Page 464 of 687

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:03 am
by ANGRYMAN
Definately not me... I think they are chancers... No one is going to give them nothing now... As long as everyone with threat letters finds this thread they'll not get anything now.. Plus no new npos to be granted, their game is almost over..

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:03 am
by bpaw
Better to say to ACS: :wank that you are not providing any more correspondence until the investigation from SRA has been completed.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:06 am
by shufferin'shuccotash
samanthaj wrote:So ACS are still in operation then.


So it seems unfortunately. However, I would imagine that they will be desperate given the revelations in their e-mails, and will likely try all sorts of tactics to get people to part with their money, and sooner rather than later.

Simply put, most of the people accused now, if not all, are aware of the e-mail leak. No-one in their right mind will willingly hand over any financial details to ACS, guilty or otherwise. Any potential clients won't go near them because their reputation is now utterly crap. They will be desperate for money.

If they are still in business, I don't think it will be for long thankfully.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:15 am
by Terry1238
samanthaj wrote:So ACS are still in operation then.


That's the implication. Bad news.

I suppose that there is the possibility that one of the paralegals working from home whilst awaiting instructions from the elusive Crossley did some clearing up and posted some outstanding letters whilst on the way to the job centre.

Web-site still down though and Crossley's still on the way to bankruptcy.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:32 am
by samanthaj
The issue really is will the mass abuse of the NPO be stopped, without this the scheme will carry on regardless. ACS have nothing to loose by continuing to act on the names and address that they already have I would imagine and I suppose have the attitude of make hay while the sun shines.

The question is will the ISPs who attend court in January be succesful if they choose to attack the mass mailing scheme via NPO.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:48 am
by Countalucard
I really had hoped that he would have crawled back under the rock he came from.

A point i made to my MP is that why, after an investigation by the SRA that determines he has a case to answer, can he not be suspended pending tribuneral.

Obviously it is only fair that this process be streamlined and take no more than a few weeks from the results of the investigation, but the SRA needs to have the power to stop solicitors in their tracks once they have determined that they are stepping over the line pending a full tribuneral.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:53 am
by NoMoreSpecInvoicing
As a continuing customer of BSkyB, I am getting seriously worried about what they are up to, not going along to the NPO hearing, and the fact that they seem to be giving out details on a whim without any form of valid reasoning, hell, even BT are doing something about it and I used to think that company was about as bad as it gets.

I'm going to be moving away from BSkyB as soon as I get a chance (most probably to talkTalk as they seem to have been the only company that stood it's ground from early on), but I'd like a little more ammunition if possible so that when I do change from them I can give them enough of a reason so that perhaps they'll take a look at their practices. Although, "because you gave out my details to GM when I was innocent", "didn't turn up to any NPO hearing" and "Transmitted everyone's details unsecured" is a catalogue of disasters, I can't really see them paying any attention to this. Perhaps the news Alex has up his sleeve may just be enough :D

By the way, thanks for all the wonderful advice on this forum, I panicked when I got the letter from GM :wank , even though I'd not done it (it does initially make you wonder if you should pay for something you've not done), but reading all the advice given on this forum led me to sending back my LoD, and actually looking forward to their second letter so I can then send back the "Who cares if it's taken from a template, it's perfectly legal" response.

I'm actually really surpised that people like AC and TT are being quite as public as they are being about this whole shambles. I'm pretty sure if I was sending these letters out, potentially ruining peoples lives, I'd try and keep my name out of it, after all, there are some rather unsavoury characters out there that may not see the legal response as being the most appropriate.

Go after the guilty, and you stand a chance of looking good, go after the innocent and you stand no chance.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:56 am
by 8of9
@ Angryman
If you read the leaked Emails you will see that EVERY letter they send out is a Template and they still have the audacity to say that they are "disinclined to accept your response as it resembles a template which can be found on the Internet".
Well now you could fire that one right back at them because their response resembles a template which can also be found on the internet. :lol: :lol:

They must think that we are all as stupid as they are.

Total f*****g :wank

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:01 am
by tommytinkroom
I think i just seen Andrew Crossley selling the big issue outside Cardiff train station.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:07 am
by 8of9
NoMoreSpecInvoicing wrote:As a continuing customer of BSkyB, I am getting seriously worried about what they are up to, not going along to the NPO hearing, and the fact that they seem to be giving out details on a whim without any form of valid reasoning, hell, even BT are doing something about it and I used to think that company was about as bad as it gets.

I'm going to be moving away from BSkyB as soon as I get a chance (most probably to talkTalk as they seem to have been the only company that stood it's ground from early on), but I'd like a little more ammunition if possible so that when I do change from them I can give them enough of a reason so that perhaps they'll take a look at their practices. Although, "because you gave out my details to GM when I was innocent", "didn't turn up to any NPO hearing" and "Transmitted everyone's details unsecured" is a catalogue of disasters, I can't really see them paying any attention to this. Perhaps the news Alex has up his sleeve may just be enough :D

By the way, thanks for all the wonderful advice on this forum, I panicked when I got the letter from GM :wank , even though I'd not done it (it does initially make you wonder if you should pay for something you've not done), but reading all the advice given on this forum led me to sending back my LoD, and actually looking forward to their second letter so I can then send back the "Who cares if it's taken from a template, it's perfectly legal" response.

I'm actually really surpised that people like AC and TT are being quite as public as they are being about this whole shambles. I'm pretty sure if I was sending these letters out, potentially ruining peoples lives, I'd try and keep my name out of it, after all, there are some rather unsavoury characters out there that may not see the legal response as being the most appropriate.

Go after the guilty, and you stand a chance of looking good, go after the innocent and you stand no chance.


I've been banging on about BskyB for months now. There is definately something not quite right about what is going on with them. You cant get anything out of them. (Hiding something I expect)
I moved from Sky as soon as I realised this, and I told them straight why I was moving and it wasn't too dissimilar to what you have said in your post. They offered NO objection. Moved to TalkTalk no problem.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:23 am
by Dave909
Sorry to sound like I'm repeating myself but I feel I need to correct some thoughts on here. Sky do not own the adult channels. They have had a strict poicy of not running there own adult channels. All they do is receive a relative small payment for allowing the owners\operators of the adult channels to use the sky cards to view\order the channels and epg to give information.

Just because you can view channels on sky ewuipment it does not mean they own the channels. For example, did anyone really think sky owned Bravo (before the sale a month or so ago?) just because you needed a sky card to view it. Does sky own ESPN, MTV etc?.

Sure, there is certainly something odd going on seeing as leaked info shows that sky customers are being accused of porn downloading only for the best part. But I'd say thats more connected to there broadband service that anything to do with there tv services.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:25 am
by flashman
Well that is interesting regarding the date on the letter. Web site down, e-mails bounced back, no one taking phone calls. Hmmmmm. I would imagine that Andy is holed up somewhere. If any sense, as another poster has mentioned, not at his home address due to someone taking the law into their own hands. Not advisable but I am sure in the process of his carpet bombing, he possibly has attempted to ensnare some one who might be that way inclined.

Maybe he has retained one or two to send out last ditch attempt letters although guilty or innocent, I can`t see anyone paying out. The letters have always been about scaring people so no change there.

I read that the guy suffers from depression. Been there myself, not a good place to be. With all the mounting trouble that is building up for him that`s enough to make anyone depressed.

How ironic. This man has caused countless amounts of anxiety to thousands, goodness knows what anxiety he must be feeling.

As a child I was always told to stand up to bullies. Well ladies and gents, that`s what you have done and now the bully boy is getting his taste of medicine. Thank you all for your hard work in all of this.

If I was GM or any other law firm thinking of getting into this game I would think very carefully on the matter. Your reputation is at stake.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:36 am
by Countalucard
Alex

Any further info on what sky have been up to and what the current position of crossley is?

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:47 am
by 8of9
Dave909 wrote:Sorry to sound like I'm repeating myself but I feel I need to correct some thoughts on here. Sky do not own the adult channels. They have had a strict poicy of not running there own adult channels. All they do is receive a relative small payment for allowing the owners\operators of the adult channels to use the sky cards to view\order the channels and epg to give information.

Just because you can view channels on sky ewuipment it does not mean they own the channels. For example, did anyone really think sky owned Bravo (before the sale a month or so ago?) just because you needed a sky card to view it. Does sky own ESPN, MTV etc?.

Sure, there is certainly something odd going on seeing as leaked info shows that sky customers are being accused of porn downloading only for the best part. But I'd say thats more connected to there broadband service that anything to do with there tv services.



I've been banging on about BskyB for months now.


BskyB Broadband is what I've got a problem with. Sky is used as a generalisation, perhaps I should have been more specific.

I'm perfectly aware that Sky do not own all the channels broadcast over their network and never suggested it was anything to do with the TV service. When people refer to Virgin or BT on this forum do you think they are talking about the Telephone service, the Cable TV or the Broadband?

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:49 am
by bpaw
Not sure if posted before but interesting: openrightsgroup.org blog comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/201 ... g-part-one
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/201 ... g-part-two

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:57 am
by AlexanderHanff
Back in my office now and caught up with the thread.

There seems to be some confusion over the "template letter" issue, so I just wanted to clarify.

No solicitor (whether that be ACS:Law or anyone else) has any grounds to refuse your LOD because you have used a template. It is entirely appropriate (and indeed, adviseable) to use a template for this as the victims are almost definitely not legal professionals and therefore, really should not attempt to write a legal letter themselves.

If you receive a second letter saying they don't accept your LOD because it was a template, simply reply that irrespective of their response your initial LOD is your official response and you are standing by it - repeat it if you think it is neccessary but frankly I wouldn't bother.

They are merely trying to get you to give up more information so that you might incriminate yourself or provide them with an angle they might be able to work. Don't fall for it - they have no valid legal basis for not accepting your LOD.

I would also advise that you keep your letters to the absolute minimum number of words - the longer the ltter the more chance you have of saying something which might be misinterpretted or misrepresented. You don't need to offer an explanation, a simple denial is more than sufficient. These LODs should be no more than a single paragraph in my opinion, something like this:

In response to the referenced correspondence above, I vigorously deny liability for the alleged infringement of your client's copyright and confirm that no such works have been unlawfully obtained or disseminated by myself or third parties with my knowledge or consent. This letter represents my final response on this matter and all future correspondence from your office will be filed along with a copy of this response.

Sincerely,

Your Name
Copies Retained

Adjust the letter as you see fit, it is just meant as a guide and is not legal advice. The only time you are required to provide evidence in defence of the claim is in a court, you have no obligation to provide any further evidence to the claimant through any other channels.

That is my opinion on the matter.

Alex

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:00 am
by ACS ACTION! NEWS
I've just written up a summary of the ACS:Law operation 2 weeks after the attack and leak - http://acslaw.blogspot.com/2010/10/acsl ... ening.html

If you think I should include anything else in the 'What can you do?' section let me know and I'll add it. Can you believe it - my blog went up as the attacks happened 2 weeks ago (originally as tongue-in-cheek lulz) and has received almost 30,000 hits since? The stats are fantastic seeing the kind of terms the average person is searching for on ACS law and stumbling across the blog to boot. Google ACS Law now, the results are amazing. :mrgreen:

Great work everyone... Let's FINISH Mr. Crossley once and for all!

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:07 am
by Dave909
8of9 wrote:
Dave909 wrote:Sorry to sound like I'm repeating myself but I feel I need to correct some thoughts on here. Sky do not own the adult channels. They have had a strict poicy of not running there own adult channels. All they do is receive a relative small payment for allowing the owners\operators of the adult channels to use the sky cards to view\order the channels and epg to give information.

Just because you can view channels on sky ewuipment it does not mean they own the channels. For example, did anyone really think sky owned Bravo (before the sale a month or so ago?) just because you needed a sky card to view it. Does sky own ESPN, MTV etc?.

Sure, there is certainly something odd going on seeing as leaked info shows that sky customers are being accused of porn downloading only for the best part. But I'd say thats more connected to there broadband service that anything to do with there tv services.



I've been banging on about BskyB for months now.


BskyB Broadband is what I've got a problem with. Sky is used as a generalisation, perhaps I should have been more specific.

I'm perfectly aware that Sky do not own all the channels broadcast over their network and never suggested it was anything to do with the TV service. When people refer to Virgin or BT on this forum do you think they are talking about the Telephone service, the Cable TV or the Broadband?


To be honest I never mentioned any member in my post so please dont assume I was aiming any post directly at any member or yourself. Al I was trying to do is point out to the opinion of some and the questions being asked about weather there was connections to sky's adult ppv channels as some are kind of posting, and the sky npo details being adult titles only. By those thoughts being posted by members, might in turn throw the line of thought and clouded the npo\sky\adult film accusations with the adult channels that can be viewed via sky. By clearing the issue on ownership I'm mearly trying to clear the issue that sky does not have any input or revenue from the adult channels as such, they neither own or have any interests in them.

So the fact that all sky accusations are all adult is the leaked details does show something very odd going on. Prehaps something to do with as said the firm having a dislike for adult channels. Now I wander if thats just the connection that should be looked into, sky's (more the parent company) dislike for adult tv channels?. Dont suppose ACS etc whould have been invited to apply for customer details on adult films\content alone would they now?.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:11 am
by 8of9
bpaw wrote:Not sure if posted before but interesting: openrightsgroup.org blog comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/201 ... g-part-one
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/201 ... g-part-two


Very,interesting. Another "must read".

Anticipating 12th Jan :popcorn:

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:24 am
by samanthaj
What I don't understand is why any of this hearing has to be private? If the software is totally one hundred percent reliable, then what is the problem, the only reason for inocent people being caught would be wireless being unsecure, hacked or a user doing it without consent.

So why the privacy?

Or am I missing something?

That being said I didn't get a good feeling about the whole process being stopped, noticed there was someone there from the BPI too.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:25 am
by 8of9
Dave909 wrote:
To be honest I never mentioned any member in my post so please dont assume I was aiming any post directly at any member or yourself. Al I was trying to do is point out to the opinion of some and the questions being asked about weather there was connections to sky's adult ppv channels as some are kind of posting, and the sky npo details being adult titles only. By those thoughts being posted by members, might in turn throw the line of thought and clouded the npo\sky\adult film accusations with the adult channels that can be viewed via sky. By clearing the issue on ownership I'm mearly trying to clear the issue that sky does not have any input or revenue from the adult channels as such, they neither own or have any interests in them.

So the fact that all sky accusations are all adult is the leaked details does show something very odd going on. Prehaps something to do with as said the firm having a dislike for adult channels. Now I wander if thats just the connection that should be looked into, sky's (more the parent company) dislike for adult tv channels?. Dont suppose ACS etc whould have been invited to apply for customer details on adult films\content alone would they now?.


No problem with that Dave909
Sky, in general, have their fingers in many pies and their lack of transparancy can only lead to suspicion. We can only wait and see if anything comes out of this.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:33 am
by 8of9
Ministry of Sound indicated that they would be asking for some parts of that hearing to be held in private as what they claimed to be sensitive details of their torrent-tracking technology would have to be discussed in detail


Bulls**t.
If everything was OK with the tracking software then what is there to be protected?

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:37 am
by Terry1238
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 :(


You've sent a LOD and they've acknowledged receipt. I wouldn't send any more. Just file them.

The time would be better spent making a complaint to the SRA.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:39 am
by ohnonothim
8of9 wrote:
Ministry of Sound indicated that they would be asking for some parts of that hearing to be held in private as what they claimed to be sensitive details of their torrent-tracking technology would have to be discussed in detail


Bulls**t.
If everything was OK with the tracking software then what is there to be protected?
Indeed either they can prove their technology is 100% or it isn't, and if its commercially sensitive then they shouldn't be bringing it to court as evidence.

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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:41 am
by shufferin'shuccotash
bpaw wrote:Not sure if posted before but interesting: openrightsgroup.org blog comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/201 ... g-part-one
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/201 ... g-part-two


Very interesting read. What is interesting is that MoS want some parts of the hearing to be held in private as their "torrent-tracking" technology will be discussed. To me, this suggests that there are likely to be issues with their software that, once known, will make it easy to fool the software (assuming this isn't any software we've heard about before). Which would suggest that it is not foolproof, which again leads to the argument about the accuracy and reliability of this type of software.