Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

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?

A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby maxwell2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:37 pm

Hi everyone-

Any comments and advice from the community very much appreciated on this. I am in the position to pay their suggested 'fine' as a settlement but I did not d/l or share the file they state and I do not want the implied guilt of a 'quick settlement to get it all sorted and off my mind' scenario.

I recently received a recorded letter from 'Tilly Bailey Irvine' a firm of UK lawyers representing 'Media & More GMBH & CO KG'. It does not appear to be a 'Part 36' letter as it is requiring a 14 day maximum response time (UK Justice Ministry guidelines state clearly clearly 'not less than 21 days' to respond to a formal part 36 and I cannot see the phrase "Part 36" anywhere on it which is also a requirement of a letter 'intended to have the consequences of a part 36'.

The letter included a copy of a spreadsheet with hundreds of other IP address on it- so I imagine other people will be receiving similar letters.

They allege I used p2p software to download porn: what they have identified I did not.

The company they used to trawl for IP was 'Media Protetcor GMBH' who have a website http://stop-p2p-piracy.com

On their FAQ it states that it is impossible for their technology to identify an IP address incorrectly; or for your wireless connection to be hacked into so that an intruder can use your signal connection to download/ upload i.e. if this were the case then MP GMBH would pick up on that and not identify IP address in their trawl.

The TBI 'offer letter' appears markedly different from the ones being discussed such as the DL/ACS and Andrew Crossley situations.

For example it refers to a major case at the High Court in London (Justice Warren on 28th January 2010) and it says that there will be no more contact between them and myself unless I agree to their undertakings and make the three digit compensation- otherwise they will move straight to court proceedings. Here is the relevant text:

"Legal Consequences
The extensive file sharing activity is causing damage to our client's business. Our
client is therefore left with no alternative but to police its intellectual property rights
and enforce them against infringers.

In the event that it becomes necessary for our client to bring a claim against you for
copyright infringement, the legal costs of those proceedings will be substantial. We
must make you aware that if successful, our client will be entitled to recover from you
damages and a contribution towards its legal costs of bringing the claim to court. You
will also have to incur your own legal costs. We estimate that collectively such costs
would be several thousand pounds
. In the event that you were not able to pay
whatever sums the court may direct, our client would have no option but to take steps
to enforce the debt against your property."

Next Steps —
payment and undertakings
You can provide the undertaking (referred to at 1 and 2 above) by signing the written
undertakings enclosed with this letter and returning them to this firm, together with
your payment, using the attached payment form. Payment must be made either by
cheque, bank transfer, credit card or SWITCH/DELTA. No other form of payment
will be accepted.
For the avoidance of doubt, these undertakings will represent an agreement between
you and our client and if you act in breach of that agreement, our client will have no
option but to take further action against you. The payment and undertakings must be
made and received by us within 14 days of receipt of this letter.

Next Steps —
commencing proceedings
In the event that either the payment or undertakings are not received within fourteen
days of the date of this letter, we are instructed to commence proceedings without
further notice
. "

I am minded to send a brief LOD by recorded delivery but am worried about the phrase of " we are instructed to commence proceedings without further notice" - this was not used by ACS.

Any advice on what steps to take much appreciated.
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby wmitty » Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:23 pm

More ambulance chasers. Its the same crap as DL and ACS all wrapped up in a shiny new turd.

Mods should close this thread and add this shit to the existing monster thread and add these new cowboys name to the title
wmitty
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:28 am

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby MrFredPFL » Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:56 pm

unfortunately, wmitty, the software has a limit on the length of a thread title, and the only way we could add tilly bailey irvine to the existing title would be to remove davenport/lyons from it, something we're not going to do for one letter. we well take this latest development under advisement, and see where this goes...
User avatar
MrFredPFL
I am Spartacus
 
Posts: 14891
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby maxwell2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:58 pm

With the greatest respect I have tried to point out how the wording (straight to proceedings without allowing for mitigating circumstances) and approach (recorded delivery not second class post) are qualitatively different from the other approaches being discussed in the 'monster thread'.

Can someone with something constructive and helpful to say please respond.
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby Me2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:59 pm

maxwell2 wrote:On their FAQ it states that it is impossible for their technology to identify an IP address incorrectly; or for your wireless connection to be hacked into so that an intruder can use your signal connection to download/ upload i.e. if this were the case then MP GMBH would pick up on that and not identify IP address in their trawl.


That is utter shiitake, as the grocer said to the mushroom grower.
Me2
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:16 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby maxwell2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:01 pm

"That is utter shiitake, as the grocer said to the mushroom grower."

well thats the first bit of good news then- cheers.
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby robstanley1 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:19 pm

Maxwell -

As you know that you haven't been sharing the pornographic work which they claim, it's pretty evident that their claims about the software being used are far from true.

I'd personally be following the same advice as given in the ACS:Law thread - send a standard letter of denial, by Recorded Delivery, and then ignore anything else they send - let them put their money where their mouth is, and risk a court action being thrown out.

The very fact that they're sending these letters Recorded Delivery would seem to imply that they don't have the same, wide-reaching set of mailings that we've seen from the other players.

I suspect they won't be following this 'business model' for too long :wink:
robstanley1
 

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby MrFredPFL » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:23 pm

or for your wireless connection to be hacked into so that an intruder can use your signal connection to download/ upload i.e. if this were the case then MP GMBH would pick up on that and not identify IP address in their trawl.


Me2 is correct. they would have absolutely no way of knowing if that had happened. these people may not be associated with the well-known players in this field to date, and they may say some different things, but they are playing the identical games. they are making false statements in order to frighten people into paying for something they (MP GMBH) simply assume they did. they don't KNOW.
User avatar
MrFredPFL
I am Spartacus
 
Posts: 14891
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby Me2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:26 pm

maxwell2 wrote:For example it refers to a major case at the High Court in London (Justice Warren on 28th January 2010)


Is there more detail on this? I can't find anything, but I don't exactly know what I am searching for...

The only two judgements for Justice Warren in the High Court Chancery division listed on bailii for Januray are Biddle & Company (a firm) v Tetra Pak Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 54 (Ch) (21 January 2010) and Lacontha Foundation v GBI Investments Ltd [2010] EWHC 37 (Ch) (15 January 2010). But, the relevant decision may not have been made available to the public.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/
Last edited by Me2 on Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Me2
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:16 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby samba pa ti » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:31 pm

maxwell2 wrote:With the greatest respect I have tried to point out how the wording (straight to proceedings without allowing for mitigating circumstances) and approach (recorded delivery not second class post) are qualitatively different from the other approaches being discussed in the 'monster thread'.

Can someone with something constructive and helpful to say please respond.


afaik none of the letters allow you to reply (Certainly the DL ones did not) with a defence/denial what they ask for is money or your house could be in danger because the court costs will be so astronomical. people still replied to the letters and denied it and here we are today.... round 3
samba pa ti
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 11:29 am

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby maxwell2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:42 pm

maxwell2 wrote:For example it refers to a major case at the High Court in London (Justice Warren on 28th January 2010)
"Is there more detail on this? I can't find anything, but I don't exactly know what I am searching for.."


From recorded package that arrived:

MEDIA & MORE GMBH & CO KG (applicant / Intended claimant)

and

BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC (respondent)

and

PERSONS UNKNOWN (intended defendant)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Before Mr Justice Warren
This 27th day of January 2010

Upn the Application as set out in Claim Form dated 20 January 2010

Warren forced BT to turn over names of people with a BT ISP Ip address 'identified' by Media Protector people. They had 6 months to do it but obviously turned them over immediately.

I cannot find any info on this on the web either and no serial/ ident number on High Court documents

VUT TBI ARE A MAJOR LEGAL FIRM UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS COWBOYS- that is why people on here should not dismiss them and I was worried about LOD.
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby MrFredPFL » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:46 pm

and yet they are making completely false claims, just like the others. sounds like cowboys to me, no matter how they dress up.
User avatar
MrFredPFL
I am Spartacus
 
Posts: 14891
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby maxwell2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:46 pm

samba pa ti wrote:
afaik none of the letters allow you to reply (Certainly the DL ones did not) with a defence/denial what they ask for is money or your house could be in danger because the court costs will be so astronomical. people still replied to the letters and denied it and here we are today.... round 3


From what I am reading tonight the BEST advice IS to reply with a LOD so I don't understand the point you are trying to make here?
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby Me2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:51 pm

maxwell2 wrote:maxwell2 wrote:For example it refers to a major case at the High Court in London (Justice Warren on 28th January 2010)
"Is there more detail on this? I can't find anything, but I don't exactly know what I am searching for.."


From recorded package that arrived:

MEDIA & MORE GMBH & CO KG (applicant / Intended claimant)

and

BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC (respondent)

and

PERSONS UNKNOWN (intended defendant)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Before Mr Justice Warren
This 27th day of January 2010

Upn the Application as set out in Claim Form dated 20 January 2010

Warren forced BT to turn over names of people with a BT ISP Ip address 'identified' by Media Protector people. They had 6 months to do it but obviously turned them over immediately.

I cannot find any info on this on the web either and no serial/ ident number on High Court documents

VUT TBI ARE A MAJOR LEGAL FIRM UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS COWBOYS- that is why people on here should not dismiss them and I was worried about LOD.


Well, unless BT actually contested it, it is in no way a "major" ruling. It appears no different than the orders DL and ACS used to get the details of their alleged infringers. I thought that they were claiming to have actually taken someone to court.

DL are also a major legal firm - I don't know how their 50 partners compares with TBI - but look at how things turned out for them.
Me2
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:16 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby MrFredPFL » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:52 pm

maxwell2 wrote:From what I am reading tonight the BEST advice IS to reply with a LOD so I don't understand the point you are trying to make here?


if you didn't do what they accused you of doing, then yes, you should reply and deny it and leave it at that. do not panic, as that is EXACTLY what they want you to do.
User avatar
MrFredPFL
I am Spartacus
 
Posts: 14891
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby robstanley1 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:57 pm

maxwell2 wrote:
From recorded package that arrived:

MEDIA & MORE GMBH & CO KG (applicant / Intended claimant)

and

BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC (respondent)

and

PERSONS UNKNOWN (intended defendant)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Before Mr Justice Warren
This 27th day of January 2010

Upn the Application as set out in Claim Form dated 20 January 2010

Warren forced BT to turn over names of people with a BT ISP Ip address 'identified' by Media Protector people. They had 6 months to do it but obviously turned them over immediately.


Okay - this isn't a 'case' of anybody being taken through the courts; all this relates to is the Norwich Pharmacal Orders which Justice Warren has granted (the legal instrument, which is served upon relevant ISP's, to get them to release the personal information behind harvested IP addresses).

Doesn't mean a thing, so far as your particular case is concerned - if the IP detection software is unsound, as so often appears to be the case, or your router has been hacked, you are absolutely not guilty of the allegations against you, full stop!
robstanley1
 

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby maxwell2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:04 pm

MrFredPFL wrote:and yet they are making completely false claims, just like the others. sounds like cowboys to me, no matter how they dress up.


But there is their claim to have 'forensic evidence': all I can think if is that I was hacked: I use BT home hub WLAN from wired connection in bedroom to send wireless around flat and always use laptop.

I live in a massive appartment complex with 4 blocks within 100 metres and a load of offices as well within 200-300 metres.

But how does this all stack up against their 'forensic' evidence (remember the website of their 'forensic experts' claims to ignore IP addresses where there is doubt about the actual user. Someone said this was rubbish in which case I have nbothing to worry about.
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby maxwell2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:06 pm

Me2 wrote:
maxwell2 wrote:

DL are also a major legal firm - I don't know how their 50 partners compares with TBI - but look at how things turned out for them.


OK- just checked websites and DL ARE a bigger more substantial firm than TBI- that has calmed me down a bit!
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby MrFredPFL » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:26 pm

maxwell2 wrote:
MrFredPFL wrote:and yet they are making completely false claims, just like the others. sounds like cowboys to me, no matter how they dress up.


But there is their claim to have 'forensic evidence': all I can think if is that I was hacked: I use BT home hub WLAN from wired connection in bedroom to send wireless around flat and always use laptop.

I live in a massive appartment complex with 4 blocks within 100 metres and a load of offices as well within 200-300 metres.

But how does this all stack up against their 'forensic' evidence (remember the website of their 'forensic experts' claims to ignore IP addresses where there is doubt about the actual user. Someone said this was rubbish in which case I have nbothing to worry about.


this is a lie. they CANNOT know if you had been hacked or not. any claim that they can is utter bullshit.
User avatar
MrFredPFL
I am Spartacus
 
Posts: 14891
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby MrFredPFL » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:28 pm

to elaborate - the ONLY evidence they have is your IP address, which was obtained in a manner which they refuse to divulge. in a court of law, this is tantamount to nothing. for all anyone knows, they pulled that address out of a hat.
User avatar
MrFredPFL
I am Spartacus
 
Posts: 14891
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby maxwell2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:39 pm

MrFredPFL wrote:to elaborate - the ONLY evidence they have is your IP address, which was obtained in a manner which they refuse to divulge. in a court of law, this is tantamount to nothing. for all anyone knows, they pulled that address out of a hat.


Here is the FAQ in full detailing/ divulging precisely how they obtained your IP address and identify piracy: like I said in my reading it implies that having your wireless hacked is not possible ergo 'we have your ip and you are guilty'.

If a techie could look through this I'd be grateful

***

Privacy and Data Protection

- How is Media Protector Able to Track Down My Name and Address Only From an IP Address?

Owners of digital content commission Media Protector to log IP addresses in P2P networks which have been used for file-sharing their copyright protected content. IP data are non personal data. At no time does Media Protector get knowledge of any personal data linked to IP addresses. The IP data is passed on to the law office TBI. The Content owners commissioned the law firm to carry out the legal work necessary to obtain the personal data linked to the IP addresses provided by Media Protector.


- Are Fata Protection Regulations in Germany Allowing Private Owned Companies to Log IP Data?

German courts repeatedly confirmed that data logging as performed with FileWatch does not violate any data protection or data security laws in Germany. At no point does FileWatch spy out any computer hard drives, neither does FileWatch perform online computers searches.


- Does FileWatch Breach the User`s Privacy When Logging the Data?

Certainly not! Due to the structural conditions of the internet and its communication protocols, the IP address of the own computer will automatically be exposed to other computers on the net. FileWatch simply logs such information and writes them down into its database.



Logging of Data

- Which Data Are Logged?

FileWatch logs, amongst other things, the following data:

* IP address used for the infringing act
* timestamp, accurate to the split second, indicating the exact time at which the monitored client was logged
* file hash value of the monitored file
* alias used by the user in the file-sharing network
* User hash value of the client software which unambiguously identifies the client in the eD2K network
* client software
* client version
* maximum number of parts, the monitored file consists of
* total size of the monitored file
* number of parts of the monitored file actually downloaded by the logged client
* name of ISP which assigned the IP address
* graphical diagram illustrating which parts have already been downloaded from the monitored client and which not
* Identifier which indicates whether FileWatch tried to download data of the monitored file from the logged client (”d” for “download”) or whether the logged client tried to download data of the monitored file from FileWatch (”u” for “upload”)


- How Unique Is The Filehash Value Media Protector Is Referring To?

The chances that two different files have an identical file hash value are extremely small, i.e.1:2128. In comparison: the chances of winning the lottery (6/49) jackpot five times in a row are much higher than finding two files with different content but an identical file hash value. It can therefore be considered a safe fact that files in the eDonkey2000 network can be unambiguously identified with the file hash value.


- Is It Possible to Manipulate the Filehash Value?

Technically, it is not possible to manipulate the Filehash value. It is also not possible to create a Fake-File which has the identical Filehash value as some other file.


- Is It Possible That Some Sort of Bug Caused FileWatch to Wrongly Log My IP Address?

The correct functioning was tested and verified in the expertise of Dr. Frank Sarre, Diplom-Informatiker, public appointed and sworn expert by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry for Munich and Upper Bavaria. Thus, the possibility that due to a software malfunction FileWatch would log incorrect IP data can be fully eliminated.


- How Come That I Did Nott Notice Anything When You Logged My IP Address?

In the network environment, FileWatch behaves like it was a regular file-sharing client. It cannot be distinguished from a regular client by either another eD2K-Server or another eD2K-Client. The data logging itself therefore happens imperceptibly as well.


How Is It Possible That You Logged My IP Despite The Fact, That The File Was Encrypted Or in a Compressed File Format (e.g. zip / rar ) And Therefore Not Visible to You?

In the file-sharing network eDonkey2000, files are not only offered in standard file formats but also in specialized formats such as RAR, ZIP or TAR. It is the opinion of many users that the content of encrypted or compressed file formats cannot be analyzed. However, this widespread opinion is dramatically incorrect. As soon as a file – regardless of its file format – is verified as being copyright protected, the so called file hash value is used to unambiguously identify the file in the file-sharing network. It can therefore be concluded that the compression or encryption of files does not offer any secure protection if illegal acts of copying are being conducted in filesharing networks.


- I Declare That I Had Double-Clicked The File in Question But I Removed The File From My P2P Client a Short Moment Later, Even Before I Started Downloading It. Yet, How Come That You Have Logged My IP And Sent This Letter to Me?

FileWatch does not only log a user’s IP at a single moment, but it follows the user’s P2P activities over a basically unlimited period of time. With this downloading profile we are able to distinguish, whether a user simply double-clicked and then deleted the file, or whether he downloaded the file - regardless of if the completion of the file takes days, weeks of even months.



Evidentiary Value Of IP Adresses

- Is It Possible That Someone Stole or Forged My IP Address?

With file sharing in the eDonkey2000 network, the use of forged IP addresses and/or the abuse of IP addresses is virtually impossible as a thorough and effective manipulation would require the Internet Service Provider’s participation in those illegal activities and would also imply further complex measures.


- Is It Possible That Another P2P Participant Was Somehow Using My IP Address?

FileWatch will not log any IP data before a direct (peer-to-peer) connection to the P2P participant was established. Extensive authentication mechanism together with the network`s bidirectional communications eliminate the possibility, that a “Hacker” could somehow use the IP address of another P2P participant.


- I Am Using An Internet Service Provider Who Assigns Dynamic IP Addresses to Its Costumers. The Assigned IP Addresses Are Frequently Changing. How Can It Be Possible Then That You Can Link An IP Address to My Account At a Later Point?

Internet Service Provider retain so called traffic data of their costumers. It is therefore possible to track down the identity of an internet user, who was using a specific IP address at a given date and time. This is possible regardless of whether the IP address was static or dynamic.


- Does It Happen That Internet Service Provider Assign Identical IP addresses to Several Internet Users at The Same Time And Therefore Someone Else Might Have Been Conducting The Infringements With An IP Address Which Was Also Assigned As Well To My Household At The Given Time?

Each Internet Service Provider has access to a specific pool of IP addresses, which has been exclusively assigned to him. Out of this pool, IP addresses are assigned to the individual end users either static or dynamic. Any IP address will be exclusively assigned to only one user at a given time. It is therefore not possible, that an IP address was used by more than one user at the same time.


- How does Media Protector ground its allegations that my Internet connection was used to post illegal files?

Technically, it is very feasible to provide proof of the data transferred to a communication partner on the internet. Since all incoming file data are being instantly saved on the recipient’s computer, it is easy to later determine at what point in time data were transferred to the recipient. FileWatch operates by following this principle: it can store data fragments of 10 KB in size of each client and part and is thus able to verify the authenticity of the data.
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby Billpayerr » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:41 pm

maxwell2 wrote:....
I am minded to send a brief LOD by recorded delivery but am worried about the phrase of " we are instructed to commence proceedings without further notice" - this was not used by ACS.

Any advice on what steps to take much appreciated.


Hi Maxwell2

I'd just let you know that ACS:Law have used the following wording in thier letters....

you are at real and immediate risk of proceedings being issued against you without further reference or recourse to you


No court paperwork followed, but more letters of demand did.

It may well be that their threat is as empty as the one ACS:Law made. :?
Billpayerr
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:20 am

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby maxwell2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:43 pm

MrFredPFL wrote:to elaborate - the ONLY evidence they have is your IP address, which was obtained in a manner which they refuse to divulge. in a court of law, this is tantamount to nothing. for all anyone knows, they pulled that address out of a hat.


These are the most pertinent elements where they claim its impoossible to be hacked/ have IP address stolen.

*************

Evidentiary Value Of IP Adresses

- Is It Possible That Someone Stole or Forged My IP Address?

With file sharing in the eDonkey2000 network, the use of forged IP addresses and/or the abuse of IP addresses is virtually impossible as a thorough and effective manipulation would require the Internet Service Provider’s participation in those illegal activities and would also imply further complex measures.


- Is It Possible That Another P2P Participant Was Somehow Using My IP Address?

FileWatch will not log any IP data before a direct (peer-to-peer) connection to the P2P participant was established. Extensive authentication mechanism together with the network`s bidirectional communications eliminate the possibility, that a “Hacker” could somehow use the IP address of another P2P participant.
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby maxwell2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:44 pm

Billpayerr wrote:
maxwell2 wrote:....
I am minded to send a brief LOD by recorded delivery but am worried about the phrase of " we are instructed to commence proceedings without further notice" - this was not used by ACS.

Any advice on what steps to take much appreciated.


Hi Maxwell2

I'd just let you know that ACS:Law have used the following wording in thier letters....

you are at real and immediate risk of proceedings being issued against you without further reference or recourse to you


No court paperwork followed, but more letters of demand did.

It may well be that their threat is as empty as the one ACS:Law made. :?


Thanks- again a calming effect: that language is similar.
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

Re: A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

Postby MrFredPFL » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:44 pm

max, i'm not going to try to pick this FAQ apart piece by piece. this a sales pitch, not a technical dissertation. it is not worth the paper it's printed on, or the bandwidth it takes to view it. it's nonsense. let me sum it up for you.

our methods are infallible because we say so, and some alleged expert (that we paid) says so too. however, we won't let you examine the process to come to an independent conclusion, as that would clearly demonstrate how full of shit we are.
User avatar
MrFredPFL
I am Spartacus
 
Posts: 14891
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Next

Return to Torrent Download Court Action Threat/Settlement Letter Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron
© 2001-2008 Slyck.com