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 Navarre » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:09 pm

As far as ACS, GM or whomsoever - hereafter referred to as The Persecutors - are concerned, given that:

1. Unless you disclose information voluntarily (i.e. in your denial, etc), The Persecutor knows very little/next to nothing about your household.
2. An accurate IP address reading MIGHT AT BEST indentify an Account holder, rather than an infringer.
3. The liklihood is that less than 1 copy of any work was uploaded.
4. This is a CIVIL matter - there is NO punishment element, so damages are limited to actual Copyright holder loss (plus, in theory, costs). Net profit on a DVD? Less than £10? On A CD? Less than £5? On a music track? Less than £1.

Given all this, is it surprising that The Persecutors have avoided any prosecution of any case that is liable to be defended?

They are on a hiding to NOTHING. The odds - in court - must be massively stacked against them.

EVEN IF a case could be proven, would a judge award costs entirely against a party that had caused a real loss of LESS THAN £10 and had been hounded in the manner currently employed by The Persecutors? I don't think so.

If The Persecutors had to bear their own costs (or even ALL costs) in an effort to claim damages of a few quid - these cases would obviously cease immediately - if not sooner.
Navarre
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:09 am

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

Postby Dave909 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:17 pm

Also another thought, why have details about the software be requested to be gone through it private? (that is only a request at the moment I gather is it not?).

As if it is there intention to go to court there is no validity in there request as the same information they want to keep secret would have to be provided as part of a defence for any accused anyway?. Do you think CMW will realise this and therefor refuse there request to have parts heard is private for that very reason?.
Dave909
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 4:23 pm

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

Postby jsx » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:18 pm

@ Samantha,
re seedboxes. I was considering getting a seedbox to have a play with it and help distribute some Linux stuff. I looked at a few providers but was put off when reading the Xirvik FAQ section which said that if they receive a copyright notice the admin delete the torrent in question and forward the letter to the account holder..... not much point in signing up then if the hosts forward any copyright claims.
I suppose one positive thing with a seedbox is that it can be situated abroad and we know from Crossley's leaks that they don't bother with foreign IPs which get caught in the torrent swarm, but that can be done with a VPN too.

The first news I saw of the ACS:LAW leak was a link to a post on the Usenet and the first place the ThunderbirdPortableACS appeared was also on the Usenet.
jsx
jsx
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:44 am

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

Postby samanthaj » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:28 pm

@jsx if I'm honest I was just throwing terms our there that I had picked up while researching the subject but thanks for the info.
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 MrFredPFL » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:30 pm

Dave909 wrote:Also another thought, why have details about the software be requested to be gone through it private? (that is only a request at the moment I gather is it not?).

As if it is there intention to go to court there is no validity in there request as the same information they want to keep secret would have to be provided as part of a defence for any accused anyway?. Do you think CMW will realise this and therefor refuse there request to have parts heard is private for that very reason?.


i would sincerely hope so.
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15809
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

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

Postby jambo » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:57 pm

Just a quick note on the LOD and this is my opionion and how i see it once youve sent your denial if your innocent and put in that you wont be corresponding anymore thats exactly wot you should do forget writing back again saying im sorry you dont execpt templates blah blah blah your just getting drawn into letter ping pong thats exactly what these firms want.End of the day at least you have sent in your denial unlike the thousands that have just egnored these demands which the email leak proves.This is what realy p****** me off honest innocent people scared with worry by theses firms and the guilty ones are the f****** who have proberly just totally egnored these letters.so whats the crack with all the thousands that have just egnorned these LOC then what the f*** is happening with these people. Just shows what a load of Bulls*** this whole fiasco is.!!!!!!!!!!!
jambo
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 6:02 am

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

Postby bpaw » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:59 pm

Just a thought?

If someone went down to the Courts on Jan 12th and hacked their wifi and DL some porn, MoD tunes and just for good measure Dream Pinball 3D, who would be liable then? I just find it funny to think about it! :lol:
"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 samanthaj » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:59 pm

MrFredPFL wrote:
Dave909 wrote:Also another thought, why have details about the software be requested to be gone through it private? (that is only a request at the moment I gather is it not?).

As if it is there intention to go to court there is no validity in there request as the same information they want to keep secret would have to be provided as part of a defence for any accused anyway?. Do you think CMW will realise this and therefor refuse there request to have parts heard is private for that very reason?.


i would sincerely hope so.


Something else which might be worth asking CMW. This sounds like an excellent argument for having the meeting in public and something that I would find it hard for anyone to argue against. I think that just as before it might be worth taking the time to contact CMW and mentioning this before he has to make his decision.
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 2:03 pm

jambo wrote:Just a quick note on the LOD and this is my opionion and how i see it once youve sent your denial if your innocent and put in that you wont be corresponding anymore thats exactly wot you should do forget writing back again saying im sorry you dont execpt templates blah blah blah your just getting drawn into letter ping pong thats exactly what these firms want.End of the day at least you have sent in your denial unlike the thousands that have just egnored these demands which the email leak proves.This is what realy p****** me off honest innocent people scared with worry by theses firms and the guilty ones are the f****** who have proberly just totally egnored these letters.so whats the crack with all the thousands that have just egnorned these LOC then what the f*** is happening with these people. Just shows what a load of Bulls*** this whole fiasco is.!!!!!!!!!!!

I am more than happy to ping pong letters, as it drags the whole thing out and it costs them to send the letters. That would cost them more in the long run if they have to do this to thousands. Same response, denial and no more.
"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 Offthehook » Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:15 pm

I wouldn't keep wasting my money on stamps, paper and envelopes.

Initial LOC arrives.
Send initial LOD
Second LOC arrives, rejecting first LOD as template
Send second LOD repeating first LOD and advising template is perfectly acceptable to the courts. Also advise that any further LOC will be treated as harassment and passed to the police to be investigated under criminal law.
Offthehook
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:30 am

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

Postby ohnonothim » Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:40 pm

bpaw wrote: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


An IP address could = IP address that used to be being used by someone for Torrent, but now reassigned to someone new not using the torrent.

But software accuracy is a huge problem too.
ohnonothim
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:12 am

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

Postby ANGRYMAN » Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:01 pm

Okay, Ive decided to download this bit torrent application so that I could download this acs leaked file on piratebay. Now these bit torrents I have never used before as I dont download but just playing around with the application to see how it works and I found something quite interesting. Okay here is the thing...

It has become apparant these law firms dont care if you down load it is the upload part that they say that you are infringing on. Now here is the thing that no one has picked up on before. If they are saying that you have uploaded a certain amount of a file that causes an infringement what constitutes an amount or percentage of the file uploaded in question which makes it an infringement of copyright...

What Im getting at is the bit torrent auto uploads no matter what, but you can it seems control how much is uploaded. Now say I download a file for arguments sake a 1 gb file and I set the upload to 1kbs which is the minimum. Now here is the thing. Even if there was one other person downloading from you instead of a swarm , the most he could download from you in a say 1.5 hr movie is about if I have calculated right is 2 seconds of the movie and that is spread in different parts of the file . So if a swarm downloads from you they are going to download from you less than that...because the one 1kbs upload you are say allowing to be uploaded is split between them. Now I have done a lot of research over the last 2 weeks and have learnt that a copy right infringement is only an infringement when a certain amount of the file is uploaded...

Now this is my thoughts... Do my thoughts make any sense...
ANGRYMAN
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:57 am

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

Postby bpaw » Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:26 pm

ohnonothim wrote:
bpaw wrote: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


An IP address could = IP address that used to be being used by someone for Torrent, but now reassigned to someone new not using the torrent.

But software accuracy is a huge problem too.


Had a funny one in work today. A small website that runs on one of routers went down. We investigated it, and found we could ping continuous the public (fixed) ip (Ping xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx -t). We then switched the router off and the ping continued! Rang BT and they couldn't understand or offer any advice. After about 10mins it stopped pinging and we switched the router back on and it worked OK. Odd. :tinfoilhat:
"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 8of9 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:31 pm

jsx wrote:.....if they receive a copyright notice the admin delete the torrent in question and forward the letter to the account holder.....


The "take down" notice facility, I believe, is available for Bittorrent sites. Rights holders can ask for their work to be removed. Whether it is done or not is another thing.
MediaCat etc would not want their torrents removed as they use them as a sort of "Honey Trap"
8of9
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:34 pm

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

Postby floppydog » Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:45 pm

I have read some of the ACS emails from posts on the net and I am very concerned. It would appear that when they went to court all the had was an ip address and the name of the file along with a # hash number ( torrent file id ). Now the scary part - after they get the information from the NPO they then have to physically import all this data together. They have to match up the alleged infringers name with names, addresses, postcodes, dates, file names, type of torrent programme etc etc. I have used excel for many many years and it really is an easy programme to c**k up when your are importing, cutting & pasting - how can they be sure that all of the information has been collated properly ?
floppydog
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:08 pm

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

Postby notapenny » Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:59 pm

@floppydog: ACS can't.

And in all honesty, I doubt they even give a damn.

If they were to gain an extra £990 from two letters to innocent people, do you think :wank ley would lose sleep over it?
Have you been told to 'choke on your mince pies'?
Do you have no scruples?
Want money you're not entitled to?
Are you more rotund than usual?

You're in luck - Ambulance Chasing Sh*tes are here to put the smile and the mince pie frosting back on your face.
notapenny
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:08 am

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

Postby dangletrousers » Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:17 pm

ANGRYMAN wrote:Okay, Ive decided to download this bit torrent application so that I could download this acs leaked file on piratebay. Now these bit torrents I have never used before as I dont download but just playing around with the application to see how it works and I found something quite interesting. Okay here is the thing...

It has become apparant these law firms dont care if you down load it is the upload part that they say that you are infringing on. Now here is the thing that no one has picked up on before. If they are saying that you have uploaded a certain amount of a file that causes an infringement what constitutes an amount or percentage of the file uploaded in question which makes it an infringement of copyright...

What Im getting at is the bit torrent auto uploads no matter what, but you can it seems control how much is uploaded. Now say I download a file for arguments sake a 1 gb file and I set the upload to 1kbs which is the minimum. Now here is the thing. Even if there was one other person downloading from you instead of a swarm , the most he could download from you in a say 1.5 hr movie is about if I have calculated right is 2 seconds of the movie and that is spread in different parts of the file . So if a swarm downloads from you they are going to download from you less than that...because the one 1kbs upload you are say allowing to be uploaded is split between them. Now I have done a lot of research over the last 2 weeks and have learnt that a copy right infringement is only an infringement when a certain amount of the file is uploaded...

Now this is my thoughts... Do my thoughts make any sense...



Your thoughts make a lot of sense,just as they made sense to the members who have posted this already.

Newbies read the previous posts :thumbup:
dangletrousers
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:45 am
Location: sat on my arse with a laptop and a beer

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

Postby cookingwithgas » Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:23 pm

Is there anymore info in regards of Golden Eye International Ltd?
cookingwithgas
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:22 pm

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

Postby MrFredPFL » Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:26 pm

:lol: @ wankley :D
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15809
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

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

Postby Dazed&Confused » Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:31 pm

Hello All, I'm one of what I suspect are many who have browsed this forum at first in panic, found support and advice, and ultimately knowledge and strength. 1st ACS letter turned up on my doorstep 18 Sep, dated 9 Sep. Complete panic ensued: I am what I consider anyway, a mature sensible person. My first though was what's happening, I aint done this but there is no way I can a) afford to challenge this b) risk my reputation with family/friends/work. I was simple enough to believe jurisprudence would prevent a law firm from making unqualified and unsubstantiated demands. I even accepted that if a third party was involved it was my responsibility to make amends. All I can say is I am so glad that before I made any payment to Mr. Crossley I typed ACS into google and the first suggested search was ACS SCAM. That led me ultimately to this forum, I know now that it is not a scam but an exploit, I know now how to respond to that, and ( lol ) what template response I can expect from Mr. Crossley. I also, and this was before ACS destroyed any credibility by publishing on the web their business process, gained enough confidence to tell my family, friends and colleagues (by way of a warning should they receive a letter) all about the accusations. An old mantra I guess, but when being blackmailed, tell everyone. Anyway long story short, I only registered to say thank you to Hickster, Alex, Sam, MrFred and many others. You don’t rant and rave, you debate and inform. Ta.

Right love in over, keep up the good work please.
Dazed&Confused
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:51 pm

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

Postby OsafImerod » Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:37 pm

shufferin'shuccotash wrote: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?

Both, plus concerns about strength of evidence in the NPO applications. But I think BT must hate Mandelson and his wretched shambolic Digital Economy Act. OK, BT has bad press over DPA and RIPA breaches (Phorm/Webwise, Friends and Family/NoW, ACS-Law), but just look at what they have to say to Ofcom; it's quite long, but pretty thorough:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binari ... ses/BT.pdf
Some discussion of all this at
http://community.bt.com/t5/The-Lounge/A ... 950/page/6
OsafImerod
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:03 pm

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

Postby Hickster » Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:41 pm

Ok Ok, i dont wnt to sound any alarm bells here, BUT has the media interest in this waned? has it lost interest already? I have this horrid feeling it has, or are we in the calm before the storm?
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 ShuttleKing » Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:53 pm

The media just want a hot topic, so we'll survive as usual without 'em(I bet they're active when ACS gets fined though :D )
Just tried googling ACS:LAW and at least in the first three pages it ain't there. Has it gone for good(shame :D )
ShuttleKing
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:04 pm

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

Postby ohnonothim » Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:12 pm

bpaw wrote:
ohnonothim wrote:
bpaw wrote: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


An IP address could = IP address that used to be being used by someone for Torrent, but now reassigned to someone new not using the torrent.

But software accuracy is a huge problem too.


Had a funny one in work today. A small website that runs on one of routers went down. We investigated it, and found we could ping continuous the public (fixed) ip (Ping xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx -t). We then switched the router off and the ping continued! Rang BT and they couldn't understand or offer any advice. After about 10mins it stopped pinging and we switched the router back on and it worked OK. Odd. :tinfoilhat:
Sounds like someone was using your IP.
ohnonothim
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:12 am

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

Postby ohnonothim » Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:17 pm

Hickster wrote:Ok Ok, i dont wnt to sound any alarm bells here, BUT has the media interest in this waned? has it lost interest already? I have this horrid feeling it has, or are we in the calm before the storm?
Theres nothing new to report and few journalists understand either the law or the workings of IP networks. Yes they have lost interested, but give them something new to report they'll will be much more willing than in the past, and that also means you (and all of us) have the chance to educate some journalists in the ins and outs both law wise and tech wise.
ohnonothim
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:12 am

PreviousNext

Return to Torrent Download Court Action Threat/Settlement Letter Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com