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

[maxwell2]

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!!

Just send the registered LOD- that is what I have already done.

[New_Kids]

I too have received a letter although I think mine has more content. I appear to have been sent the list of IP Addresses as presented to BT in the NPO - I am assuming you had red stamps on your copies of the NPO? If not could you contact me directly via PM with your IP Addresses please? I will then establish where we are all positioned in the main list and let you know by return. BTW, the list spans 06/06/09 - 16/11/09.

[MrFredPFL]

i would STRONGLY advise no one to identify their IP address to anyone. That is the easiest way to associate a forum name with your real name.

[boingboing]

Can those people who have had one of these letters please write to one of the Lords working on the digital britain stuff, preferably Lord Lucas.

I've been following the DL/ACS saga for 2 years now, and this is the first time anyone has ever taken a real interest in stopping this.

They are already on our side, and need to see that if they dont stop this now then copy cat lawyers are going to be springing up everywhere. It is essential that you contact Lord Lucas and make him aware that yet another firm is doing the same thing as ACS.

http://www.writetothem.com/lords

Offer to send him copies of your letters. Point out that it is full of untrue statements (i.e. "we can tell whether you have been hacked into or not") designed purely to intimidate you into coughing up.

I believe the Lords do want to stop this - but they need ammunition.

Please do it if you haven't already. We will not get a better chance to get this stopped.

[New_Kids]

Done.

[robstanley1]

Guys...

Don't forget to send details of the TBI demands along to Which? Computing (News@whichcomputing.co.uk); they are currently working on an article, and have already had contact from at least one other person who's received a TBI letter - once again, the more information you can provide to them, the better, and be sure to point out how these allegations have affected you on a personal level also.

[brazil]

Hi, I received a letter this week from Tilly Bailey Irvine accusing me of allowing 'uploading' of a film title last July, demanding £800 to make it all go away.

Not being familiar with any of the process, or indeed the law in general, I googled the firm and fortunately found this place.

Could somebody please provide a link to a letter of defence template I can use to deny the activity until I have more time to familiarise myself with the wealth of information and discusssion on this forum?

[MrFredPFL]

hi brazil, and welcome. check the links in the red box at the top of the page. www.beingthreatened.com is your friend.

[timeandspace]

Hi everyone,

I received one of these TBI letters last week too. I'm currently preparing a LOD, and I'd like to thank everyone here for all the advice so far. I've been a bag of nerves since this threatening letter arrived. I suffer from long-term depression and anxiety, so you can imagine the effect this has had. There is one thing I'd like to ask - can they issue instructions to whoever to come to my home at any point to confiscate my computer? I work from home and couldn't work without my computer. This would cripple me if this happened as I'm not in a financial positon to simply buy another at this point in time. Thanks again for any help.

[MrFredPFL]

not without a court order, and they will not get a court order for anything remotely resembilng that without first filing a case against you, something it appears has never yet happened.

[timeandspace]

So they would first need to inform you that they had filed a case against you? Or could they file a case and produce a court order on the same day (ie - confiscate your computer the same day they filed a case)? No matter how unlikely, I'm just nervous that they could turn up at any random point to confiscate my computer.

[robstanley1]

Timeandspace -

I'm not certain about the ins and outs of obtaining an order to remove and examine your PC.

That said, there has been no surch order used so far (and it's several years since this all began), so I think we can assume that using an order in this way would be cost-prohibitive (remember; this kind of action is usually reserved for criminal cases, not civil actions, such as these).

In any event, unless you're guilty of what they are claiming, having them examine your hard drive could only *help* your case.

I know this would cause problems, as you need your PC to work from home, but how would this be any different to - say - your PC dying tomorrow, which could easily happen?

[ntscuser]

In any event, unless you're guilty of what they are claiming, having them examine your hard drive could only *help* your case.

Not necessarily. The PC could have been used to share other files totally unrelated to the case which would cast doubt on the defence. Alternatively, if nothing at all was found this could be claimed as evidence that incriminating files have been expertly removed. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

[Renegade]

It has already been posted once in this thread (alongside numerous mentions in the ACS:Law and DL thread), but it needs emphasising again; the biggest chance to put an end to this at the moment appears to be political. The Digital Economy Bill is going through the motions at the moment and desperately needs everyone who has received letters (and those that want to voice opinions about their own concerns) to contact MPs and Lords to ensure the Digital Economy Bill prevents such legal abuse in future.

The bill is now at a very important stage. Most of the amendments from the Lords will be finalised when the report stage starts on the 1st March. This is your LAST CHANCE to influence the bill in the House of Lords.

If you have not yet contacted 3 or so Lords, please do so today:
Http://www.writetothem.com/lords

As already mentioned, can all those from Tilly Bailey Irvine please include either Lord Clement Jones or Lord Lucas as one of your letter recipients; you can then send the same letter to 2 or 3 more lords from the list below:

# Lord de Mauley (Cons)
# Earl Attlee (cons)
# Baroness Howe of Idlicote (N/a)
# Baroness Byford (Cons)
# Lord Wade of Chorlton (Cons)
# Baroness Hayman (Lab)
# Lord Maxton (labour)
# Viscount Bridgeman (Cons)
# Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LibDem)
# Lord Triesman (Lab)
# Lord Birt (N/A)
# Lord Whitty (Lab)
# Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
# Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
# Baroness Buscombe (Cons)
# Lord Steel of Aikwood (LibDem)
# Lord Puttnam (Lab)
# Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (N/A)
# Lord Mayhew of Twysden (Cons)
# Lord Mackay of clashfern (Cons)

Some points you may wish to raise are as follows, obviously amend and come up with your own:

• Why does the law allow for the mass granting of Norwich Pharmacal Orders? Assuming flagrancy of copyright infringement and the strength of their supposed proof, surely NPO's could be applied for individually on the basis that the infringement case will be a certain win (and the cost of the NPO can be recouped through court costs).
• Why have the SRA not acted to protect the public and their profession from a clear abuse of the spirit of the law?
• Why does the Digital Economy Bill not ensure that the process within it is compulsory? If law firms can continue what they are doing despite the new bill, they inevitably will do so.
• Who will independently arbritrate the evidential methods used to demonstrate individual infringement?
• How can the account holder be held even partially responsible for an act of which they are unaware, when the ubiquitiousness and ease of hacking of wireless networks is as it is? All known wireless security methods have been broken and knowledge of more than rudimentary security requires a high level of techinical knowledge.
• Why is there no amendment to the Data Protection Act to bring the UK in line with General Advocate Kokott's interpretation of EU law that IP addresses are private data and individual details may only be provided in extraordinary circumstances (i.e. as a result of criminal prosecution) and not routinely to collect 'fines'.

It is very important for you to give your PERSONAL views, you are giving your opinion on the emotional damage of the letters as well as the inaccuracies and legal flaws. Talk only about what you feel comfortable, but make sure you do send something to several Lords.

Do what you can to help, write to several Lords today:
Http://www.writetothem.com/lords

For anyone thats already sent messages, it is well worth sending another message to the Lords you've contacted before (with the possible exceptions of Lord Lucas and Lord Clement Jones) asking what the Lord has done with your information and how they will be helping you on the Digital Economy Bill

Remember, LAST real chance for the House of Lords to make a difference is next week.

[brazil]

Hi, I recently received a letter from Tilly Bailey Irvine alleging infringement of;

1. Either for copying the Work onto the hard drive of your personal (or office) computer ("PC") (pursuant to sections 16(1)(a) and 17 of the CDAP Act 1988); and/or for

2. Making the work available to third parties for downloading (pursuant to sections 16(1)(d) and 20 of the Act).

I was busy composing my LOD and noticed that the excellent template from BeingThreatened advises me to state that I "categorically deny any offence under sections 16(1)(d) and 20 of the CDPA 1988", And to also deny "section 16(2)" of the Act.

I'm confused by this as TBI refer to a different section of the Act than the LOD template and obviously I wish to deny both of their allegations, 1 and 2, and yet it appears to me that in doing so I wouldn't be denying sections 16(1)(a) and 17 in doing so. Can someone please help?

[S1066]

Hi Brazil

Looking at the CPDA Act, para 16(1)(d) refers to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder,
Para 20 refers to infringement "by broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service"
Para 17 refers to "Infringement of copyright by copying".

Check what the letter accuses you of, maybe making available, rather than actually copying, or both?

Probably, the actual clause they would use in court has not been decided yet, maybe Para 20 is not quite right, after all, what is broadcasting or a cable cable program in the context of P2P?

If you didn't do it, just specifically deny the charges they have put in the letter and deny Para 20 as well for good measure.

Also look at where the "evidence" was gathered, if it was made available in Germany, than maybe the UK law doesn't apply. In my opinion, do not enter into a debate with them, do not rise to it, just deny and let them provide the proof.

[brazil]

Hi Brazil

Looking at the CPDA Act, para 16(1)(d) refers to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder,
Para 20 refers to infringement "by broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service"
Para 17 refers to "Infringement of copyright by copying".

Check what the letter accuses you of, maybe making available, rather than actually copying, or both?

Probably, the actual clause they would use in court has not been decided yet, maybe Para 20 is not quite right, after all, what is broadcasting or a cable cable program in the context of P2P?

If you didn't do it, just specifically deny the charges they have put in the letter and deny Para 20 as well for good measure.

Also look at where the "evidence" was gathered, if it was made available in Germany, than maybe the UK law doesn't apply. In my opinion, do not enter into a debate with them, do not rise to it, just deny and let them provide the proof.

Thanks for your clear, concise and unpatronising help, tis much appreciated.

The letter accuses me of making the file available for upload, and for the record, the "evidence" was indeed gathered in Germany.

[victimlesscrime]

I also received onr of these TBI letters. After panik I sat down other people in house and eventually one came clean. What he siad was a bit scary- he reckons he remembers clicking on a file from 'emule' r something and a dialog box came up with 'filewatcher' on it for about 5 secons and he thought it was sending a message or somthing.

Any acs people come across this method? also thast must be some kind of virus- can they use that in cort?
really shakey

[samba pa ti]

I also received onr of these TBI letters. After panik I sat down other people in house and eventually one came clean. What he siad was a bit scary- he reckons he remembers clicking on a file from 'emule' r something and a dialog box came up with 'filewatcher' on it for about 5 secons and he thought it was sending a message or somthing.

Any acs people come across this method? also thast must be some kind of virus- can they use that in cort?
really shakey

that sounds very strange, the first time ive heard of somone getting warnings before/whilst downloading, maybe because a lot of people havent actually downloaded stuff (they dont admit it if they did) they are accused of, we havent heard of this before ?:S

[penumbra]

Hi Brazil

Looking at the CPDA Act, para 16(1)(d) refers to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder,
Para 20 refers to infringement "by broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service"
Para 17 refers to "Infringement of copyright by copying".

Check what the letter accuses you of, maybe making available, rather than actually copying, or both?

Probably, the actual clause they would use in court has not been decided yet, maybe Para 20 is not quite right, after all, what is broadcasting or a cable cable program in the context of P2P?

If you didn't do it, just specifically deny the charges they have put in the letter and deny Para 20 as well for good measure.

Also look at where the "evidence" was gathered, if it was made available in Germany, than maybe the UK law doesn't apply. In my opinion, do not enter into a debate with them, do not rise to it, just deny and let them provide the proof.

Beware.

The CDPA act has been updated quite a few times since the text of the original act. That secion no longer reads like that.

For an unofficial updated copy, the Intellectual Property Office has an updated version available here.

The section now reads:

16 The acts restricted by copyright in a work
31
(1) 16 The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the
following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following
acts in the United Kingdom B
(a) to copy the work (see section 17);
(b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);
(ba) to rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A);
(c) to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);
(d) to communicate the work to the public (see section 20);
(e) to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation
to an adaptation (see section 21);
and those acts are referred to in this Part as the "acts restricted by the
copyright".
(2) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the
copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts
restricted by the copyright.

Also, see my reply on the other thread (unless you think it's a patronising one )

[timeandspace]

I received a reply to my 1st LOD from TBI:

Dear Sir

Media & More GmbH & Co KG ( Ref xxxxxx.x)

In light of the fact that your letter appears to be based on evidence obtained from a "Legal Counsel" online as a result of using search engines, we would suggest this is not a substitute for obtaining property legal advice from a solicitor and would recommend that you do so.

Over the period of xx/xx/xxxx to xx/xx/xxxx our technical data providers used their file watch software programme and logged 350 snapshots of your user hash and IP address (as identified at the date and time of the original capture of the infringing activity) whilst attempting to upload or download copyright material (inclding that of our client) on P2P sites. Our results indicate that your internet connection has been linked to file sharing activity on numerous occasions, as such we consider, on the balance of probabilities, that either you or someone at your property has used your internet connection to carry out the infringing activity complained of iin our earlier letter. We purport that should this matter proceed to court a judge would form the same view.

If it is possible for identified persons in your household (such as children, relatives, guests or friends) to make use of your internet connection, either a wireless network or using a cable connection, should you have Ethernet cabling in your property which is connected to a network using your computer and its internet connection. As the account holder, the term s and conditions of your contract with your ISP require you not to use the services provided by them to breach the copyright of a third party and a positive obligation on you to ensure the security of your system.

Furthermore, without prejudice to the remedies open to our client, you should treat this letter as notice that your failure properly to secure your access to your internet connection has enabled an unspecified third party to use your network to infringe the copyright of third parties, including that of our client. As a result you now owe a duty of care to all the owners of copyright, whose rights may be breached thereby, to ensure that your network is properly secured against use by unautorised third parties. Failure properly to secure your system could also therefore lead to proceedings being issued against you, in addition to any proceedings for copyright infringement, arising from breach of such duty.

In light of the additional data we have retrieved regarding file sharing activity we have been instructed by our client to pursue this matter further in the absence of a satisfactory response.

We await your reponse within 10 days from the date of this letter.

In the meantime, we expressly reserve all our clients rights.

I assume I should simply send another LOD, stating exactly what I stated in my 1st LOD?

[samba pa ti]

We purport that should this matter proceed to court a judge would form the same view.

nonsense...

As the account holder, the term s and conditions of your contract with your ISP require you not to use the services provided by them to breach the copyright of a third party and a positive obligation on you to ensure the security of your system.

wonder if it actually says that in the t&c's either way its none of their business...

Failure properly to secure your system could also therefore lead to proceedings being issued against you

so whats this letter about ? just trying to get money... if they really cared about copyrights they would have just served you with court papers...

I assume I should simply send another LOD, stating exactly what I stated in my 1st LOD?

send another denial, dont get into a debate with them about anything, just repeat what you have already said.

[penumbra]

Failure properly to secure your system could also therefore lead to proceedings being issued against you

so whats this letter about ? just trying to get money... if they really cared about copyrights they would have just served you with court papers...

Quite. This letter is terribly confused, isn't it. You come away from it wondering exactly what they want of you.

It also reads like a mish-mash of previous Davenport Lyons letters, from multiple stages of their letter writing scheme. It looks for all the world like they're linked either to ACS, DL or digiprotect in some way. Not impressed by this lot so far.

Your ISP's terms of conditions are nothing to do with them. They need to cut that business out. Also, the number of infringements is irrelevant if your connection has been hijacked or if you have been wrongly identified. It looks like they're going down the route that more infringements = more likley to be the subscriber or someone they know. This is bullhooey. Furthermore, they don't even define what they mean by a "snapshot". If it's just seeing if your connection is sharing a file, for example, that's far weaker "evidence" than downloading a full (and different) chunk of the file each time.

Finally, hilariously, they admit they don't know who the heck committed the infringement. They say in the open that "identified persons" may have committed the infringement but it is clear they have no clue who (and therefore no case). Note that they tactlessly leave out the possibility of UNidentified persons, because then they would have even less of a case. At least if they manage to finger your children for it then they could hold you responsible. This is important. It's all very well the judge coming to the view that your connection was used to commit these infringements but for them to sue successfully the judge has to come to the view that YOU committed the infringement or that YOU AUTHORISED IT. They are playing (really bad) word games here. By only mentioning "identified" individuals they might be able to construe from a poorly constructed reply that you, for instance, let a friend commit the infringement knowingly.

The above advice is good. They know your position, you (hopefully) put it clearly in your first letter - you didn't do it and you don't know who did. They have ignored it. That's their prerogative but to discuss any matter of evidence or law with them will clearly be counter-productive. If you are innocent then you have nothing to fear.

An important point for anyone in receipt of a TBI letter: In their first letter they make loud noises about possible criminal remedies - but make it look as if they're being "kind" by only going for civil ones. You all seriously need to complain to the SRA about this loudly. Really loudly. It's utterly unrealistic gibbering rhetoric like that which got DL in hot water; it is wanton scaremongering and is therefore a clear breach of the solicitors code of practice.

[oldgeezer]

I actually went to this law firm for advice when I recieved a letter from DL way back in 2008. A certain Amanda Mitten advised me to pay which I did'nt. She also said that she previously advised someone else to pay which he did. She asked me to send her all correspondence to and from DL but I never heard anything back. The letter posted by timeandspace looks very similar to DL's letters especially this part:

"If it is possible for identified persons in your household (such as children, relatives, guests or friends) to make use of your internet connection, either a wireless network or using a cable connection, should you have Ethernet cabling in your property which is connected to a network using your computer and its internet connection. As the account holder, the term s and conditions of your contract with your ISP require you not to use the services provided by them to breach the copyright of a third party and a positive obligation on you to ensure the security of your system"

and this

"Furthermore, without prejudice to the remedies open to our client, you should treat this letter as notice that your failure properly to secure your access to your internet connection has enabled an unspecified third party to use your network to infringe the copyright of third parties, including that of our client. As a result you now owe a duty of care to all the owners of copyright, whose rights may be breached thereby, to ensure that your network is properly secured against use by unautorised third parties. Failure properly to secure your system could also therefore lead to proceedings being issued against you, in addition to any proceedings for copyright infringement, arising from breach of such duty"

Hope this is of some interest.

[penumbra]

I actually went to this law firm for advice when I recieved a letter from DL way back in 2008. A certain Amanda Mitten advised me to pay which I did'nt.

<snip>

Hope this is of some interest.

This is very, very interesting. Thanks for this.