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/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:41 pm

To think it is just over a year when AJCs Court humiliation started with the Media C.A.T. Ltd. v A [2010] EWPCC 17 (01 December 2010) case. Is it that these things tend to happen to deliver a nice early Christmas present with the Goldeneye case?

Certainly the previous speculative invoicing model has proved not as effective as was hoped by the deviants who participated. Much has been seen with SDT judgements and leaked emails to say that Solicitors believed they could make money without the inconvenience of proving their evidence in Court.

I saw it that the netcollex group of websites deliver certain media that they believed would generate huge revenue. The SMG accounts of 31/12/2009 whinged that their “Digital Division” revenues suffered through the “rapid increase” of online free content. They go on to say that DVD sales overtook mobile content, but DVD sales provide smaller margin than online content. It is no coincidence that a division of this group were seduced by the Crossley / Bowden promise.

My slight concern is the relative unknown consequences of the DEA. What has been said is the possibility of an organisation funded by so called Copyright holders who feed off what the Government has kindly handed them. No need for shady shyster Solicitors in this game.

One of Crossleys coined phrases “Sex sells” clearly hasn’t worked enough for the SMG.
"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: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:50 pm

Just an update about biblio:

Thanks for your message. Are you connected to that company? If so, please let us know if the bookseller account should be made inactive.

With Regards,

Biblio Bookseller Support

Sorry, I’m not connected to the company. Whilst browsing, I checked the status of Adlitem Ltd and seen it was dissolved. I thought that this would be an issue for you.

Thanks for your reply, and for providing us that information.

With Regards,

Biblio Bookseller Support

Adlitem books are still there. Is it me, or are there more books than before?

Probably should of said for the account to be inactive!

Also, Mr Ali T should have changed the details on his registered domains by 06/12/11. If not, I will be contacting icann.
"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: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:42 am

bpaw wrote:Just an update about biblio:

Thanks for your message. Are you connected to that company? If so, please let us know if the bookseller account should be made inactive.

With Regards,

Biblio Bookseller Support

Sorry, I’m not connected to the company. Whilst browsing, I checked the status of Adlitem Ltd and seen it was dissolved. I thought that this would be an issue for you.

Thanks for your reply, and for providing us that information.

With Regards,

Biblio Bookseller Support

Adlitem books are still there. Is it me, or are there more books than before?

Probably should of said for the account to be inactive!

Also, Mr Ali T should have changed the details on his registered domains by 06/12/11. If not, I will be contacting icann.



It looks like Biblio's response has come from their equivalent of a store excuse counter trying to handle an issue that they are not geared up to deal with.

I imagine now that CV has just closed Adlitem down and abandoned anything remaining on the internet that was associated with it, although his Facebook page appears also to have been closed down in the past week or so.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:33 am

Clem had on his website being a witness for DL & ACS on the monitoring software used to gather the IP addresses. I wonder how much Clem knows about the GEIL cases and their reference to him on the website. I can’t remember if it has been proven which monitoring company was involved with GEIL, but it must be one who has used Clem in the past.

If Clem seems to have put his witness role to one side, or finished altogether, is there a worthy speculative reasoning to think he doesn’t know about the GEIL Court case? And could the proceedings progress to the point where he may be called to give personal evidence?
"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: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:57 am

bpaw wrote:Clem had on his website being a witness for DL & ACS on the monitoring software used to gather the IP addresses. I wonder how much Clem knows about the GEIL cases and their reference to him on the website. I can’t remember if it has been proven which monitoring company was involved with GEIL, but it must be one who has used Clem in the past.

If Clem seems to have put his witness role to one side, or finished altogether, is there a worthy speculative reasoning to think he doesn’t know about the GEIL Court case? And could the proceedings progress to the point where he may be called to give personal evidence?


The entries in the client list were the solicitors ACS and DL. That suggest that the reports were done at the behest of those solicitors in some way. The fact that TBI were not there does indeed suggest that GEIL somehow acquired that report, presumably via whoever did the monitoring, and did not commission their own report. If that is what happened, then I imagine that if a GEIL claim reached the stage where cross examination of the author of the report was called for, that there might be all sorts of very awkward arguments. Having said that, I think that the prospect of a claim getting that far is somewhat fanciful.

One feature of this type of activity is that those who conduct the monitoring appear to be reluctant to expose their methods to any type of scrutiny, and my recollection is that there were allegations that confidentiality agreements had been entered into with some which assured monitoring outfits that they would never be cross examined in court. The only way that would be attained in practice would be if cases were never brought to court to start with, or if they were discontinued if they got to that sort of stage. As two different claimants have discovered, discontinuing is not necessarily a formality that can be relied upon as a last resort. The issue of confidentiality agreements preventing the only evidence from being scrutinised is something that cropped up in the Roadshow/iiNet appeal case that was recently heard by the High Court of Australia where judgment has been reserved.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:57 pm

:howdy: Ali.

45 days, and you update your whois details on ng3systems.com and ng3sys.com. Well done.

Registrant:
Charlie Root (NG3)
88-90 HATTON GARDEN
London, LONDON EC1N 8PN
GB

It must be you like to monitor this thread from time to time! At least there is no mistakes or errors in monitoring this thread.

Funny that you had a company called ng4sys:

NG4SYS LIMITED
Companies House status: Dissolved
Company Information
Registration Date: 18/11/2009
Registration Number: 07080381
Type: Private Limited with share capital

Registered Address
18 WOODLAND ROAD,
CHINGFORD
LONDON
E4 7EU

Directors and Secretaries
Current Directors
Mr Alireza Torabi
Mr Damian Blackburn

From Companies House:

Name & Registered Office:
NG4SYS LIMITED
18 WOODLAND ROAD
CHINGFORD
LONDON
E4 7EU
Company No. 07080381

Status: Dissolved 17/05/2011
Date of Incorporation: 18/11/2009

Dissolved May this year, eh? You then change your current company to GN3Sys Ltd, then back to NG3 Systems Ltd the next day back in July?

Pretty strange. :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: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:17 pm

If you think about it, the GCB type of plan would not have involved solicitors at all unless cases were pursued beyond settling out of court. It would not surprise me if there was also some sort of plan to set up some sort of enterprise which would do MediaCAT type deals with "rights holders" and seek income just out of settlements. Such an enterprise would not be answerable to the SRA.

I reckon it is virtually certain that the way things evolved with the MediaCAT cases in the PCC put paid to that sort of proposition with GCB, and (if these other companies had been set up with a similar purpose in mind) the same applies to those other entities. The fact of the matter is that the proprietor of the copyright has to be party to any claim, joined with any licensee with a concurrent right of action.

I think that there was some sort of bandwagon effect at the time where various outfits were jumping on it to start with, and subsequently were jumping off it.

Also, I would have to check, but I suspect that it is now over a year since recipients of MoS LoC's sent by Davenport Lyons GM received letters saying that DL GM were no longer instructed in the matter and that the client was in the process of instructing alternative representation from whom the recipients would hear.

The next issue is what happens (if anything) with the GEIL cases this forthcoming Friday.
Last edited by Mullard47 on Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:07 am

Mullard47 wrote:If you think about it, the GCB type of plan would not have involved solicitors at all unless cases were pursued beyond settling out of court. It would not surprise me if there was also some sort of plan to set up some sort of enterprise which would do MediaCAT type deals with "rights holders" and seek income just out of settlements. Such an enterprise would not be answerable to the SRA.

I reckon it is virtually certain that the way things evolved with the MediaCAT cases in the PCC put paid to that sort of proposition with GCB, and (if these other companies had been set up with a similar purpose in mind) the same applies to those other entities. The fact of the matter is that the proprietor of the copyright has to be party to any claim, joined with any licensee with a concurrent right of action.

I think that there was some sort of bandwagon effect at the time where various outfits were jumping on it to start with, and subsequently were jumping off it.

Also, I would have to check, but I suspect that it is now over a year since recipients of MoS LoC's sent by Davenport Lyons received letters saying that DL were no longer instructed in the matter and that the client was in the process of instructing alternative representation from whom the recipients would hear.

The next issue is what happens (if anything) with the GEIL cases this forthcoming Friday.

As it is difficult to speculate what would have happened if the Copyright holders were joined with MediaCAT, you could also speculate why they didn’t seek to be joined.

The GEIL case seems to me to be more straight forward. The man with many aliases was director of both Copyright holder and exclusive licensee. Ralli requested both to be joined. That must be a straight forward possibility, considering the link between the two companies.

If they are not joined to progress the case, then it is for a reason that they know the consequences. Further speculation on my part would suggest that both MediaCAT / GEIL know they didn’t / don’t have strong evidence for it to be examined in Court. This also hints at what you said about possible confidentiality agreements.

I wonder if the sale of the house has anything to do with the possible outcome of this Court case?
"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: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:00 am

bpaw wrote:As it is difficult to speculate what would have happened if the Copyright holders were joined with MediaCAT, you could also speculate why they didn’t seek to be joined.

The GEIL case seems to me to be more straight forward. The man with many aliases was director of both Copyright holder and exclusive licensee. Ralli requested both to be joined. That must be a straight forward possibility, considering the link between the two companies.

If they are not joined to progress the case, then it is for a reason that they know the consequences. Further speculation on my part would suggest that both MediaCAT / GEIL know they didn’t / don’t have strong evidence for it to be examined in Court. This also hints at what you said about possible confidentiality agreements.

I wonder if the sale of the house has anything to do with the possible outcome of this Court case?


I suspect that one of the issues which might have been a factor with MediaCAT was the apparent position that some of the claims arose out of works where Sheptonhurst were the party with whom MediaCAT had the agreement, but where Sheptonhurst were not the owner of the copyright. Under the 1988 Act, a licensee only has a right of action at all if the licence meets certain criteria - one of which is that the actual owner is party to it. From the leaked information, Sheptonhurst were distribution licensees for some of the works and not owners.

That raised the possibility that the correct claimants should have been Sheptonhurst joined with the actual owner, and that MediaCAT should not have been involved at all. But I think that once they were stuck in those hearings, it was clear that the whole business model had gone - including the GCB attempt, and I suspect that at the second hearing they made a decision to just abandon the matter. Crossley knew he was going bankrupt and that the Assigned Risks Pool would pick up any liability he incurred and, presumably, MediaCAT had nothing to lose and just cited insolvency.

As to GEIL, that might not be that simple. The notices on the works say "Ben Dover Productions" (BDP), and at the hearing, Honey was described as a "partner with BDP". BDP is not a corporation or LLP, and so that suggests that it is an unincorporated association, or just a trading style adopted informally by an unspecified entity which is a legal personality. Unincorporated associations cannot bring claims or own property, and if it is the latter, then the entity itself would have to be named and be the joint claimant. If the copyright is not owned exclusively by Honey in person, or by a legal personality of which he is the exclusive owner, then it raises the prospect of third parties being dragged in and being liable for any adverse costs.

If Honey, one way or the other, is the exclusive owner of the copyrights of the works, then, as you say, it would be a simple formality to disclose the ownership and join as claimant. My cynical view is that when someone resists doing something that ought to be simple, there is some reason that is not immediately apparent.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:48 pm

bpaw wrote::howdy: Ali.

45 days, and you update your whois details on ng3systems.com and ng3sys.com. Well done.

Registrant:
Charlie Root (NG3)
88-90 HATTON GARDEN
London, LONDON EC1N 8PN
GB

It must be you like to monitor this thread from time to time! At least there is no mistakes or errors in monitoring this thread.

Funny that you had a company called ng4sys:

NG4SYS LIMITED
Companies House status: Dissolved
Company Information
Registration Date: 18/11/2009
Registration Number: 07080381
Type: Private Limited with share capital

Registered Address
18 WOODLAND ROAD,
CHINGFORD
LONDON
E4 7EU

Directors and Secretaries
Current Directors
Mr Alireza Torabi
Mr Damian Blackburn

From Companies House:

Name & Registered Office:
NG4SYS LIMITED
18 WOODLAND ROAD
CHINGFORD
LONDON
E4 7EU
Company No. 07080381

Status: Dissolved 17/05/2011
Date of Incorporation: 18/11/2009

Dissolved May this year, eh? You then change your current company to GN3Sys Ltd, then back to NG3 Systems Ltd the next day back in July?

Pretty strange. :tinfoilhat:



And there is also the domain name www.gn3sys.com which similarly had deficient name and address details when I looked it up today.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:05 am

Mullard47 wrote:And there is also the domain name http://www.gn3sys.com which similarly had deficient name and address details when I looked it up today.

I noticed he didn't update that. It must be he only updated the ones he cares about. I did consider following up on my complaint. I see it that he continues to pay for something he considered once, but abandoned later.
"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: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Countalucard » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:53 am

Perhaps someone should give him :wank contact details


http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-corru ... -111201/?_
Countalucard
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:29 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby StripeyMiata » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:50 pm

Update from Dinah Greek regarding Goldeneye - http://twitter.com/DinahGreek

Jonathan
StripeyMiata
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:20 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:27 pm

I’m not sure what the legalities and implications are on this, but I found that the word “goldeneye” is a registered trademark in the European Union trademark database seen HERE.

The company who owns it is US company GoldenEye International Inc, and the organisation that represents them is Kador & Partner in Germany, who specialise in “the handling of infringement cases and their representation before the courts.” A bit like an ACS:Law for trademarks.

Could it be seen that good old Ben has infringed copyright? It would be so ironic that a company set up for alleged copyright infringement is taken to court for copyright infringement! Is it worth notifying Kador & Partner?
"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: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:59 pm

bpaw wrote:I’m not sure what the legalities and implications are on this, but I found that the word “goldeneye” is a registered trademark in the European Union trademark database seen HERE.

The company who owns it is US company GoldenEye International Inc, and the organisation that represents them is Kador & Partner in Germany, who specialise in “the handling of infringement cases and their representation before the courts.” A bit like an ACS:Law for trademarks.

Could it be seen that good old Ben has infringed copyright? It would be so ironic that a company set up for alleged copyright infringement is taken to court for copyright infringement! Is it worth notifying Kador & Partner?


I wouldn't notify them for the following reason. Trade marks are registered in the context of use classes, and the use class specified for the trade mark you refer to is financial services.

However I think that there would possibly be mileage in the question of the "Goldeneye" trade mark held by an organisation called Danjaq LLC. They hold the EEC-wide registration for "Goldeneye" including classes 9, 16 and 41, which are relevant to movies, distribution of movies, CD's, DVD's etc. If you go to the IPO trade mark site and search for it, or click HERE, you can see the details.

The details of the representatives of Danjaq LLC are on that page.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:29 pm

Mullard47 wrote:
bpaw wrote:I’m not sure what the legalities and implications are on this, but I found that the word “goldeneye” is a registered trademark in the European Union trademark database seen HERE.

The company who owns it is US company GoldenEye International Inc, and the organisation that represents them is Kador & Partner in Germany, who specialise in “the handling of infringement cases and their representation before the courts.” A bit like an ACS:Law for trademarks.

Could it be seen that good old Ben has infringed copyright? It would be so ironic that a company set up for alleged copyright infringement is taken to court for copyright infringement! Is it worth notifying Kador & Partner?


I wouldn't notify them for the following reason. Trade marks are registered in the context of use classes, and the use class specified for the trade mark you refer to is financial services.

However I think that there would possibly be mileage in the question of the "Goldeneye" trade mark held by an organisation called Danjaq LLC. They hold the EEC-wide registration for "Goldeneye" including classes 9, 16 and 41, which are relevant to movies, distribution of movies, CD's, DVD's etc. If you go to the IPO trade mark site and search for it, or click HERE, you can see the details.

The details of the representatives of Danjaq LLC are on that page.

Thanks for that Mullard. I have emailed their representatives. I figured with the Law types we have experienced with DL, ACS etc regarding copyright infringement, they would be most eager to make a claim.
"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: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:22 am

MediaCAT is now dissolved :thumbup:
Name & Registered Office:
MEDIA C.A.T. LTD
NEW DERWENT HOUSE
69-73 THEOBALDS ROAD
LONDON
UNITED KINGDOM
WC1X 8TA
Company No. 04426555
Status: Dissolved 13/12/2011
Date of Incorporation: 29/04/2002
"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: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:32 pm

A really interesting article from Francis Davey for ipandit regarding the DEA:

http://ipandit.practicallaw.com/0-513-7069

Much has been discussed regarding the DEA, but I found this article to be a good highlight.

My particular gripe is:

Section 7 of the DEA requires that the IOC specifies the means of obtaining and standard of the evidence collected by copyright owners. It does no such thing. Rather, it allows copyright owners to self-certify the quality of their evidence collection, subject to an Ofcom quality assurance regime. Such an option is obviously attractive to Ofcom because it pushes work onto the copyright owners, but it is arguable that this would be unlawful.

If it is the case, then the likes of Ali T could be back in business.

:howdy: Ali!
"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: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:30 pm

Image

A reminder for the "Speculative Invoicers", "Copyright Trolls" or "DEA Wanna Be" people out there.

:howdy: Ali!
"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: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby factual » Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:14 am

Mullard47 wrote:Also, I would have to check, but I suspect that it is now over a year since recipients of MoS LoC's sent by Davenport Lyons received letters saying that DL were no longer instructed in the matter and that the client was in the process of instructing alternative representation from whom the recipients would hear.


Ministry of Sound letters were through Gallant Macmillan. I'm not certain of the date of the 'no longer instructed' letters (the letter I'm looking at has the date blanked out) - but based on the file date they were no later than December 2010.
factual
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:13 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:56 am

factual wrote:
Mullard47 wrote:Also, I would have to check, but I suspect that it is now over a year since recipients of MoS LoC's sent by Davenport Lyons received letters saying that DL were no longer instructed in the matter and that the client was in the process of instructing alternative representation from whom the recipients would hear.


Ministry of Sound letters were through Gallant Macmillan. I'm not certain of the date of the 'no longer instructed' letters (the letter I'm looking at has the date blanked out) - but based on the file date they were no later than December 2010.


My slip - it was of course GM.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:24 pm

Mullard47 wrote:
factual wrote:
Mullard47 wrote:Also, I would have to check, but I suspect that it is now over a year since recipients of MoS LoC's sent by Davenport Lyons received letters saying that DL were no longer instructed in the matter and that the client was in the process of instructing alternative representation from whom the recipients would hear.


Ministry of Sound letters were through Gallant Macmillan. I'm not certain of the date of the 'no longer instructed' letters (the letter I'm looking at has the date blanked out) - but based on the file date they were no later than December 2010.


My slip - it was of course GM.

This link has RebelMC (Penultimate post) mentioning his/her letter dated 29th November 2010:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/complaints_received_regarding_ga#comment-14955

I have received a letter dated 29 November stating that Gallant MacMillan are no longer acting for MoS and that MoS will be instructing a new firm of solicitors who may( or may not) contact me in the future. Hopefully this is an end to this nonsense.

A couple of interesting links.

Torrent Freaks article from Ernesto regarding a website that knows (Hmmm!) what you have downloaded on BitTorrent:

http://torrentfreak.com/i-know-what-you-downloaded-on-bittorrent-111210/

Pretty scary this with the possibility of the likes of Ali T ( :howdy: Ali! ) are no longer needed! Glad to see that they “have no records on me”.

Also James Firths article about Interception Modernisation Programme:

http://www.slightlyrightofcentre.com/2011/12/interception-modernisation-programme.html

I think the above two articles really show that you can’t do anything online without somebody knowing about it!
"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: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:10 pm

I might be a bit wrong here, but a reverse lookup on IP address 190.120.227.70 has ng3sys.com and ng3systems.com. It also has amazon.com and ebaymotors.com.

More interestingly, it has xypy.net:

XYPY.NET - VPN Provider
Secure & Fast Internet Access for Web/Internet Users...
No Download/Upload Limit
No Time Limit
No Blocking/Filtering
Getting Connected How To?
Once your username and password are created, right click and save this and
use your credentials when prompted. That's it! Enjoy your freedom :-)
Contact:
Customer Services: vpn@xypy.net
General: info@xypy.net

With a registrant of:

Registrant:
Root @XYPY
Root @XYPY
London, LONDON N3
GB

Registrar: NAMESDIRECT
Domain Name: XYPY.NET
Created on: 16-NOV-10
Expires on: 16-NOV-12
Last Updated on: 09-SEP-11

Administrative, Technical Contact:
@XYPY, Root root@xypy.net
Root @XYPY
London, LONDON N3
GB
07948897169

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.XYPY.NET
NS2.XYPY.NET

Looks too familiar to our friend Ali T ( :howdy: Ali! ). Could it be that the IP monitor expert offers VPN access?

Worth a complaint to icann just to see if the details are updated.

A reminder to the xypy.net registrant. icaan registrar database requires:
3.3.1.1 The name of the Registered Name;
3.3.1.2 The names of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the Registered Name;
3.3.1.3 The identity of Registrar (which may be provided through Registrar's website);
3.3.1.4 The original creation date of the registration;
3.3.1.5 The expiration date of the registration;
3.3.1.6 The name and postal address of the Registered Name Holder;
3.3.1.7 The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the Registered Name; and
3.3.1.8 The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the Registered Name.
"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: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Sun Dec 11, 2011 5:54 am

Most web sites are hosted virtually and so it is the rule, rather than the exception, to find more than one domain on a particular IP. This is also one of the main reasons why site blocking can never be very effective, if at all, because pinpointing the destination of traffic involves reading information in the traffic in addition to the destination IP address, and such additional data can be obfuscated or encrypted.

Having said that, my money would be on some sort of connection, given the manner in which that whois data is similarly defective.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:02 am

Mullard47 wrote:Most web sites are hosted virtually and so it is the rule, rather than the exception, to find more than one domain on a particular IP. This is also one of the main reasons why site blocking can never be very effective, if at all, because pinpointing the destination of traffic involves reading information in the traffic in addition to the destination IP address, and such additional data can be obfuscated or encrypted.

Having said that, my money would be on some sort of connection, given the manner in which that whois data is similarly defective.

It is only speculation that it is Ali T. All that we have is (1) It the same virtual server (2) gn3sys.com and xypy.net were last modified on 09/09/2011 (3) There is similar insufficient registered information.

My guess is Charlie Root will be making another appearance at some point.

I don't know if this site does offer VPN access as it says. If it does and it is Ali T, that would be pretty despicable. Monitoring IP addresses for possible infringers, then offering VPN access to help infringers.

Have to wait and see.
"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: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

PreviousNext

Return to Torrent Download Court Action Threat/Settlement Letter Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com