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 Innocientcitizen22 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:45 pm

whichever one of the partners in this firm decided to take this speculative invoicing racket for a punt needs a stern talking to. seedy porn producers in bed with north eastern law firm... how comprehensive are defamation laws in the uk or do we still have free speech. my advice is draft a letter of denial, if you had no knowledge of infringement then you cannot be liable for damages. the law they so unscrupulously use to make their money does go on to say that.
Innocientcitizen22
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:24 pm

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

Postby maxwell2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:47 pm

Innocientcitizen22 wrote:whichever one of the partners in this firm decided to take this speculative invoicing racket for a punt needs a stern talking to. seedy porn producers in bed with north eastern law firm... how comprehensive are defamation laws in the uk or do we still have free speech. my advice is draft a letter of denial, if you had no knowledge of infringement then you cannot be liable for damages. the law they so unscrupulously use to make their money does go on to say that.


Thanks- I am moving to LOD positon in my mind.
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 4:50 pm

MrFredPFL wrote: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.


They seem so utterly confident of their methods though- but I am not a techie though even so I thought instinctively that there cannot be a way to know for sure that my wireless connection had not been hacked- and where I live that would be easy as well and must have been for these records to show up.

I am going back to a wired connection as all manner of confidential info could have been lifted from me over the time periof indicated on the allegation sheet.
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 4:57 pm

they cannot know if someone else used your wireless connection. period. of course they sound confident, as that is their ONLY weapon. How many people would pay out of fear after receiving a letter which stated "well, we suspect you might have done it, but, truth be told, we really don't KNOW anything, one way or another" ?

and don't assume that someone using your wireless was the only way they could have gotten your address. it's certainly one possibility, but history has demonstrated that in spite of the bold talk from these losers, they often are clueless.

their entire business model is built on extracting money by menace from people. they talk a good game, but that's all they do. because they are well aware of what would happen should any single one of these cases ever go to an actual court. at that point, they will be forced to put up or shut up, and the judge will very quickly see that the emperor has no clothes, and not only put a stop to the scam, but........

the fact that none of the people threatened in this manner has ever been taken to court should tell you everything you need to know about the truth of these claims.
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15750
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 5:01 pm

MrFredPFL wrote:they cannot know if someone else used your wireless connection. period. of course they sound confident, as that is their ONLY weapon. How many people would pay out of fear after receiving a letter which stated "well, we suspect you might have done it, but, truth be told, we really don't KNOW anything, one way or another" ?

and don't assume that someone using your wireless was the only way they could have gotten your address. it's certainly one possibility, but history has demonstrated that in spite of the bold talk from these losers, they often are clueless.

their entire business model is built on extracting money by menace from people. they talk a good game, but that's all they do. because they are well aware of what would happen should any single one of these cases ever go to an actual court. at that point, they will be forced to put up or shut up, and the judge will very quickly see that the emperor has no clothes, and not only put a stop to the scam, but........

the fact that none of the people threatened in this manner has ever been taken to court should tell you everything you need to know about the truth of these claims.


OK- subject to reading the guides from 'being threatened'- you have sold me.

Thanks
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

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

Postby samba pa ti » Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:26 pm

maxwell2 wrote:
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?


that is the best thing to do, i didnt say it wasnt, i said all of the nasty letters sent by 3 different law firms do not want you to reply unless you are sending them money, thats normal, put simply this is nothing new, just send a denial.
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 penumbra » Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:28 pm

maxwell2 wrote:
MrFredPFL wrote: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.


They seem so utterly confident of their methods though- but I am not a techie though even so I thought instinctively that there cannot be a way to know for sure that my wireless connection had not been hacked- and where I live that would be easy as well and must have been for these records to show up.

I am going back to a wired connection as all manner of confidential info could have been lifted from me over the time periof indicated on the allegation sheet.


SRSLY, they're interested in shaking as much money as possible off you. Their website is another too to make you do so.

They cannot possibly differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate use of your connection. Not without hacking and breaking UK law.

Despite the different wording this is exactly the same as the DL and ACS schemes.

Interestingly, their letters seem most like the early DL ones. They mention the fact that there are criminal options available to them, which is basically an outright lie. Unless they present proof you made a substantial amount of money off of selling the files (which they do not do). This should form the basis of an SRA complaint ASAP. They also hold you liable for copying the file to your machine. They have not presented, and cannot possibly have, evidence of this.

The only part which is different is that the NPO is between -them-your ISP- and *persons unknown*. The rest of the NPO seems basically the same so I'm not clear of the significance of this. Probably none.

Reply and deny. And complain. Loudly.

In fact, I'd be tempted to take them up on their offer of a "criminal" case by offering to report yourself to the police. Willing to bet they calm down a bit then.
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 maxwell2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:40 pm

OK- thinking about my LOD now- three questions:

1) Do I say something about not expecting to receive another letter from them;
2) Do I respond to any further communication from them having sent the LOD by registered post and keeping the documentation/ proo-of-posting (and a copy of the letter);
3) Who do I complain to.

Again advice much appreciated on this
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

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

Postby victimised » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:18 am

If you go to the Being Threatened website all the information regarding how to respond is there. Also all the information on who to complain to. It is an excellent resource, just apply all that is said to this law firm. Here is the link: http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/. There is also a link on how to Write to a Lord, as the Digital Economy Bill is being debated at the moment, and it might well be worth while reporting the fact to them that another law firm has jumped on the bandwagon. It may well help highlight that unless things are changed and made compulsory this "speculative invoicing scheme" will spring up all over the country, effectively making this Bill useless!!!!
victimised
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:32 am

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

Postby ACS Gits » Tue Feb 16, 2010 4:16 am

Has anyone else recieved one of these letters? @maxwell have you phoned them and actually spoke to someone about the letter? Just in case one of the nigerian scam players has decided to jump on the band wagon and empty a few accounts so to speak. If there are no details from the chancery devision, it does seem a bit suspect to say the least as all NPO's have been listed thus far. I cannot believe that Crossley would allow someone else steal his"customers", that said there is usually at least 2 or more ISP companies get nailed with the same NPO order. I would also send a copy of the letter to the being threatened website along with copies to all of the relivant bodies (mp, mep, sra etc).
ACS Gits
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:58 am

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

Postby robstanley1 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:23 am

ACS Gits wrote: I cannot believe that Crossley would allow someone else steal his"customers", that said there is usually at least 2 or more ISP companies get nailed with the same NPO order.


To be fair, it's not about the UK law firms 'competing' with one another - the actual vying for custom is coming from the IP Harvesters - Media Protetcor, Logistep, Digiprotect et. al

So far as I understand it, it's these 'organisations' who directly approach the rights holders, with the promise of extra revenue, so long as the rights holders allow these firms to represent them.

The IP Harvesters then seek out law firms in the respective countries, to send out their "Speculative Invoices", in return for a share of the profits from those who pay-up...guilty or not!

None of the companies/organisations involved pay anything to each other for any of the services rendered...they only get paid if their demands and accusations are responded to in the form of payments from the 'accused'.
robstanley1
 

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

Postby Billpayerr » Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:40 am

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.


This is highlighting two things that worry me.
Are BT are being singled out as an easy target for the IP harvesting companies as they appear to be releasing their customers data on demand? Why were there no other ISP’s on the court order?
Also…the timescale in which BT have released the personal data is very worrying. How can they so quickly check the data they hold against IP numbers and cross reference it to identify the account holder, and make sure it is 100% correct in such a short space of time? Is their data that accurate that people with IP’s that change every time they connect are so easily identified correctly and accurately?
Billpayerr
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:20 am

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

Postby robstanley1 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:48 am

Billpayer -

As we've seen already, there is quite evidently *something* wrong with the IP data, either at the point of collection by the Harvesting companies, or at ISP-record level; nothing else can possibly explain the sheer number of false positives that are being generated.

In this, so far isolated, case, it looks as though the Harvesting company is focussing solely on "edonkey network" (a file-sharing community), as opposed to any particular ISP as such.

I'm not sure if there's any real difference between this and 'Bittorrent' sharing, but it's interesting that ED2k is referred to explicitly in the paperwork.

Perhaps somebody else with more knowledge on the subject can clarify if this has any relevance/importance?
robstanley1
 

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

Postby penumbra » Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:13 am

robstanley1 wrote:Billpayer -

As we've seen already, there is quite evidently *something* wrong with the IP data, either at the point of collection by the Harvesting companies, or at ISP-record level; nothing else can possibly explain the sheer number of false positives that are being generated.

In this, so far isolated, case, it looks as though the Harvesting company is focussing solely on "edonkey network" (a file-sharing community), as opposed to any particular ISP as such.

I'm not sure if there's any real difference between this and 'Bittorrent' sharing, but it's interesting that ED2k is referred to explicitly in the paperwork.

Perhaps somebody else with more knowledge on the subject can clarify if this has any relevance/importance?


It is an odd one. The only thing I can think of is that the ED2k network requires a username, which is another bit of info they might be able to use to pin the infringement on a particular person. The shared files also tend to hang around a lot longer on the ED2k network, so perhaps there's some longer term monitoring going on.

The potential for collaring the wrong person is still huge, however. The same problems apply.

It is still, at it's heart a money gathering exercise and nothing more.
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 maxwell2 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:26 am

Billpayerr wrote:
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.


This is highlighting two things that worry me.
Are BT are being singled out as an easy target for the IP harvesting companies as they appear to be releasing their customers data on demand? Why were there no other ISP’s on the court order?
Also…the timescale in which BT have released the personal data is very worrying. How can they so quickly check the data they hold against IP numbers and cross reference it to identify the account holder, and make sure it is 100% correct in such a short space of time? Is their data that accurate that people with IP’s that change every time they connect are so easily identified correctly and accurately?


This is exactly what I thought- BT singled out (and this has been commented on before- plus I was surpised that the IP was released so quicly when the court papers say they had a maximimum of 6 months plus that the alleged (and erroneus) infringement was from quite a few months ago.
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

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

Postby maxwell2 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:31 am

ACS Gits wrote:Has anyone else recieved one of these letters? @maxwell have you phoned them and actually spoke to someone about the letter? Just in case one of the nigerian scam players has decided to jump on the band wagon and empty a few accounts so to speak. If there are no details from the chancery devision, it does seem a bit suspect to say the least as all NPO's have been listed thus far. I cannot believe that Crossley would allow someone else steal his"customers", that said there is usually at least 2 or more ISP companies get nailed with the same NPO order. I would also send a copy of the letter to the being threatened website along with copies to all of the relivant bodies (mp, mep, sra etc).


I scoured the internet in the last week and I cannot find any evidence of anyone else here or in another country having received a leterc recently- it was also sent by recorded deleivery unlike the ACS mass mailing by second class post.

These were two elements which made me worried that I might actually have to go all the way to court...

Luckily someone on another forum in PM offered pc-technical help with that (on trashing 'techical- forensic analysis) and best friends partner is a Barrister who has done a lot of HRA cases (including as high as ECHR) and such like so I'd not have to pay for legal counsel and representation.

Maybe it is about time this nonsense needs a test case to stop it in its tracks? But what a ridiculous load of stress.
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

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

Postby penumbra » Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:33 am

maxwell2 wrote:
ACS Gits wrote:Has anyone else recieved one of these letters? @maxwell have you phoned them and actually spoke to someone about the letter? Just in case one of the nigerian scam players has decided to jump on the band wagon and empty a few accounts so to speak. If there are no details from the chancery devision, it does seem a bit suspect to say the least as all NPO's have been listed thus far. I cannot believe that Crossley would allow someone else steal his"customers", that said there is usually at least 2 or more ISP companies get nailed with the same NPO order. I would also send a copy of the letter to the being threatened website along with copies to all of the relivant bodies (mp, mep, sra etc).


I scoured the internet in the last week and I cannot find any evidence of anyone else here or in another country having received a leterc recently- it was also sent by recorded deleivery unlike the ACS mass mailing by second class post.

These were two elements which made me worried that I might actually have to go all the way to court...

Luckily someone on another forum in PM offered pc-technical help with that (on trashing 'techical- forensic analysis) and best friends partner is a Barrister who has done a lot of HRA cases (including as high as ECHR) and such like so I'd not have to pay for legal counsel and representation.

Maybe it is about time this nonsense needs a test case to stop it in its tracks? But what a ridiculous load of stress.


It sounds like they've picked on the wrong person in you :o)
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 maxwell2 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:36 am

penumbra wrote:
robstanley1 wrote:Billpayer -

As we've seen already, there is quite evidently *something* wrong with the IP data, either at the point of collection by the Harvesting companies, or at ISP-record level; nothing else can possibly explain the sheer number of false positives that are being generated.

In this, so far isolated, case, it looks as though the Harvesting company is focussing solely on "edonkey network" (a file-sharing community), as opposed to any particular ISP as such.

I'm not sure if there's any real difference between this and 'Bittorrent' sharing, but it's interesting that ED2k is referred to explicitly in the paperwork.

Perhaps somebody else with more knowledge on the subject can clarify if this has any relevance/importance?


It is an odd one. The only thing I can think of is that the ED2k network requires a username, which is another bit of info they might be able to use to pin the infringement on a particular person. The shared files also tend to hang around a lot longer on the ED2k network, so perhaps there's some longer term monitoring going on.

The potential for collaring the wrong person is still huge, however. The same problems apply.

It is still, at it's heart a money gathering exercise and nothing more.


I've looked into this and vast majority of users have something like 'project emule' as their default user name- so how can that distinguish anyone? I am hoping here that hacker had a user name distinctly different from anything that can be used against me.

I don't even have the software on my pc and never had.
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

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

Postby penumbra » Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:56 am

maxwell2 wrote:
I've looked into this and vast majority of users have something like 'project emule' as their default user name- so how can that distinguish anyone? I am hoping here that hacker had a user name distinctly different from anything that can be used against me.

I don't even have the software on my pc and never had.


Yes, the vast majority do have a default or nondescript username. Specifically so they can't be picked out of a crowd. However, the fact remains that ED2k requires a username whereas BitTorrent clients generally do not.

Just because the majority keep the default doesn't mean that some don't change. Those will be the ones (you would think) which will be singled out. Good luck finding out if this is the case. Monitoring companies are famously cloak and dagger about their selection policy.
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 ellie2 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:30 am

penumbra wrote:
maxwell2 wrote:
I've looked into this and vast majority of users have something like 'project emule' as their default user name- so how can that distinguish anyone? I am hoping here that hacker had a user name distinctly different from anything that can be used against me.

I don't even have the software on my pc and never had.


Yes, the vast majority do have a default or nondescript username. Specifically so they can't be picked out of a crowd. However, the fact remains that ED2k requires a username whereas BitTorrent clients generally do not.

Just because the majority keep the default doesn't mean that some don't change. Those will be the ones (you would think) which will be singled out. Good luck finding out if this is the case. Monitoring companies are famously cloak and dagger about their selection policy.


PAH- the only way they can KNOW it was from a specific computer (and even then a sophisticated hacker can get around this) is if they infected a movie/ file (and therefore a computer) with malware so that when it was clicked to open it would transmit a text file with said IP/ PC details back to File Watch.

Of course that is an illegitimate evidence collection technique (the same procedure hackers use to hijack wireless connections/ piggy back signals/ remotely control a computer etc).

It's also inadmissible in court- another reason why no DEFENDED cases have ever appeared before a Judge.

*But* File Watch and TBI are banking on the idea that if they select only those that their malware indicate did D/L the movie (wireless hackers notwithstanding) will- in the face of brutal court papers/ technical documentation and a settlement offer- cave in and pay up (a la DL before).

Don't do it. The case- should it ever get that far and it won't - will be thrown out of court once FW reveal their true actual illegitimate method of data collection.

Get off a concise denial that you nor anyone else D/L'd the file and listen to that lawyer partner of your friend.

CALM DOWN !!
ellie2
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:24 am

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

Postby penumbra » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:46 am

ellie2 wrote:
penumbra wrote:
maxwell2 wrote:
I've looked into this and vast majority of users have something like 'project emule' as their default user name- so how can that distinguish anyone? I am hoping here that hacker had a user name distinctly different from anything that can be used against me.

I don't even have the software on my pc and never had.


Yes, the vast majority do have a default or nondescript username. Specifically so they can't be picked out of a crowd. However, the fact remains that ED2k requires a username whereas BitTorrent clients generally do not.

Just because the majority keep the default doesn't mean that some don't change. Those will be the ones (you would think) which will be singled out. Good luck finding out if this is the case. Monitoring companies are famously cloak and dagger about their selection policy.


PAH- the only way they can KNOW it was from a specific computer (and even then a sophisticated hacker can get around this) is if they infected a movie/ file (and therefore a computer) with malware so that when it was clicked to open it would transmit a text file with said IP/ PC details back to File Watch.


Yes. I know. Another way is if you give them a computer with the software installed using that user name. They do not have the power to force you to do this, as UK civil law is a lot more civilised than US civil law.

Bottom line: This is a carbon copy of Davenport Lyons / ACS law's schemes. They are having a go at shaking some money out of your pockets. Nothing more. Going to court is an unnecessary expense which if they can avoid at all they will.
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 maxwell2 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:27 am

penumbra wrote:
ellie2 wrote:
penumbra wrote:
PAH- the only way they can KNOW it was from a specific computer (and even then a sophisticated hacker can get around this) is if they infected a movie/ file (and therefore a computer) with malware so that when it was clicked to open it would transmit a text file with said IP/ PC details back to File Watch.


Yes. I know. Another way is if you give them a computer with the software installed using that user name. They do not have the power to force you to do this, as UK civil law is a lot more civilised than US civil law.

Bottom line: This is a carbon copy of Davenport Lyons / ACS law's schemes. They are having a go at shaking some money out of your pockets. Nothing more. Going to court is an unnecessary expense which if they can avoid at all they will.



The more I have read about this phenomenon (being a 'virgin' till the recorded letter arrived) the more annoyed I have become.

I have not downloaded what I am being accused of and neither let anyone else do it.

All the various contributions on here illustrate that this is a fundamentally unsound (and in some cases illegitimate) technology and that it is 'unsafe and unsound' as a means to establish guilt (in the UK certainly- entrapment and/ or no evidence that ISP 'owner' was present when alleged offence took place). There have been TV programmes apparently on UK TV showing how easy (and frequent) is the hijacking/ piggy backing / hacking of wireless internet connections.

I have come to the conclusion that this is indeed simply a fishing exercise to smoke out those who indeed know they are guilty ('fair cop guv' scenarios) or the nervy/ non-cognate people who will pay up to 'make it all go away'.

The fact that it is- for the moment- a legitimate practice for erstwhile bona fide UK law firms to engage in only makes it more annoying.
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

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

Postby Nitemare » Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:26 pm

Hi all,
I'm glad I found this forum and especially this thread!! :?
Advice please!!!
I received one of this letters from TBI last week!! :shock: It accused me of downloading some porn last July but THIS IS NOT TRUE!! Sure I download some software but NOT what they said I did!!
I contacted the number on the letter and spoke with a lady fro m TBI. I then sent an e-mail denying that I downloaded their clients property!!
Today I got an e-mail from her asking me to confirm if I did download the stuff an I've replied using the LOD method!!
What should I do now???? :?

Thanks and worried,
Nitemare :wink:
Nitemare
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:18 pm

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

Postby maxwell2 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:12 pm

Nitemare wrote:Hi all,
I'm glad I found this forum and especially this thread!! :?
Advice please!!!
I received one of this letters from TBI last week!! :shock: It accused me of downloading some porn last July but THIS IS NOT TRUE!! Sure I download some software but NOT what they said I did!!
I contacted the number on the letter and spoke with a lady fro m TBI. I then sent an e-mail denying that I downloaded their clients property!!
Today I got an e-mail from her asking me to confirm if I did download the stuff an I've replied using the LOD method!!
What should I do now???? :?

Thanks and worried,
Nitemare :wink:


Hi

if- like me- you have never even had emule o/ edonkey on your computer, go over to 'being threatened' and download the "speculative invoice handbook" where you'll find clear and concise advice vis-a-vis dealing with this situation.

Oh and re-send that LOD email by registered land post and hang onto the receipt/ RM slip.
maxwell2
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 pm

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

Postby Nitemare » Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:18 pm

HI maxwell2,
I think i was DL at the time they say but we thought it was legit stuff for FSX!! Turned out it wasn't!! I believe we were duped by someone??
What then??

Thanks so much for advice as this is VERY stressful!!
Nitemare
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Torrent Download Court Action Threat/Settlement Letter Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com