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 notguilty2010 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:33 pm

I've been following this thread for a few weeks and its been a great relief to read through after the initial panic and distress of recieving a letter off Gallant McMillan alleging that I had been infringing copyright of MOS the annual. I never recieved their first letter, their 2nd letter showed up 2 months ago and I sent a LOD. However last week I received a 3rd letter (well my 2nd letter) using the same wording about rejecting my LOD as it was a template off the internet.

Do I ignore these letters now that I have actually sent in a LOD or do I carry on sending LODs for every letter :(
notguilty2010
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:13 pm

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

Postby 8of9 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:36 pm

Posted a few pages back

Mr Justice Vos........ BskyB..........any connection?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?i ... -23b.120.0

Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead, Labour)

Did not Mr. Justice Vos, in the Max Clifford case involving the private investigators of Mulcaire, Whittamore and News International, order the disclosure of documents which would have shown the extent of the industrial scale of the defendants' illegal hacking-so was not News International's settling out of court with Mr. Clifford a manipulation of the judicial system to avoid compliance with the disclosure orders? Is not this a scandalous process, amounting to a £1 million cover-up to protect Tory director of communications Andy Coulson, then News of the World editor, from being accountable for the gross malpractices for which he was responsible-
8of9
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:34 pm

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

Postby 8of9 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:50 pm

@ cookingwithgas
@ steve12345
@ nijoma

OK. The NPO was for BskyB only. No other respondents.
So..
Was the work identified music or adult material?
If it was adult, was it Hard Core or was it Soft Core ie something that could possibly be viewed on Sky's own PPV adult channels?
(I think I may be clutching at straws here but you can guess where I'm coming from)
8of9
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:34 pm

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

Postby cookingwithgas » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:20 pm

8of9 wrote:@ cookingwithgas
@ steve12345
@ nijoma

OK. The NPO was for BskyB only. No other respondents.
So..
Was the work identified music or adult material?
If it was adult, was it Hard Core or was it Soft Core ie something that could possibly be viewed on Sky's own PPV adult channels?
(I think I may be clutching at straws here but you can guess where I'm coming from)


I've no idea if it is Hard Core or Soft Core. I dont know what Sky show on their PPV.
cookingwithgas
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:22 pm

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

Postby 8of9 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:26 pm

cookingwithgas wrote:
8of9 wrote:@ cookingwithgas
@ steve12345
@ nijoma

OK. The NPO was for BskyB only. No other respondents.
So..
Was the work identified music or adult material?
If it was adult, was it Hard Core or was it Soft Core ie something that could possibly be viewed on Sky's own PPV adult channels?
(I think I may be clutching at straws here but you can guess where I'm coming from)


I've no idea if it is Hard Core or Soft Core. I dont know what Sky show on their PPV.



Yeah, Sorry. I thought of that after I posted :oops:
I suppose that most people wouldn't know!
Just a long shot really. It just seems that these letters are a bit unusual in some way, but I dont quite get it.
8of9
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:34 pm

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

Postby cookingwithgas » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:29 pm

8of9 wrote:
cookingwithgas wrote:
8of9 wrote:@ cookingwithgas
@ steve12345
@ nijoma

OK. The NPO was for BskyB only. No other respondents.
So..
Was the work identified music or adult material?
If it was adult, was it Hard Core or was it Soft Core ie something that could possibly be viewed on Sky's own PPV adult channels?
(I think I may be clutching at straws here but you can guess where I'm coming from)


I've no idea if it is Hard Core or Soft Core. I dont know what Sky show on their PPV.



Yeah, Sorry. I thought of that after I posted :oops:

I suppose that most people wouldn't know!
Just a long shot really. It just seems that these letters are a bit unusual in some way, but I dont quite get it.



Hey no wories 8of9, I appreciate the help
cookingwithgas
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:22 pm

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

Postby 8of9 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:02 pm

Norwich Pharmacal Order

A court has jurisdiction to order persons who have information that may lead to the identification of the defendant to disclose that the information. Accordingly, unidentified defendants’ identities may be made the subject of disclosure by a court in England…………
……….. The person seeking the court order must have a genuine intention of commencing proceedings.


http://www.techeye.net/internet/new-legal-ombudsman-receives-first-complaints-about-gallant-macmillan

Gallant Macmillan has been sending out letters on behalf of the Ministry of Sound to people who may or may not have been downloading MoS copyrighted music. The firm offers payment in the form of a "settlement" as a rosy alternative to court.


I don’t think that there is any way you could say that there is a genuine intention to commence proceedings. It is obvious that the intention is “settlement”.
How could any Judge think that they intend to take THOUSANDS of individuals to court. How long would this take? If every alleged infringer from every NPO were to be taken to court, it would take years. The courts would grind to a halt. It is ridiculous. It is NEVER going to happen.

The NPO can never be properly satisfied unless it is used on an individual basis
In very simple terms:
    1) An infringer is identified using accredited software. Only the IP Address is monitored at this time to to positively establish the extent of the infringement.
    2) If the Rights Holders consider that their copyright has been infringed, and are certain that their data is accurate, they then apply for an NPO.
    3) If the Judge considers that the rights holders have established sufficient grounds that an infringement has taken place then he grants the order and the ISP reveals the IP details.
    4) The Right holders then may contact the alleged infringer with an offer to settle or the genuine threat of court proceedings.

In the words of richwargo “What DON'T you monkeys have a ministry for?”

We don’t have a Ministry for the Bloody Obvious!!
8of9
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:34 pm

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

Postby cookingwithgas » Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:22 pm

The problem with Golden Eye International Ltd is they are sending out the letters themselves. What are their intentions? Will they accecpt the LoD's that will be winging their way towards their letter box?
cookingwithgas
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:22 pm

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

Postby mb10101 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:45 pm

.
Last edited by mb10101 on Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mb10101
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:54 am

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

Postby Navarre » Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:47 pm

4) The Right holders then may contact the alleged infringer


But surely they have still only identified the Account Holder?

Isn't this one of the fundamental failings of current practice (i.e. account holder and infringer not necessarily the same)????
Navarre
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:09 am

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

Postby bpaw » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:16 am

@8of9

Looking back on earlier posts from Davenporn Liars onwards, it's a same old tactic of "showing" that they are following the "Code of Practice for Pre-action Conduct in Intellectual Property Disputes" which asks both parties to try and come to an agreement which doesn't end up in court. They see this "offer" as appeasing any judge that they have tried to come to an agreement with the defendant. What is easy to see, and should be seen by any authority, is that they see an easy way of making millions of pounds and once they have done this, they take a few "token" cases to court to show they meant it.

What makes it worse is they do with the help of the legal system :wank :wank :wank :pissedoff:

What makes it even more worse is that they don't care that people will be innocent, and have only pulled out of cases which they know will look bad against them. :wank :wank :pissedoff:
bpaw
 
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

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

Postby samanthaj » Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:44 am

I think as has been mentioned in previous posts thanks to the data leak we can see that there thousands upon thousands of people have not replied, and thousands and thousands of people have replied and denied yet no one has been taken to court.

I think that what should happen is that in the case of these solisitors and particularly the rights holders that we have seen so far, they should be forced to first take a substantial number of people to court from the vast quantities of identities already received before more information can be obtained. I think that at the moment ACS on behalf of Digiprotect who I think at the moment are in first place have sent out 6.5k of letters and I'm sure that there is a vast number of people who haven't been contacted yet. As people have said if all of the statistic were collated across all of isps who have released data just on this one rightsholder than I can imagine that the number of identities released would be huge and I would imagine well well in excess of the number of letters sent out so far.

Now with that in mind why can't the courts just say no, crack on with what you have so far and do not come back until you can show that a high number of these cases have proceeded to court and not just well we have dropped 50% of cases can we have some more please. I mean they have thousands and thousands of cases to be going on with and this would be one way to insure that this is not all about the money. Even GM who are relatively new have I think sent out several thousand letters.
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 shufferin'shuccotash » Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:44 am

notguilty2010 wrote:I've been following this thread for a few weeks and its been a great relief to read through after the initial panic and distress of recieving a letter off Gallant McMillan alleging that I had been infringing copyright of MOS the annual. I never recieved their first letter, their 2nd letter showed up 2 months ago and I sent a LOD. However last week I received a 3rd letter (well my 2nd letter) using the same wording about rejecting my LOD as it was a template off the internet.

Do I ignore these letters now that I have actually sent in a LOD or do I carry on sending LODs for every letter :(


I would respond, saying that it's regrettable that they cannot accept accept your initial letter, however that is their choice, and what you have said is legally valid. For the avoidance of any doubt repeat your initial denial, and possibly state that unless they can provide any further evidence to prove that it was you, you consider this the end of the matter.

I know it's been said before, but do not offer any additional information - a bare denial is all that should be offered.
shufferin'shuccotash
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:20 am

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

Postby floppydog » Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:49 am

As simple script template for AC & TT in a possible new move in careers - "Would you like fries with that" ?
floppydog
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:08 pm

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

Postby 8of9 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:37 am

Navarre wrote:
4) The Right holders then may contact the alleged infringer


But surely they have still only identified the Account Holder?

Isn't this one of the fundamental failings of current practice (i.e. account holder and infringer not necessarily the same)????


Yes it is a failing of the current practice, but if the data collected is accurate it would be up to the rights holders whether to proceed or not.
We all know that the current system doesn't work, it would work better on an individual basis where each case was properly considered, but the alternative is the DEA and they would still have the same problem of identifying the culprit.
Devil and the deep blue sea springs to mind
Last edited by 8of9 on Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
8of9
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:34 pm

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

Postby 999whatthe » Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:54 am

OK - an update on the SRA staus (not much of one i'm afraid, but I called them for the first time to report this situation):

First I called the Legal Ombudsman as previous links took me there, they passed me onto the SRA as not their domain apparently, however the lady on the line was very much aware of the ACS situation!

So I call the SRA - 0870 6062555 option 4 if you ant to go straight through.

They were very helpful, took full details of my complaint and completed a report directly and forwarded to the investigating team, I included the breach of the DPA by both my service provider and ACS:LAW.

Unfortunately she could not provide timescales, but stated that literally thousands of people have been calling in on the same matter and because it was such a large investigation, it could take a fair time to conclude!

She suggested that because it had been reported I need not send a LOD, but I will anyway and would suggest anyone else should when appropriate to cover all bases.

I would also again urge anyone in this unfortunate situation to report to the SRA ASAP as they are dealing with this as a group case and the more ammunition the better....

The same for for GM as well I would suggest, however I have only been affected by ACS...!!
999whatthe
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 4:11 pm

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

Postby ANGRYMAN » Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:15 am

Okay Ive been following this thread for some while now as I am one of the many who has been wrongly accused. I got my second letter just now after my first lod had been refused as they say it was a template letter. Utter nonsense as I added half the words to the lod myself. I just copied the paragraph with the law acts involving the CDPA Act 1988 as I am no professional in the law. This letter that I have just received says if I do not pay the £495 within 14 days of receiving this 2nd letter then they will apply to the court for an immediate interim payment of £1000 towards their legal costs. What is this all about. Im innocent , can they do this, get money from you before you even go to court. Its outrageous. This ACS law company are really pushing it now. Threatening people with £1000 up front interim payments before you get taken to court surely cant be right. These people will not intimidate me. Ive not done it. Demanding up front legal costs by a court order before you go to court to cover their costs, whats that all about???
ANGRYMAN
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:57 am

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

Postby Time on my hands » Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:32 am

@ Angryman

ACS have been picked up on their lack of transparency re costs and fees before. They'll have plucked the £1000 (too round a figure to be real) out of thin air and would probably attribute it to the cost of sending their letters and other admin (LOL).

In reality the 1K has no other basis other than as an additional scare tactic.
Time on my hands
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:14 am

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

Postby sprungaleak » Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:47 am

ANGRYMAN wrote:Okay Ive been following this thread for some while now as I am one of the many who has been wrongly accused. I got my second letter just now after my first lod had been refused as they say it was a template letter. Utter nonsense as I added half the words to the lod myself. I just copied the paragraph with the law acts involving the CDPA Act 1988 as I am no professional in the law. This letter that I have just received says if I do not pay the £495 within 14 days of receiving this 2nd letter then they will apply to the court for an immediate interim payment of £1000 towards their legal costs. What is this all about. Im innocent , can they do this, get money from you before you even go to court. Its outrageous. This ACS law company are really pushing it now. Threatening people with £1000 up front interim payments before you get taken to court surely cant be right. These people will not intimidate me. Ive not done it. Demanding up front legal costs by a court order before you go to court to cover their costs, whats that all about???


Does the letter look something like this per chance?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38685924/ACS- ... -copyright
sprungaleak
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:44 pm

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

Postby shufferin'shuccotash » Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:53 am

ANGRYMAN wrote:Okay Ive been following this thread for some while now as I am one of the many who has been wrongly accused. I got my second letter just now after my first lod had been refused as they say it was a template letter. Utter nonsense as I added half the words to the lod myself. I just copied the paragraph with the law acts involving the CDPA Act 1988 as I am no professional in the law. This letter that I have just received says if I do not pay the £495 within 14 days of receiving this 2nd letter then they will apply to the court for an immediate interim payment of £1000 towards their legal costs. What is this all about. Im innocent , can they do this, get money from you before you even go to court. Its outrageous. This ACS law company are really pushing it now. Threatening people with £1000 up front interim payments before you get taken to court surely cant be right. These people will not intimidate me. Ive not done it. Demanding up front legal costs by a court order before you go to court to cover their costs, whats that all about???


Time on my hands wrote:@ Angryman

ACS have been picked up on their lack of transparency re costs and fees before. They'll have plucked the £1000 (too round a figure to be real) out of thin air and would probably attribute it to the cost of sending their letters and other admin (LOL).

In reality the 1K has no other basis other than as an additional scare tactic.


Don't worry about it, as far as I know this threat has no legal basis, as Time on my hands says, it's a scare tactic. A court cannot (will not?) award costs to someone on the basis of an accusation. The only way for this to happen (as far as I'm aware) is to have a trial and one side to be found guilty, and we all know that's not going to happen.

Besides, all costs ACS incur will be claimed back from their client. If their client can't afford to proceed before any possible trial, well, that's their problem, not yours. So don't worry about it.

Another way to look at it is - if the've incurred over £1000 legal costs to date (on pursuing you), why would they settle for only £495, regardless of whether it's paid within 14 days or not? Simple answer - they wouldn't. They're lying, cheating :wank 's.

What is interesting is that I've not heard of this threat being included in a letter before, has anyone else? What's the date on the letter? It strikes me that, if this letter was written post e-mail leak, then ACS are getting desperate, and are trying to get money by using different scare tactics than before. Also, if this tactic has no legal basis (can anyone with legal expertise confirm?) could this be used to prove harrassment/gaining money with menaces etc?
shufferin'shuccotash
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:20 am

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

Postby ANGRYMAN » Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:14 am

LOL sprungaleak.... Your letter is an exact carbon copy of mind. So everyone it seems are getting the same one. Thanks for that. Thought I was singled out then but as Im not the only one I feel so much better. I love this forum. It does seem seem ACS are getting desperate. Im not going to cave in. One thing about me is no matter how much money they threaten me with, Im not going to fold under any pressure. Never have in my whole life when I have never done anything wrong in the first place. Caving in to ACS with the threats is admitting that Im guilty when I havent done it in the first place. Thanks for that...
ANGRYMAN
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:57 am

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

Postby ANGRYMAN » Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:19 am

Hi there shufferin'shuccotash.... springsleak as a link to a letter he uploaded. His last comment is just above yours. Thanks for your input by the way, its much appreciated... Date on the letter is 29th September 2010 but it was clearly only posted in the last 2 days as the post mark on the envelope is 6th October 2010...
ANGRYMAN
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:57 am

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

Postby sprungaleak » Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:39 am

ANGRYMAN wrote:LOL sprungaleak.... Your letter is an exact carbon copy of mind. So everyone it seems are getting the same one. Thanks for that. Thought I was singled out then but as Im not the only one I feel so much better. I love this forum. It does seem seem ACS are getting desperate. Im not going to cave in. One thing about me is no matter how much money they threaten me with, Im not going to fold under any pressure. Never have in my whole life when I have never done anything wrong in the first place. Caving in to ACS with the threats is admitting that Im guilty when I havent done it in the first place. Thanks for that...



Haha surely its not a template found on the internet :lookup: :lookup:
sprungaleak
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:44 pm

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

Postby samanthaj » Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:52 am

So ACS are still in operation then.
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 sprungaleak » Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:54 am

samanthaj wrote:So ACS are still in operation then.


Looks like it. My question is though, who the hell in their right mind is going to hand over their credit card details after the last little problem :shock:
sprungaleak
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Torrent Download Court Action Threat/Settlement Letter Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com