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?

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

Postby derr » Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:25 am

Trying to clarify- if I have sent one LOD to TBI do I need to send a second one to their reply which asks me to respond within 7 days.
derr
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 8:59 am

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

Postby penumbra » Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:37 am

derr wrote:Trying to clarify- if I have sent one LOD to TBI do I need to send a second one to their reply which asks me to respond within 7 days.


It's up to you, really. There isn't much else you can do other than restate your denial. Personally, I would be tempted to do this and let them know that unless they come up with more substantial evidence linking a particular person to the infringement (as required by the CDPA 1988) you won't enter into any further correspondence with them.

The choice is yours.

It would also be interesting to get the full expert report from them, but it's unlikley they will cough it up.
Don't take rubbish from ACS:Law / Digiprotect / Logistep lying down. Go to Beingthreatened.com for advice and help others out by meeting your MP and filling out the statistics form! This scheme will not stop unless you are willing to contribute.
User avatar
penumbra
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:54 am

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

Postby derr » Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:11 pm

Also, how come TBI havent followed the full process of a part 36 letter because they demanded repsonse/payment withing 14 days and not 21- does this not meantheir letters are fundamentally flawed in any event?
Additionally, have left BT as feel they put me in such a position and TBi informed me in tehri trehatening letter that BT charged £12500 for the information they handed over. With such a cash incentive BT will be happy to hand over any future detailS..
Last edited by derr on Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
derr
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 8:59 am

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

Postby timeandspace » Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:12 am

Do we have a list of ISPs who will not hand-over the information?
timeandspace
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:02 pm

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

Postby penumbra » Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:26 am

timeandspace wrote:Do we have a list of ISPs who will not hand-over the information?


TalkTalk are the only ones to have refused the nice letter asking for them not to contest the NPO.

Virgin were also dropped from some NPOs, but this is probably because they priced themselves out of the market due to the cloned modem problems they are known to have on their network.
Don't take rubbish from ACS:Law / Digiprotect / Logistep lying down. Go to Beingthreatened.com for advice and help others out by meeting your MP and filling out the statistics form! This scheme will not stop unless you are willing to contribute.
User avatar
penumbra
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:54 am

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

Postby ntscuser » Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:48 pm

penumbra wrote:
timeandspace wrote:Do we have a list of ISPs who will not hand-over the information?


TalkTalk are the only ones to have refused the nice letter asking for them not to contest the NPO.
AOL and Tiscali are parts of the same group as Talk Talk so I doubt that their privacy policy is any different.
User avatar
ntscuser
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:15 am
Location: United Kingdom but originally from Holland

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

Postby samanthaj » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:46 am

penumbra wrote:
timeandspace wrote:Do we have a list of ISPs who will not hand-over the information?


Virgin were also dropped from some NPOs, but this is probably because they priced themselves out of the market due to the cloned modem problems they are known to have on their network.



Could it be that Virgin also offered some resistance to the process? They were initially included in two NPO's for the games but not after that point. If the problem was cloned modems wouldn't this still have been the case in the begining. Also Virgin have sent a number of letters throughout mid 2008 and early 2009 for the BPI but from a warning point of view rather than a give us money point of view.

I might be wrong (probably am) but could it be that after a number of complaints from users and the manner of the threatening letters Virgin decided to put a stop to the process at least for the time being. By all accounts Virgin have been willing to warn users when info from the BPI has been sent but this information has been collected by the BPI to a code laid out in a memo of understanding (I think) which could be the basis of the DEB and importantly went down the route of education and not fines.

It would be nice to think that a couple of ISPs would not offer up user details for them to get a nasty gram and would be prepared to fight. I think that intentionally or otherwise a vast number of the general public have been led to believe that sharing is ok, it would be nice if the same manner of gentle education through advertisements and warnings are used to re-educate users rather than a very nasty shock through the post after being sold down the river.

Lets hope that that is the case and that ISPs are given an option in the DEB to stop this money making outfit. I think that it isn't too much to ask that people operating in this market have to be licensed and open before ISPs have an obligation to hand over user details. But what do I know and when does the government ever listen to the unwashed masses
LARPER LIMITED c/o ACS LAW SOLICITORS
samanthaj
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:43 am

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

Postby penumbra » Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:43 am

samanthaj wrote:
penumbra wrote:
timeandspace wrote:Do we have a list of ISPs who will not hand-over the information?


Virgin were also dropped from some NPOs, but this is probably because they priced themselves out of the market due to the cloned modem problems they are known to have on their network.



Could it be that Virgin also offered some resistance to the process? They were initially included in two NPO's for the games but not after that point. If the problem was cloned modems wouldn't this still have been the case in the begining. Also Virgin have sent a number of letters throughout mid 2008 and early 2009 for the BPI but from a warning point of view rather than a give us money point of view.


You could be right, but that doesn't appear to be the case judging from the information we have...

IMHO, I think if virgin were doing the same as TalkTalk they would probably be making it very, very public as TalkTalk are. It's a big potential PR plus.
Don't take rubbish from ACS:Law / Digiprotect / Logistep lying down. Go to Beingthreatened.com for advice and help others out by meeting your MP and filling out the statistics form! This scheme will not stop unless you are willing to contribute.
User avatar
penumbra
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:54 am

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

Postby samanthaj » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:12 am

'You could be right, but that doesn't appear to be the case judging from the information we have...
IMHO, I think if virgin were doing the same as TalkTalk they would probably be making it very, very public as TalkTalk are. It's a big potential PR plus.'

So if that is the case can Virgin actually identify infringers correctly? Or does it just take them longer to do it?
LARPER LIMITED c/o ACS LAW SOLICITORS
samanthaj
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:43 am

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

Postby penumbra » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:24 am

samanthaj wrote:So if that is the case can Virgin actually identify infringers correctly? Or does it just take them longer to do it?


Depends how you define correctly. :D

AFAIK virgin priced themselves out of the NPO process. They had a good reason for this, however - the cloned box problem meant that each and every IP would require a lot of thorough checking and rechecking. As other ISPs don't have this particular problem they can't reasonably set their prices quite as high. Although should they start increasing their prices as well, the business model will fizzle out for ACS law and TBI.
Don't take rubbish from ACS:Law / Digiprotect / Logistep lying down. Go to Beingthreatened.com for advice and help others out by meeting your MP and filling out the statistics form! This scheme will not stop unless you are willing to contribute.
User avatar
penumbra
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:54 am

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

Postby samanthaj » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:50 am

Could this cause a problem for Virgin customers in that if they are exceptionally high ACS could pass those costs onto the people it has 'identified' (for want of a better word)
LARPER LIMITED c/o ACS LAW SOLICITORS
samanthaj
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:43 am

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

Postby timeandspace » Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:41 pm

Might it be an idea for someone to write to all current ISPs asking their position on this situation so we can ascertain who is willing to sell your personal details? I for one have no desire to remain with BT after this sorry affair. Their service and support has always been exceptionally poor (and very highly priced), but this is the final nail in their coffin as far as I'm concerned.

Incidentally, I received a reply to my 2nd LOD from TBI. In it, they basically state that they have requested further data from their technical data providers (using the file watch software programme). They provided a link:

http://stop-p2p-piracy.com/site/en

They then say that once they have this new data they will consult their client and await further instructions from them. The letter closes stating that they note I used a standard template reply letter and would advise I take independent legal advice, and that they expressly reserve all their clients rights.
timeandspace
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:02 pm

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

Postby ntscuser » Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:49 pm

timeandspace wrote:Might it be an idea for someone to write to all current ISPs asking their position on this situation so we can ascertain who is willing to sell your personal details?
You wouldn't necessarily get a truthful or informed reply. They are likely to say whatever they need to say in order to attract or keep customers.
User avatar
ntscuser
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:15 am
Location: United Kingdom but originally from Holland

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

Postby penumbra » Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:51 pm

timeandspace wrote:Incidentally, I received a reply to my 2nd LOD from TBI. In it, they basically state that they have requested further data from their technical data providers (using the file watch software programme). They provided a link:

http://stop-p2p-piracy.com/site/en

They then say that once they have this new data they will consult their client and await further instructions from them. The letter closes stating that they note I used a standard template reply letter and would advise I take independent legal advice, and that they expressly reserve all their clients rights.


Sounds like another borderline baffling running together of two or three Davenport Lyons / ACS law templates. Also an admission they weren't adequately briefed on the evidence.
Don't take rubbish from ACS:Law / Digiprotect / Logistep lying down. Go to Beingthreatened.com for advice and help others out by meeting your MP and filling out the statistics form! This scheme will not stop unless you are willing to contribute.
User avatar
penumbra
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:54 am

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

Postby brazil » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:42 pm

penumbra wrote:
timeandspace wrote:Incidentally, I received a reply to my 2nd LOD from TBI. In it, they basically state that they have requested further data from their technical data providers (using the file watch software programme). They provided a link:

http://stop-p2p-piracy.com/site/en

They then say that once they have this new data they will consult their client and await further instructions from them. The letter closes stating that they note I used a standard template reply letter and would advise I take independent legal advice, and that they expressly reserve all their clients rights.


Sounds like another borderline baffling running together of two or three Davenport Lyons / ACS law templates. Also an admission they weren't adequately briefed on the evidence.



I have received the very same letter from TBI in reply to my FIRST LOD.

I've sent an informal reply (not that they requested it, I just felt like it) stating that I did indeed take legal advice, the result of which was that I shouldn't waste my money on such nonsense and instead refer to sites such as slyck.com and beingthreatened.com where I would find the necessary guidance. I also told them I'd noticed that they too have used a standard template reply letter and advised them to take independent legal advice.
brazil
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:20 am

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

Postby derr » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:58 am

After the second letter they sent me I drafted a further denial then decided to not bother sending it at all- they demanded response within 7 days but I have no obligation to reply to them after my first LOD. So I am sitting waiting for ther next nasty letter from them. Also got an acknowledgement from SRA that they received my complaint and will be in touch,
Everyone here seems to have gone very quiet on the subject. Where r u all????
derr
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 8:59 am

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

Postby unclet » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:59 am

derr,don't worry pal, everyone has not gone quiet, as we all are engaged one way or another re writing to MP's etc etc,
just because you don't see us posting on this site and others doesn't mean we've stopped. Pen, acs flaw ,Hickster etc are working feverishly (thats just to name a few). Ok pal. :thumbup:
unclet
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:29 pm

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

Postby penumbra » Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:57 am

This is long, slow, unrelenting, tedious, unrewarding process, derr with brief periods of activity interspersed with long periods of tedium. You'll get used to it. If you're looking for something to keep you busy, how about trying some of the suggestions mentioned in this post here. Write to those in charge about your plight.

Another idea to occupy yourself is to complain to BT and begin the process of changing ISP. Let them know that whilst they're obliged to act on the NPO once it's drafted, they are not obliged to reply to the pre-NPO letter TBI sent them asking them not to contest it with a great big "yeah whatever, have the names". Draw their ttention to the fact TalkTalk have flat out refused not to contest them and that O2 have now also spoken out against the practise (although they sill roll over). Even IF TBI went ahead and attempted to force them into court to contest the order (VERY UNLIKELY THIS COSTS MONEY AND CUTS INTO THEIR OVERHEADS) BT would probably win on the grounds that EU law does not require member states to force ISPs to hand over data for civil proceedings. For a reference see the Spanish Telefonica case mentioned in the ICO template letter here.

As for as updates, well, a couple of people seem to have had letters from TBI saying they don't beleive them and that they beleive a judge will find, "on the balance of probabilities" they did it. The reason they give is because so very many "snapshots" were traced to their connection and the person was also sharing X number of other files including y amount of pr0n files. This is faulty logic. The number of infringements traced to a connection being large is not evidence linking an infringement to a particular person - as is required for the CDPA 1988. Assuming your connection was identified correctly, (and you did not do the sharing, nor authorise it) then this is simply evidence of SOMEONE using you connection without either your knowledge or authorisation.

Nevertheless, it's an interesting departure from Digiprotect not sharing any information whatsoever about the monitoring process. Doesn't mean it ain't equally faulty, however.
Don't take rubbish from ACS:Law / Digiprotect / Logistep lying down. Go to Beingthreatened.com for advice and help others out by meeting your MP and filling out the statistics form! This scheme will not stop unless you are willing to contribute.
User avatar
penumbra
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:54 am

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

Postby ntscuser » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:38 pm

There have been so many breaches of customer privacy by BT even beofre this one I'm staggered that anyone remains with them? Just google "Phorm" to see a typical example.
User avatar
ntscuser
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:15 am
Location: United Kingdom but originally from Holland

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

Postby penumbra » Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:30 pm

ntscuser wrote:There have been so many breaches of customer privacy by BT even beofre this one I'm staggered that anyone remains with them? Just google "Phorm" to see a typical example.


It's also worth mentioning that from the stats we've collected BT appear to keep a record of your IP for far longer than other ISPs and far longer than they are obliged to. We have seen quite a few people receiving letters in the first ACS batch of 2010 for infringements dating back to mid 2008. The average gap from infringement to notification for this ISP is well over a year. Of all ISPs looked at so far, BT are the worst in this respect.

There are several questions to ask about this. Why are ACS only requesting the named in november 2009, when we know there was a nov 2008 NPO they could have asked for them at? Why are BT keeping the records for this long? Are digiprotect holding back a reserve of infringements from 2008 they've yet to pass on to ACS?

No wonder TBI think they're an easy target.
Don't take rubbish from ACS:Law / Digiprotect / Logistep lying down. Go to Beingthreatened.com for advice and help others out by meeting your MP and filling out the statistics form! This scheme will not stop unless you are willing to contribute.
User avatar
penumbra
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:54 am

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

Postby derr » Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:20 pm

thanks for response- wasnt keeping my eye on the ball as was just depending on emails to notify me of related posts. So you are all there which is a relief. Hadnt realised there was all this new stuff about acs trying to sue for libel so was surprised to see the volume of posts on the main trhead. This is why I am worried that the TBI thread is too small and lets them fade into the background too much.
So are TBI different or do they have something up their sleeve which makes them feel different?
Also, what about fact that they gave only 14 days to resposne to first letter and not 21 as should be.
I have already changed ISP (from BT to Talk Talk) and will write to the legal department about the issues you raise.
Are BT in some way profitting from this if they are keeping addresses longer than they should and handing over info as requested.
derr
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 8:59 am

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

Postby S1066 » Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:49 am

I should think that Turpin Law are rethinking their strategy. Apart from being publicly denounced by a Lord and Which, the negative publicity of this whole debacle could sink their whole business, they make such proud claims on their website. Should the SRA find that their letters are threatening, then it could be their turn to be sued for damages. I should think 800 pounds would be about right, probably demanded on a template letter. Of course, they will no doubt be protected by their solicitor brothers, but its too late, the damage has been done, they have exposed their sorry morals.
S1066
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:01 am

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

Postby samanthaj » Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:02 am

penumbra wrote:
ntscuser wrote:There have been so many breaches of customer privacy by BT even beofre this one I'm staggered that anyone remains with them? Just google "Phorm" to see a typical example.


It's also worth mentioning that from the stats we've collected BT appear to keep a record of your IP for far longer than other ISPs and far longer than they are obliged to. We have seen quite a few people receiving letters in the first ACS batch of 2010 for infringements dating back to mid 2008. The average gap from infringement to notification for this ISP is well over a year. Of all ISPs looked at so far, BT are the worst in this respect.

There are several questions to ask about this. Why are ACS only requesting the named in november 2009, when we know there was a nov 2008 NPO they could have asked for them at? Why are BT keeping the records for this long? Are digiprotect holding back a reserve of infringements from 2008 they've yet to pass on to ACS?

No wonder TBI think they're an easy target.


Is there any reason to beleive, that other ISPs are not keeping records this long?

I remember reading the 2008 and early 2009 NPOs were there was a clause for VM which mentioned a 'best endevours' aproach for information before August 2008 however when looking at the forums someone recieved a letter (VM) for a game in relation to an infringment dated sometime in Nov 07. Depending on which NPO the info came from (Nov 08 or Mar 09) and taking into account the time taken to send the letter this could be around 16 - 18 months if the information for the infringment (Nov 07) was asked for in the Mar 09 NPO and the infringment received May 09.

What might be the motivation for holding back infringements? Other than money maybe?. If you notify someone straight away that there appears to be an infringement then there is a good chance that they will either look at their wireless security and stop the problem or change their behaviour. If you leave the notification period for as long as possible then there is a good chance that in either instance there is a chance for more infringements and more money to be made. I would think that it isn't in the businesses best interest to notify people quickly.

I think it would be great if we could find out how long ISPs hold on to IP records although I'm not sure if this is possible or if they would release under a freedom of information request (If this applies). Until then the the only scope on timescale is 6 years for a civil case (I think).

I wonder if it would be an option for anyone who has had a letter to be able to ask their ISP how long they hold IP address info which could be used to identify them, if so would this count as personal information and something which an ISP would then have to disclose?

Surely if this information is personal or could be used to personally identify people then you would have grounds to ask for that inforamtion. Would it be an option after that to ask for the information to be deleted in relation to a particular individual?

Along the lines of could you tell me how long you hold IP information, could you tell me what IP information you own about me, outside of the times which are required under law could you remove this information. I don't even know if this is possible but if it was while it wouldn't help people already in receipt of a letter it could be an option for people who read and follow this thread to contact their ISPs and get information removed after the required dates required by law have passed. I think businesses aren't allowed to keep information after it is of no use from a business standpoint and you can ask for it to be removed. If this was the case then the more publicity we could get for this thread and the more people that could contact their ISPs to have data removed it could be another avenue to attack this practice. Of course I'm probably talking crap and someone in reciept of a letter or more knowledgable has probably thought of this.
LARPER LIMITED c/o ACS LAW SOLICITORS
samanthaj
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:43 am

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

Postby Renegade » Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:09 pm

Some might be interested that Tilly Bailey Irvine have been busy doing some tidying.

They've been having a bit of an edit battle with an admin at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =349502017

(click next to see further revisions, including the PR additions and the restoration of the filesharing sections by the admin)

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.153.132.204
http://www.db.ripe.net/whois?form_type= ... rch=Search
Renegade
 
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 12:37 am

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

Postby sunnyd » Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:16 pm

Also related to Renegade's post above...

Anti-Piracy Lawyers Vandalize Wikipedia Page

http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-law ... ge-100402/

As mass file-sharing litigation lawsuits go inter-continental, not everyone is proud to be associated with this type of work. Lawyers Tilly Bailey & Irvine in the UK have been hard at work this month, editing large chunks of their own Wikipedia page in an attempt to hide their involvement and also earning themselves a copyright infringement warning.
Follow Slyck on Twitter @SlyckDotCom
Join Slyck's Facebook Fan Page
User avatar
sunnyd
 
Posts: 30027
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:34 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Torrent Download Court Action Threat/Settlement Letter Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
© 2001-2008 Slyck.com