O2 are entitled to a report from ACS Law
Anonymous
Not applicable
on 23-08-2010 13:32
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
on 23-08-2010 13:32
On the 19 Nov 09 ACS Law working for a German company called Digprotect http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?company=digiprotect, received a court order (Norwich Pharmacal Order)(NPO), which ordered many british ISP's to reveal names and addresses of customers accused of uploading files on P2P networks.
This law firm sent letters to all ISP's asking them not to contest the court case in the high court in London. All ISP's except Talk Talk sent a letter stating that they would not contest the order. Talk Talk sent a letter stating that they would not comply and were subsequently removed from the case. Because of this the "Evidence" that Digiprotect and ACS Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law had was not tested. perhaps if it was tested it would be seen as very flimsy evidence, as the only published proof is an IP Address, this has been proved time and again that an IP address is not linked to a person.
As a part of the NPO, the lawfirm ACS Law must provide a report to each of the ISP's Listed, BE Unlimited, BT, O2 Telefonica, and PlusNet, within 6 months of the date of disclosure of the names and addresses. this report must contain the following,
1. how many names and addresses were provided by each ISP
2. how many of these have had legal proceding taken against them.
So far only PlusNet have received this report, however they have decided not to reveal any details and so I have decided to post this question on this forum. the report is due to BE unlimited and O2 Telefonica on 19 Sep 10, 6 months from the date of disclosure of 19 Mar 10, and if O2 reveal that the report contains what we all think, ie many names and addresses given to ACS Law but NONE taken to court, then it will be very difficult to get the high court to award another NPO, as the definition of an NPO is
This is clearly not what ACS Law have been using these Court Orders for, as todate, they have sent thousands of letters demanding many hundreds of pounds for alledged copyright infringement and have taken no one to court(that we know of). the practice has been condemmed by Watchdog, the Lords in the House of Lords, BBC The One show, O2, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8570913.stm
ACS Law are currently under investigation by the SRA, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, they SRA have received so many complaints that they have had to delay making any decisions until they have investigated all complaints.
I ask O2 to publish the report when it receives it, and if it does not receive it by the 19 Sep 10, then they should say so as ACS Law will be in contempt of the court order dated 19 Nov 09. this is O2's chance to put a stop to this practice, and show once and for all that the law firms engaged in this practice (ACS:Law, Gallant McMillan, Ballinas Ollinas, Davenport-Lyons, Tilly Bailly and Irvine) are/were only in this for the money.
This law firm sent letters to all ISP's asking them not to contest the court case in the high court in London. All ISP's except Talk Talk sent a letter stating that they would not contest the order. Talk Talk sent a letter stating that they would not comply and were subsequently removed from the case. Because of this the "Evidence" that Digiprotect and ACS Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law had was not tested. perhaps if it was tested it would be seen as very flimsy evidence, as the only published proof is an IP Address, this has been proved time and again that an IP address is not linked to a person.
As a part of the NPO, the lawfirm ACS Law must provide a report to each of the ISP's Listed, BE Unlimited, BT, O2 Telefonica, and PlusNet, within 6 months of the date of disclosure of the names and addresses. this report must contain the following,
1. how many names and addresses were provided by each ISP
2. how many of these have had legal proceding taken against them.
So far only PlusNet have received this report, however they have decided not to reveal any details and so I have decided to post this question on this forum. the report is due to BE unlimited and O2 Telefonica on 19 Sep 10, 6 months from the date of disclosure of 19 Mar 10, and if O2 reveal that the report contains what we all think, ie many names and addresses given to ACS Law but NONE taken to court, then it will be very difficult to get the high court to award another NPO, as the definition of an NPO is
Term: Norwich Pharmacal Order
1.
A court has jurisdiction to order persons who have information that may lead to the identification of the defendant to disclose that the information. Accordingly, unidentified defendants’ identities may be made the subject of disclosure by a court in England.
Other means of obtaining evidence is usually available to identify a defendant and those means ought to exhausted before resorting to the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. A court will not exercise the jurisdiction unless the result would be that the claimant is left in a position where proceedings cannot be commenced against a named defendant. The person seeking the court order must have a genuine intention of commencing proceedings.
This is clearly not what ACS Law have been using these Court Orders for, as todate, they have sent thousands of letters demanding many hundreds of pounds for alledged copyright infringement and have taken no one to court(that we know of). the practice has been condemmed by Watchdog, the Lords in the House of Lords, BBC The One show, O2, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8570913.stm
ACS Law are currently under investigation by the SRA, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, they SRA have received so many complaints that they have had to delay making any decisions until they have investigated all complaints.
I ask O2 to publish the report when it receives it, and if it does not receive it by the 19 Sep 10, then they should say so as ACS Law will be in contempt of the court order dated 19 Nov 09. this is O2's chance to put a stop to this practice, and show once and for all that the law firms engaged in this practice (ACS:Law, Gallant McMillan, Ballinas Ollinas, Davenport-Lyons, Tilly Bailly and Irvine) are/were only in this for the money.
Message 1 of 7
1,595 Views
6 REPLIES 6
Anonymous
Not applicable
on 23-08-2010 15:59
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
on 23-08-2010 15:59
There's 34 pages worth on the Plusnet forums for this exact topic and looks like they're not willing to publish the desired figures.
I don't think many other ISP's (if any at all) will publish the figures either if they recieve the report showing how many were taken to court.
I don't think many other ISP's (if any at all) will publish the figures either if they recieve the report showing how many were taken to court.
Message 2 of 7
1,595 Views
Anonymous
Not applicable
on 23-08-2010 23:45
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
on 23-08-2010 23:45
This looks a load of old tosh!!
That is a seriously boring thread. I feel a fool for reading it and trying to decipher what you are talking about.
I feel violated!!! :mansurprised:
That is a seriously boring thread. I feel a fool for reading it and trying to decipher what you are talking about.
I feel violated!!! :mansurprised:
Message 3 of 7
1,595 Views
Anonymous
Not applicable
on 25-08-2010 07:47
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
on 25-08-2010 07:47
Ok, If you really are not interested in a topic which trys to deal with a very big threat to all internet subsribers then very well, I just hope that if/when you get one of these "Nasty Gram" letters, you remember that there are people trying to get the ISP's to do their duty to protect their customers.
ACS Law has been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Council for punishment over this scam.
ACS Law has been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Council for punishment over this scam.
Message 4 of 7
1,595 Views
Anonymous
Not applicable
on 25-08-2010 14:37
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
on 25-08-2010 14:37
It wouldn't surprise me if the figures are published... because it could lead to people closing their broadband accounts with those providers, in protest / fear.
Question: Have people contested the letters? What has been the outcome?
Question: Have people contested the letters? What has been the outcome?
Message 5 of 7
1,595 Views
Anonymous
Not applicable
on 25-08-2010 15:40
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
on 25-08-2010 15:40
Yes Everyone who has replied with a letter denial has had further letters, but to date not one person has been taken to court.
This is the whole crux of the matter, They go to the High Court with flimsy "evidence", and as none of the ISP's bother to contest it, it is never questioned, the Judge passes the court order which orders the ISP's to reveal the names and addresses to the lawyers. The lawyers then send thousands of letters to the names that the ISP give them demanding manyhundreds of pounds. O2 was one of the ISP's who are due to receive a report showing how many of their paying customers have had their names and addresses given by the ISP and how many people had been taken to court. I can tell you the answer to that last one myself ZERO, Nothing NADA, a big fat zero. Thankfully one of the Law firms has been referred to a disciplinary tribunal for this and we await the outcome, however it is in everyones interest to get O2 to publish the report when it gets it, and show that the law firms are only in this business for the money, not to stop copyright infringements.
This is the whole crux of the matter, They go to the High Court with flimsy "evidence", and as none of the ISP's bother to contest it, it is never questioned, the Judge passes the court order which orders the ISP's to reveal the names and addresses to the lawyers. The lawyers then send thousands of letters to the names that the ISP give them demanding manyhundreds of pounds. O2 was one of the ISP's who are due to receive a report showing how many of their paying customers have had their names and addresses given by the ISP and how many people had been taken to court. I can tell you the answer to that last one myself ZERO, Nothing NADA, a big fat zero. Thankfully one of the Law firms has been referred to a disciplinary tribunal for this and we await the outcome, however it is in everyones interest to get O2 to publish the report when it gets it, and show that the law firms are only in this business for the money, not to stop copyright infringements.
Message 6 of 7
1,595 Views
Anonymous
Not applicable
on 25-08-2010 16:26
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Content
on 25-08-2010 16:26
Ok, If you really are not interested in a topic which trys to deal with a very big threat to all internet subsribers then very well, I just hope that if/when you get one of these "Nasty Gram" letters, you remember that there are people trying to get the ISP's to do their duty to protect their customers.
ACS Law has been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Council for punishment over this scam.
I don't involve myself in any illegal activity and therefore if I received any such letter I would be the first to call ACS and explain the errors of their way. If that didn't work then I would take myself to Hanover Square in London and introduce myself. Not even an LLB could stop Andrew Crossley from hearing me.
I do think that we have a duty to protect ourselves first and foremost.
Message 7 of 7
1,595 Views
