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 flashman » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:48 am

Just googled ACS Law, over 70 pages about them!
flashman
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:18 am

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

Postby wozgeog » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:53 am

flashman wrote:Just googled ACS Law, over 70 pages about them!


Puts the lid on Barnum's quote for ACS "all publicity is good publicity" :pirate:
User avatar
wozgeog
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:19 am

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

Postby ohnonothim » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:04 am

Also makes that management of how you look on the web look like bullshit too, I'd defy them to bury that lot.
ohnonothim
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:12 am

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

Postby bpaw » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:07 am

shufferin'shuccotash wrote:
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.

So if they don't get their wish, does that mean they won't discuss their technology. If they do get their wish, would the ISPs be able deduce it's validity and say it has flaws?
"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 shufferin'shuccotash » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:15 am

bpaw wrote:
shufferin'shuccotash wrote:
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.

So if they don't get their wish, does that mean they won't discuss their technology. If they do get their wish, would the ISPs be able deduce it's validity and say it has flaws?


I don't know in all honesty, I'm simply theorising, but I can't see any other reason why they'd want to discuss it in private. As for the ISP's, that depends on their motive for challenging the NPO - is it simply because they have concerns about the security of any data supplied, or do they truly have concerns about the accuracy of the data?
Last edited by shufferin'shuccotash on Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
shufferin'shuccotash
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:20 am

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

Postby samanthaj » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:16 am

The thing with this process is that if it was just a case of conecting to people and checking uploading occured then why is it shown in the email leak that IP addresses are brought up in a particular ISP range that even the ISP cannot match to a user.

Can't remember now but wasn't that around 25% of unknown IP addresses

Does that mean that the ISP record keeping is 25% incorrect or does it mean that the software is 25% incorrect. If I've gotten the figure above right then that is a major flaw.

If any other system produced results were one quarter of all data collected was no good would you trust the remain 75% ?

Who would buy a car if 25% of all the cars produced didn't make it off the production line?

If I've mis quoted the figures from a few pages back then sorry but you get the picture.

If this software connects to each and every IP address and downloads from each and every IP address then why is a quater of all that data not able to be translated in to actual names and addresses??

I would expect a small percentage sure but out of a batch of 4000 IP addresses that would equate to 1000 IP addresses which have been connected to and shown to have uploaded a file which an ISP has no record of who owened that IP at the time.

Now if that is the case then there has to be a rabbit off somewhere in this whole process, my god I'm glad they don't use the same method in a murder trial, what does it equate to pick four people who where around when the murder happened and play eeny meeny miny mo.

Come on BT ask these questions when you go to court in January
Last edited by samanthaj on Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:23 am

I don't know in all honesty, I'm simply theorising, but I can't see any other reason why they don't want to discuss it in private. As for the ISP's, that depends on their motive for challenging the NPO - is it simply because they have concerns about the security of any data supplied, or do they truly have concerns about the accuracy of the data?

[/quote]
The motive for ISPs is they were caught with their pants down thinking that complying with the original NPOs wasn't a problem (And get paid for it!), only to realise that their methods were leaked by ACS: :wank for the world to see! :D. Now they want to portray this "Wasn't us Guv!!" persona, and say we can't comply unless your able to look after data securely. If they could poke holes in the software, I think they would (And hope!).
"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 The996 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:28 am

Regardless of the accuracy of "their" tracking software:

An IP address = bill payer / account holder associated with a router (at a particular time)
An IP address <> a particular computer attached to that router (with or without the bill payer's permission)
An IP address <> a particular user using a particular computer attached to that router

It all boils down to that. Or, more accurately:

An IP address = bill payer / account holder who could possibly be coerced into paying
The996
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:33 am

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

Postby 8of9 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:31 am

samanthaj wrote:The thing with this process is that if it was just a case of conecting to people and checking uploading occured then why is it shown in the email leak that IP addresses are brought up in a particular ISP range that even the ISP cannot match to a user.

Can't remember now but wasn't that around 25% of unknown IP addresses

Does that mean that the ISP record keeping is 25% incorrect or does it mean that the software is 25% incorrect. If I've gotten the figure above right then that is a major flaw.

If any other system produced results were one quarter of all data collected was no good would you trust the remain 75% ?

Who would buy a car if 25% of all the cars produced didn't make it off the production line?

If I've mis quoted the figures from a few pages back then sorry but you get the picture.

If this software connects to each and every IP address and downloads from each and every IP address then why is a quater of all that data not able to be translated in to actual names and addresses??

I would expect a small percentage sure but out of a batch of 4000 IP addresses that would equate to 1000 IP addresses which have been connected to and shown to have uploaded a file which an ISP has no record of who owened that IP at the time.

Now if that is the case then there has to be a rabbit off somewhere in this whole process, my god I'm glad they don't use the same method in a murder trial, what does it equate to pick four people who where around when the murder happened and play eeny meeny miny mo.

Come on BT ask these questions when you go to court in January


It was also in the leaked Emails that to be sure of positively identifying uploading there would have to be a "test download" performed for more accuracy. The drawback with this is that it slows the process down and as a result there would be fewer IP's identified. (Bad news for the scammers)
I suspect that a "test download" is never done.
Last edited by 8of9 on Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:34 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 dream pinball 3d lol » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:31 am

im sure the outcome of this is going to be in mos favour,the reason well the isps will only be concerned with the data security which acs let loose,once they know that the data is encrypted to a secure level then it,s back to the letters,allthough not for acs but dont hold your breath
dream pinball 3d lol
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:25 pm

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

Postby bpaw » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:34 am

The996 wrote:Regardless of the accuracy of "their" tracking software:

An IP address = bill payer / account holder associated with a router (at a particular time)
An IP address <> a particular computer attached to that router (with or without the bill payer's permission)
An IP address <> a particular user using a particular computer attached to that router

It all boils down to that. Or, more accurately:

An IP address = bill payer / account holder who could possibly be coerced into paying


An IP address could = Cloned router
An IP address could = Spoofed IP address
An IP address could = Torrent Server IPs dumped in to torrent download

The number of people with absolute reasons why it couldn't be them is alot! (Like the guy in Scotland who was in Devon at the time of the offence and his router was switched off).
"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 Me2 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:36 am

samanthaj wrote: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


8of9 wrote:If everything was OK with the tracking software then what is there to be protected?


They could argue that a) Competitors could steal their code/ideas (lulz) and b) "infringers" could find holes to avoid future detection. :roll:

ohnonothim wrote:if its commercially sensitive then they shouldn't be bringing it to court as evidence.


But if the hearing is private, they can be pretty sure that no one in the private hearing will pass the details on...
Me2
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:16 pm

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

Postby bpaw » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:46 am

If it's about Data Protection, then their tracking software doesn't need to be discussed, and it's their systems that must comply with the Data Protection Act (ACS: :wank, are you reading? :howdy:). If their tracking software is to be discussed, then the ISPs and judge must make a judgement. That's how I see it, anyway!
"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 ralphmilne1992 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:49 am

samanthaj wrote:The thing with this process is that if it was just a case of conecting to people and checking uploading occured then why is it shown in the email leak that IP addresses are brought up in a particular ISP range that even the ISP cannot match to a user.

...

Come on BT ask these questions when you go to court in January


Not only this, but since bittorrent uploads as well as downloads it's almost impossible to find out what percentage of the torrent has been uploaded to other users, let alone a 'significant amount' as ACS claim in their letter.
ralphmilne1992
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:54 pm

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

Postby berti3 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:53 am

I just made a small donation to openrightsgroup.org in gratitude for their attendance and reporting at the MoS hearing.
berti3
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:50 am

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

Postby 8of9 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:02 am

Whether in private or in public it seems that the tracking software will be discussed.
8of9
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:34 pm

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

Postby samanthaj » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:17 am

Something else that I've just thought of what was the timescale from the ip addresses being collected and sky doing the user looks?

If it is 25% unknown in say six months them does the accuracy of the data diminish over longer period of time? This is just the software by the time you factor in isp errors, cloned modems and unsecured / hacked networks this process looks very shoddy.

Also a test download was mentioned, is this singular once per monitored file or for each and every ip address? Then if so it would be nice to hear from either the isp or digiprotect or both how they account for 25% unknown addresses. It would be nice to know that if this software is allowed to be used and holds members of the public accountable their explanation for these simple FACTS. When the DEB comes in allot more people are going to find this forum and have a complete history of how this has played out over several years. The whole of the UK may not be watching just yet but they will be shortly and they will have access to a huge archive of information. The court case in January is very important which is evident by the fact that the bpi was present
Last edited by samanthaj on Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 wozgeog » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:19 am

Please help me out with this....................

Their tracking software would need to not only log the IP address of the uploader eg Mr F, but also tell and record who else is downloading the same file from Mr F.? If it cant all they can prove is the amount of the file their tracking software has downloaded from Mr F. ie 5% of a single music track. If so I would assume they can tell exactly which 5% they got from Mr F if not, how do they know that the 5% from Mr F was their copyrighted material in digital form? Now I've confused myself.
User avatar
wozgeog
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:19 am

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

Postby 999whatthe » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:40 am

Considering what Wosgeog is saying further, I am a little confused about this "test Message/file" as even if they can capture that 5% of the file was downloaded by an IP address or even attach a test file and confirm that this file is downloaded. Its still only an IP address, so this still does not point the finger at the Subscriber ????

Or are we missing something here ??????
999whatthe
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 4:11 pm

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

Postby jsx » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:47 am

samanthaj wrote:The thing with this process is that if it was just a case of conecting to people and checking uploading occured then why is it shown in the email leak that IP addresses are brought up in a particular ISP range that even the ISP cannot match to a user.

Can't remember now but wasn't that around 25% of unknown IP addresses

Does that mean that the ISP record keeping is 25% incorrect or does it mean that the software is 25% incorrect. If I've gotten the figure above right then that is a major flaw.

If any other system produced results were one quarter of all data collected was no good would you trust the remain 75% ?

Who would buy a car if 25% of all the cars produced didn't make it off the production line?

If I've mis quoted the figures from a few pages back then sorry but you get the picture.

If this software connects to each and every IP address and downloads from each and every IP address then why is a quater of all that data not able to be translated in to actual names and addresses??

I would expect a small percentage sure but out of a batch of 4000 IP addresses that would equate to 1000 IP addresses which have been connected to and shown to have uploaded a file which an ISP has no record of who owened that IP at the time.

Now if that is the case then there has to be a rabbit off somewhere in this whole process, my god I'm glad they don't use the same method in a murder trial, what does it equate to pick four people who where around when the murder happened and play eeny meeny miny mo.

Come on BT ask these questions when you go to court in January


These figures came from the two MediaCat spreadsheets of porn titles with captured IPs linked to names & addresses, but the UNKNOWNS caught my eye. One sheet was 1325/5358 = 24.7% UNKNOWN and the other was 1400/5718 = 24.4% UNKNOWN, so a pretty regular pattern of fail rate.
I wonder what level of assurance about the accuracy of the IP capturing software (MediaCat in this case),if any, Chief Master Winegarten was given or indeed did CMW even enquire about accuracy ? Clearly the ISPs didn't put up any fight during this particular NPO application but it must be embarrassing for CMW to have these figures published. Either MediaCat lied about their product or CMW never asked. Personally I'm shocked that the accuracy isn't in the 99% plus region.
Crossley was using the threat of his specialist witnesses MediaCat to identify peoples IPs in an attempt to frighten them into settling out of court, I bet Crossley and MediaCat never imagined the 25% failure rate of the system to be made public.

The scam is almost like saying to someone "I know your car registration number, therefore you're guilty of speeding and must pay this fine".... it's complete crap but it doesn't look good on CMW's CV for allowing it to happen.
Last edited by jsx on Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jsx
jsx
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:44 am

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

Postby Offthehook » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:51 am

People need to stop getting hung up about the 5% downloaded, the software logging IP, hacked Wi-Fi etc. etc.

Unless you have a proper, forensic examination of all the computers in the location at the time/date of the alleged download/upload, the claimant cannot prove (and even then it's difficult) who is actually guilty of the infringement, which is a key part of the legislation as it stands.

Until a test case is heard where all the legal and technical arguments can be fully appraised, and appealed, the whole thing is

chancers engaging in speculative invoicing
Offthehook
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:30 am

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

Postby MrFredPFL » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:58 am

999whatthe wrote:Considering what Wosgeog is saying further, I am a little confused about this "test Message/file" as even if they can capture that 5% of the file was downloaded by an IP address or even attach a test file and confirm that this file is downloaded. Its still only an IP address, so this still does not point the finger at the Subscriber ????

Or are we missing something here ??????


no, that's right. the data does nothing to establish WHO down/uploaded something. what it could do, however, is help establish that at least the file in question is actually being transferred - something which an IP address by itself does not do.

samantha: i agree completely that a 25% error rate (mind you, that's what they ADMIT - reality could actually be much worse) is a completely unacceptable rate for anyone. to send out these threatening letters, knowing your system is highly flawed to begin with, is, in my opinion, utterly reprehensible and morally bankrupt.

the court needs to investigate the so-called evidence collection methods employed, and it needs to do it in full view of the public. you cannot tell the court "you're just going to have to trust me on this." shame on any court which allows that, and shame on any court which denies full disclosure to all parties - and all parties in this case includes the public.
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15810
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

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

Postby bpaw » Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:00 pm

I think people get hung up because the original NPOs were granted with CMW commenting that it's wrong for people to copy copyright files to a folder and share them, which is totally not what torrent is all about (And people on this forum have notified him about). It's good that the next round of NPOs are on hold, but the subjects back again in January and this technology needs to exposed for the crap thing it is.
"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 Me2 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:32 pm

wozgeog wrote:Please help me out with this....................

Their tracking software would need to not only log the IP address of the uploader eg Mr F, but also tell and record who else is downloading the same file from Mr F.? If it cant all they can prove is the amount of the file their tracking software has downloaded from Mr F. ie 5% of a single music track. If so I would assume they can tell exactly which 5% they got from Mr F if not, how do they know that the 5% from Mr F was their copyrighted material in digital form? Now I've confused myself.


In their own email correspondence, it is evident that ACS were aware that the only realistic damages that could actually prove would be for, as you say, a single copy - and that quantum damages model used by DL was :wank.

As for knowing whether it was actually their material, the hash would identify it.
Me2
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:16 pm

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

Postby samanthaj » Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:41 pm

I think that we all need to echo MrFreds sentiments to CMW if the public are to be held to ransom then the public should be made aware as to the standards of the evidence.

This case in January will be watched with keen interest around the globe by the media and companies who will use the DEB in a fair and proportionate way but most importantly by those who won't and see the whole process as a licence to print money. By holding any part of this hearing I'n private you are deceiving the public.

I think that people understand that there is some scope for error and that insecure wireless can be abused but we should not be seeing the levels that we are seeing at the moment or hearing storys of an elderly gentleman who had his laptop with him was over 300 miles away, his electric in his house was turned off (no wireless router) and still he receives a letter.

HOW CAN THIS BE! CMW, ISP, DATA HARVESTER ???

IF YOUR SYSTEMS ARE THAT ACCURATE SHOUT ABOUT IT, TELL THE WORLD, HOLD YOURSELVES UP AS THE GOLD STANDARD OF DATA HARVESTERS. WHY HIDE??

PLEASE DON'T GIVE ANY CRAP ABOUT THE SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE OR THE METHODS YOU DEPLOY THERE ARE SEVERAL COMPARES AROUND THE WORLD WHO DO THIS SORT OF WORK ANYONE THAT WANTS TO DO THIS IS DOING IT. FURTHERMORE AFTER ONLY LOOKING INTO THIS FOR A SHORT TIME EVEN I KNOW THAT ANYONE WHO WANTS TO AVOID THESE TYPES OF LETTERS WILL USE ANYONE OF THE FOLLOWING.

NEWSGROUPS
CYBERLOCKERS RAPID SHARE ETC.
VPN
SEEDBOX (I THINK)

AND PROBABLY A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER THINGS THAT I HAVEN'T COME ACROSS.

SO WHO ARE YOU HIDING YOUR METHODS FROM AND WHY? :D

sorry for shouting
LARPER LIMITED c/o ACS LAW SOLICITORS
samanthaj
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:43 am

PreviousNext

Return to Torrent Download Court Action Threat/Settlement Letter Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com