonothim wrote:
samanthaj wrote:I'm curious how BT intend to challenge this as they say that rights holders need to be able to protect themselves without worrying innocent people.

This statement doesn't seem to make sense really, to me at least
Why not? BT seem (to me) to be saying, without wishing to prevent rights holders from asserting their rights, they do want to prevent rights holders from accusing innocent people. I can't see any contradiction in that. It may not be what you want, but I can't see what other position BT really could take.


Did they think of the innocents when they sent unencrypted info to ACS? :pissedoff:
"Hatton & Berkeley, which provides financial services to small businesses, sent the letters on behalf of its client TCYK LLC to Mrs Drew. Robert Croucher, managing director of Hatton & Berkeley, said: "They [the letters] are part of what's referred to as a pre-action protocol. We send them before action...They don't actually make a demand for money."
Source Link: BBC News
bpaw
 
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby ohnonothim » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:51 am

samanthaj wrote:
ohnonothim wrote:
samanthaj wrote:I'm curious how BT intend to challenge this as they say that rights holders need to be able to protect themselves without worrying innocent people.

This statement doesn't seem to make sense really, to me at least
Why not? BT seem (to me) to be saying, without wishing to prevent rights holders from asserting their rights, they do want to prevent rights holders from accusing innocent people. I can't see any contradiction in that. It may not be what you want, but I can't see what other position BT really could take.


What I meant was what is the method to allow this to happen?
That's not down to BT, they are seeking to stop this method (using NPO's) until and unless it can be shown that there is a method that allows the targeting of the guilty party. i.e. BT are not seeking to prevent rights holders from asserting their rights, they are seeking to prevent rights holders from making fales accusations.
ohnonothim
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:12 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby samanthaj » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:56 am

But there in lies the problem, it is a chicken and egg situation really. I don't like the current situation but if you have your wireless hacked then people could be using it 24/7 to download this could be someone next door.

What do you suggest? Other than the steps set out by the DEB
LARPER LIMITED c/o ACS LAW SOLICITORS
samanthaj
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:43 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby Offthehook » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:13 am

and the DEB will not solve it.

Hacked Wi-Fi
Botnets
Public Wi-Fi

No provision to stop Speculative Invoicing

The ISP's say it's bad law and that's why TalkTalk and BT are requesting a judicial review. It was drawn up with rights holders in mind (following Mandy and his dodgy cruise) and not the innocent.
Offthehook
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby samanthaj » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:23 am

This is the problem, while I think it is an abuse of the legal system to allow thousands of people to be sent letters using a method that wasn't intended to be used in this way and also for it not to be regulated (remember the 'it doesn't matter about checking for uplaods' in the email)

I'm not sure that BT have a case really, unless they can prove that the NPO is being abused and stop this process, which is possible in that if this happens it would force rightsholders down the DEB process, which is something which was suggested during the DEB debate.

If it is done that way and it is expected that 70 % of people would stop after the first letter then by the second etc his number would continue to drop until the numbers would stack up and it would not be a free for all.

Further more any infringement would be reported quickly within 10 days be regulated rather than in some cases over a year before the subscriber receives a nasty gram and with little overview of the process involved.
LARPER LIMITED c/o ACS LAW SOLICITORS
samanthaj
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:43 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby ohnonothim » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:27 am

samanthaj wrote:But there in lies the problem, it is a chicken and egg situation really. I don't like the current situation but if you have your wireless hacked then people could be using it 24/7 to download this could be someone next door.

What do you suggest? Other than the steps set out by the DEB
You keep missing the point, it is not for BT to demonstrate how to target the person breaking the law, and they would not seek to prevent someone from targeting the person breaking the law, but they do seek to prevent innocents from being targeted.

That targeted the guilty party maybe difficult, perhaps even impossible is neither here nor there, BT are not trying to prevent it if it is possible.
ohnonothim
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:12 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby Offthehook » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:35 am

ISP's have always stated that they are merely conduits and it is not their job to police the 'Net
Offthehook
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby samanthaj » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:40 am

So essentially the fact that it can't be proven who commited the offence means that the NPO should not be used for this process.

If the answer comes back well what do you suggest BT they say we don't care come back when you cna prove who did it because you can't use the NPO like this.
LARPER LIMITED c/o ACS LAW SOLICITORS
samanthaj
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:43 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby Stardust12 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:49 am

Billpayerr wrote:
Stardust12 wrote:
Stardust12 wrote:If it's on listen again later it is worth a listen, they had quite a long piece with the ministry of sound guy and he was saying that if he owned a shop and people robbed off the shelf he would prosecute them and this is the same thing. It was an incredibly biased piece. Made me very angry! :pissedoff:


He also stated that they do not make any money from it. I'm not sure if he was just referring to taking people to court or the actual pre-court part. Would be good to get the full transcript.


Yes he did - there was definitely a statement insinuating that it is a costly process taking people to court over this but is worth it for the greater good...am I mistaken or have mos taken as many people to court as ACS? A big fat none! Def would be good to get a transcript.
Stardust12
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby flashman » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:29 am

Still see the ACS web site is down and still no word from Andy. What is going on?
flashman
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:18 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby Hickster » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:42 am

Arrogant Prat from Ministry of Sound on BBC Newsbeat. The actualy show was so Biased. I will or may upload it to Youtube later. Basically the BBC reporter introduced the piece as "If you have ever downloaded a piece of Music from the Ministry of Sound illegaly, they are comming after you"

This of course precludes ANY one being innocent. They covered the NPO hearing as saying "BT refused to release the names of the people who had done the deed" and that "Ministry of Sound was hopeful that they would get the names in January. NOTHING was said regarding the controversial methods, whenb one of the BBC guys said "Dont you think this is a bit harsh" Guess what? yep the Ministry idiot referred to the ACS:LAW/Gallant Macmillan argument of Shop theft and it should be tackled.

Shame they are back online after such Arrogance

Image
Please feel free to email me at:
acs.bore@gmail.com

Read the BLOG Here
http://acsbore.wordpress.com

Faceless Keyboard Warrior
User avatar
Hickster
Faceless Keyboard Warrior
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:25 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby MEMOR » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:50 am

flashman wrote:Still see the ACS web site is down and still no word from Andy. What is going on?



People seem to be worried - lost, and confused without Andy.

Lets face it - he's gone - get used to it - I know theres a vacuum now - shit happens!

If he has the audacity ( and he has ) to restart/metamorphasise/resurface and start all over again, we will soon get to know about it.

We got what we wanted - he got rodded, with an extremely hot poker up his arse, and masses of publicity for the cause !

What more could you ask?

Enjoy the atmos!

Memor
MEMOR
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:23 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby Time on my hands » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:52 am

Navarre wrote:I haven't seen this discussed anywhere (apologies if I have overlooked something) - it is a recent comment by Michael Coyle of Lawdit (who are defending a large number of alleged infringers) on the company's website.

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/ro ... yright.htm

In response to Chief Master Winegarten's recent comment that "I can't understand why ...no-one has been sued", Coyle says "I am aware of two of my clients that have been sued (both entirely innocent) and who will win their case."

As this report is dated a week ago, it would seem that 2 cases may be currently being brought to court?

Anyone have any more info?


Lawdit wrote:Now this is not strictly true I am aware of two of my clients that have been sued (both entirely innocent) and who will win their case. However the problem with being innocent results in the case drifting as the defendant does not wish to run the risk of losing. One of our cases highlights the problem with this whole debacle. The order identifies who pays the bill not who has infringed the copyright. As soon as the identity of the person is known then the claim will fail.


As soon as the identity of which person? Do they mean the identity of the real infringer (if indeed there was one)? This isn't a partuicularly clear article. We're not even certain as to whether the clients are just in the same process as the rest of us (LOD ping pong) or whether by 'sued' he means 'received official summons.
Time on my hands
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:14 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby Navarre » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:59 am

If they were in "the same process as the rest of us", I don't think he would have singled out two people of all those he represents, would he?

I agree the piece isn't well written.

I think he means if the alleged infringer isn't the Account holder the case would fall apart in Court.
Navarre
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:09 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/Davenport-Lyons lawsuit letter discussion

Postby Time on my hands » Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:02 am

MoS are on a serious PR offensive given the pummelling they've received. It's not surprising they've taken a hard line. Also the BEEB's music based stations will undoubtedly take a soft approach to any interviews considering their vested interest in keeping the big players in the music industry sweet.
Time on my hands
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:14 am

PreviousNext

Return to Torrent Download Court Action Threat/Settlement Letter Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com