Illegal Downloading.

Devo

If you've got some time on your hands Lewie you could always pop over to the Consumer Action Forum and read through this epic post on the matter:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/acs-law/198192-acs-law-copyright-file.html

pcombo

http://www.itpro.co.uk/625321/ministry-of-sound-and-the-backlash-against-file-sharers

Lewie

Devo wrote: »

If you've got some time on your hands Lewie you could always pop over to the Consumer Action Forum and read through this epic post on the matter:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/acs-law/198192-acs-law-copyright-file.html

Already been there Devo, cheers, and to many more.
If you look at my original post you will see that i am doing this on behalf of my daughters boyfriend.
I couldn't believe the nature of the letter.
They have a ip address where they THINK there MAY have been 'one or more' copyright infringements.
If your letter is worded the same, I fail to see how, if there is proper evidence, that they can say 'one or more', they either have proof or they don't.
Of course the answer is, they don't.
You cannot connect a ip address to one individual.
The other thing is, if they have solid PROOF, why would they send you a letter giving you 21 days to use a shredder to permanently delete files from your computer?
They could have got a court order to seize your computer, but, of course, they know only too well that any wireless connection can be hacked.
A scaremongering, money making scheme that needs stopping and the culprits prosecuting.
Tell you girlfriend to sleep well.
BTW, I personally don't think you should ignore it, the letter is legal, we are going to send a letter of denial and see what happens from there.
Any more harassment will be met with a counter claim in the small claims court. Been there a few times!!

Devo

I've penned a letter of denial and will be posting it back to them tomorrow. Fingers crossed they will just drop everything as I've put up some resistance. If we'd actually downloaded the work in question then I would hold my hands up but neither of us would ever wish to listen to the 'Ministry Of Sound' :eek:

Lewie

Devo wrote: »

I've penned a letter of denial and will be posting it back to them tomorrow. Fingers crossed they will just drop everything as I've put up some resistance. If we'd actually downloaded the work in question then I would hold my hands up but neither of us would ever wish to listen to the 'Ministry Of Sound' :eek:

Your right there. They would have to pay ME to listen to such drivel.
We are also sending a letter but will wait nearer to the 21 days.
They will then propbaly send another letter with a time limit, then we will have to send another. By then perhaps the powers that be will tell them to stop this nonsense.
Some time back i though about using software to hide my ip, but i didn't bother as i wasn't too worried about a few cookies.
Now, seeing so many of these false claims i am going to get the software and hide my ip and i suggest everyone else does the same.

Devo

Has anyone heard back anything yet?

I sent my letter off over a week ago recorded delivery but not heard anything. We're moving in 3 weeks so they better be quick hehe

Tko

It beggars belief the truths, half-truths, and the made up, being posted.


From Which?

UK consumers cannot be held legally responsible for any illicit online file sharing activity which occurs without their knowledge, or consent, on their unsecured wireless networks.
That’s the legal opinion of Roger Wyand QC, a barrister specialising in intellectual property law and joint head of Hogarth Chambers. His opinion will come as a relief to the thousands of people who maintain they have been wrongly accused of illegally downloading and sharing copyright protected material via the internet.
‘Where a third party does manage to use the internet connection of a subscriber without his or her knowledge or consent and infringes copyright, the subscriber will not be liable for copyright infringement,’ Wyand explained.
‘The subscriber could be liable if they knew that a third party intended to infringe copyright and consented to a third party using their equipment to carry out that intention. However, mere negligence in failing to take precautions to prevent such use is not actionable.’
He suggested that as a general rule, it would be sensible for consumers to put in some form of protection – such as password-protecting their wireless network - against unauthorised access

Filesharing - the legal opinion
Which? has been advised by an eminent Queen's Council, a barrister appointed by the Queen, that'where a third party does manage to use the internet connection of a subscriber without his or her knowledge or consent and infringes copyright, the subscriber will not be liable for copyright infringement'. When told this, Simon Gallant said he disagreed.
Wyand’s legal opinion challenges one of the foundations on which legal firms ACS: Law Solicitors (ACS Law) and Gallant Macmillan Solicitors (Gallant) base their volume litigation against those alleged to be file sharing illicitly.
Some of the clients of both firms claim that as the person concerned has been identified as the subscriber to the IP address which was used to illegally download and share their copyright protected material via peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, that person has infringed their copyright.
Both firms claim their clients are entitled to commence civil proceedings but offer people the opportunity to settle the claim by making a payment of approximately £500 in compensation


Michael Coyle, solicitor advocate and MD of the Southampton-based law firm Lawdit, who has represented hundreds of people who have received these letters, says none of his cases have gone to court.
"A significant number of cases were connected to !!!!!!, seeking to embarrass !!!!!! users into paying up, and it developed from there. Perhaps as many as 10% of those receiving letters have paid up, but the rest have just disappeared. These firms are trying to argue that just because you pay for the internet connection you are somehow responsible for everything that is downloaded on it – whether you were responsible or not. It just doesn't stand up in law," he says.
"It seems to me that the only way a claim can be upheld is if you admit it or if they inspect your hard drive."
He is so confident that a claim by the likes of ACS:Law would not succeed that he has offered to defend anyone in court for free – providing they didn't download the offending file.
Following a complaint by consumer group Which? (and others) Davenport Lyons, the law firm which pioneered the approach in the UK, is facing a probe by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Lewie

Devo. No, haven't heard anything and don't really expect to.
Like I already said, we found out that the subscription for the internet was still in another family members name.
He moved out over two years ago so he has proof that he didn't download anything, and he certainly isn't daft enough to give someone permission to do so.
I think this case would be a bit complicated in court.

Tko.
The last bit concerning Michael Coyle is a bit of an advert for them I think.
I e-mailed them for advice and how to go about getting free representation.
They told me they would send a letter.....................for £150 +VAT!
Any further letters, £50 +VAT
They did give me a bit of avice but the cost of sending a letter was a bit of a shock after saying he would represent in court for free.

Tko

Lewie wrote: »

Devo. No, haven't heard anything and don't really expect to.
Like I already said, we found out that the subscription for the internet was still in another family members name.
He moved out over two years ago so he has proof that he didn't download anything, and he certainly isn't daft enough to give someone permission to do so.
I think this case would be a bit complicated in court.

Tko.
The last bit concerning Michael Coyle is a bit of an advert for them I think.
I e-mailed them for advice and how to go about getting free representation.
They told me they would send a letter.....................for £150 +VAT!
Any further letters, £50 +VAT
They did give me a bit of avice but the cost of sending a letter was a bit of a shock after saying he would represent in court for free.

Tell Michael Coyle, that is what they quote in the Guardian newspaper not sure the legality of them saying they will do it then trying to charge for it

google guardian gallant macmillan it's the top link sorry i can not post links

Lewie

Hi Tko.
Yes, I had read it, that is why i contacted them.
He said he would represent people for free in court.
It is the letters that they will charge for and of course they know that two or three letters would need to be sent before there would be a court case.