New BLOG

RECEIVED A LETTER FROM ACS:LAW?

(Or Gallant Macmillan)

Please visit the NEW BLOG http://acsbore.wordpress.com/

New Bull$hit Detector

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="230" caption="Click to start"][/caption]



this is the new ACS 2 Bullshit Detector.  It has been run past the latest letters and seems to be VERY reliable at detecting bullshit.  If you have any comments on how the new ACS 2 can be improved please let me know.

"Tilly Bailey and Irvine" Stop sending "Speculative Invoices" to save their Reputation

[caption id="attachment_161" align="alignleft" width="112" caption="Amanda Mitten - Tilly Bailey & Irvine"][/caption]

Tilly Bailey and Irvine who started to emulate ACS:LAW in sending out "Speculative Invoices" to people asking them to "Pay up or be sued" have apparently halted their operations as it appears that the negative publicity is harming their other businesses.

Tilly Bailey & Irvine actually threatened to enforce the debt collection AGAINST the Property of the person accused.

"We estimate that collectively such costs would be several thousand pounds. In the event that you were not able to pay whatever sums the court may direct, our client would have no option but to take steps to enforce the debt against your property." 

Extract from   TBI letter

You can see the letter to one such person here (letter from Tilly Bailey & Irvine)  The Solicitors specialise in  illegally file-shared pornographic material copyrighted by Golden Eye (International) Limited.

I have tried to contact Tilly Bailey & Irvine, as have others with the same result, NO REPLY, indeed they have actually Blocked my Twitter account and my Youtube Channel.  This I find is a shame, as I am very courteous and polite and only want to know the truth and defend those who are falsely accused.  I do NOT believe that this is a way for a Solicitor to act.  Before you wonder why I believe they would respond to someone they believe is a "Pressure Group" I have also tried to contact them via straight email, but nothing.

I feel that it is NOT right for Tilly Bailey and Irvine to merely withdraw for COMMERCIAL reasons while still maintaining they were morally right in what they were doing.  IF they had apologised that would have been different.

We are left with a situation where Amanda Mitten with the collaboration of her Seniors has THREATENED peoples homes and livelihoods with NO EVIDENCE released, NO WAY for the person to defend themselves unless they bankrupted themselves to pay for a Solicitor.

This is why I believe Tilly Bailey and Irvine should NOT be allowed to rebuild their shattered reputation, UNTIL they accept that what they have done is "Conduct unbecoming a Solicitor" I hope the SRA will investigate.  To threaten to take someone’s home without evidence based on some foreign surveillance is an OUTRAGE.

One further amusing aspect of just how far they went to try to SILENCE their critics was this following extract regarding their attempt to "Vandalise" the Wikipedia Website

So, how do we know it was TBI doing the editing? Because they were smart enough to edit it from 195.153.132.204, the IP address registered to their company.

“Please do not remove sourced content from Wikipedia, as you did with TBI Solicitors — this is vandalism,” wrote a Wikipedia admin to Tilly Bailey & Irvine.

“Furthermore, your IP address geolocates to ‘TILLY BAILEY & IRVINE’ which suggests that you have a conflict of interest in removing criticism of the firm from Wikipedia. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with that policy before editing this particular article any further,” added the award-winning user, Rlandmann. From Torrentfreak Article.

 

So What do YOU think?

ACS:LAW Response to the DeBill being passed

The rather childish response from ACS:LAW as posted on their website.

ACS Law are delighted with the passing of the Digital Economy Bill through the House of Commons and welcomes a new age of prosperity for our creative industries. The swift and decisive action taken today will ensure that rights owners may now invest with confidence to deliver high quality media to the masses. 

This firm has always held the belief that the owner of the internet connection should be held, in the first instance, to be responsible for copyright infringement occurring on their internet connection. We are encouraged to see that the government are of a similar view. The Digital Economy Bill comes as a tragic blow to those who have failed in their misguided attempts to campaign against our work and similarly, those who believe that they can continually deprive hard working musicians, film makers and software companies of the revenue they rightly deserve without repercussion. 

In a short space of time, we have demonstrated sustainable and measurable results for our clients. As our client list grows, we continue to represent and work closely with rights owners to ensure that their intellectual property is protected. The future holds many new opportunities which this firm will capitalise upon, as we aim to multiply our successes through a new marketing initiative to take advantage of the Digital Economy Bill.

Time to pop the champagne cork and celebrate? We certainly think so.

So says ACS:LAW (Leaving aside the fact that he targets many innocent people with his $250 piece of crap monitoring software).  I will leaves their words hanging as they do, there is NOTHING I can say that would make them any more ridiculous than they already are.  I will also leave the last Word to Mr Crossley, regarding his clawing back money for the rightful owners.  "After my expenses the copyright owner is the largest single beneficiary," he said.

What he of course FAILS to mention is that in the ACS:LAW Business Model Logistep, Digiprotecr and now his own Friend LEE BOWDEN, BUY the rights to the material for a pittance and so make the money as the "Copyright Holder", nice work if you can get it, oh and of course you don't have a conscience.

ACS:LAWs Terence Tsang the "Del Boy" of file sharing buys job lot of monitoring programs "Off the back of a lorry" to help out his Bosses Mate!

[caption id="attachment_175" align="alignleft" width="144" caption="Lee Bowden - Media C.A.T and Piri LTD"][/caption]

With news breaking that the Paralegal Terence Tsang has bought code from a freelancer with a view to:  

[caption id="attachment_176" align="alignright" width="106" caption="Terence Tsang - ACS LAW, AvanGroup, AdvanMedia"][/caption]

 “Create a bit-torrent client for me which will obtain details about file sharers of certain torrents. Server is Linux. The torrent client just needs to monitor IP addresses and take information which is then placed in a database,” writes Tsang in his request.  

[caption id="attachment_177" align="alignleft" width="150" caption="Andrew Crossley - ACS LAW"][/caption]

“The information needed is as follows: Host IP, Hit Date and time (GMT time), Provider network name (i believe whois search will help with this – can you think of a better way?), P2P Client, File name, File size, MD5 of file,”  

And also:  

 “So we need to get the software to monitor a number of specific torrents it needs to create a database of the above information. The database needs to be able to import into a database file like csv. I am only interested in UK IP addresses. Easy job if you have the skills,”   

It seems only right in light of ACS LAWs failure to release details regarding their “Monitoring system”, and the fact that ACS LAW Sole Partner Andrew Crossleys buddy and work associate Lee Bowden has entered the fray as a client of ACS LAW to do what they do best and SPECULATE, so here goes.  

Lee Bowden owns MEDIA C.A.T and The Text Works and is a Partner with Jay Puddy of Pirri LTD.  Although there is NO suggestion that Pirri LTD is involved with this but MEDIA C.A.T most certainly is and so is Bowden.  

Indeed at the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on November 19th 2009 When Chief Master Winegarten asked why rights holders were dealing with Media C.A.T and not directly with DigiProtect, Crossley said that  

“[Media C.A.T] happen to operate in the UK…dealing with UK companies…” In referring to the scheme ACS:Law and DigiProtect operate in respect of these hardcore porn titles, Crossley tried to suggest that they were doing a public service by helping to prevent the sharing of restricted movies on P2P.  

Chief Master Winegarten responded by noting that  

“[this is] not a moral crusade” and that in his opinion, ACS:Law and DigiProtect were doing this “…because you want the money.”  

So what are we to make of this? Well it PROVES that Terence Tsang bought code for the very purpose of bringing file sharing suspects to court.  

The work dates back to April 2008, I do NOT know when he left Davenport Lyons but this time scale would at least indicate the timing of a realistic business practice.  Indeed  their WAS a abortive website that attempted this that was registered back in January 2009, it name was http://www.stoppiracy.co.uk/ and a quick WHOIS search reveals that the Registrant is…… Terence Tsang of Advanmedia/AdvanGroup and also of ACS:LAW.    

We KNOW that Lee Bowden and Andrew Crossley are friends or at the least associates.  Bowdens Company Media C.A.T is in trouble with it’s finances and needs cash, how? Well a quick search of Companies House Website SHOWS that Media C.A.T is in trouble.  

1)  If Terence Tsang had inside knowledge into the methods used by Logistep and Digiprotect which having worked for DL we assume he would have.  Have we just uncovered the specification of the “Monitoring Software”? , if so then this confirms what we have suspected all along, that this “Monitoring Software” is not fit for purpose. This may also explain the complete reluctance by ACS:Law to provide the “Evidence” and “Expert Reports” to those that have requested them.  

2)   Is this commissioned application the very same monitoring software now being used by Media C.A.T ? , and if it is then is this not a serious conflict of interest? not only does it raise serious concerns about the quality and processes used by the “Monitoring Software” it’s also possible that the solicitors concerned:  

a.      Commissioned the program  

b.      Operate the Program  

c.      Gather the Evidence  

d.      Produce the letters of Claim  

e.      Receive Money from the “Damages” claimed  

This may be something that the SRA may wish to investigate further and if the suspicions are proved to be true they should be held to account for their actions.  

So What is the Truth? Is Andrew Crossley merely helping out a friend in need(Lee Bowden) or is Terence Tsang trying to break away from ACS LAW?  How Did Tilly Bailey & Irvine get involved? ….we cant know for sure but certainly their needs to be an investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority at the VERY least into the actions of these three people.  It seems at the VERY least that all roads lead to Terence Tsang and Advanmedia/AdvanGroup

Credit: Thx Flaw!

Wanted Posters

As described by Lord Lucas and Lord Clement-Jones in the House of Lords.  "Legal Blackmail"  (Click on Thumbnails)

Brian Miller is "Virtuallyinhouse"!

A scary thought indeed but it seems that one of the "Davenport 2" has a Webpage on...... GOOGLESITES!.  Now don't take this the wrong way but, does it not seem rather amaturish for a so called "Specialist in the fields of interactive entertainment, e-commerce, music, computer games and the enforcement of related intellectual property rights on the internet." to have his pitch on a FREE webserver?

Even stranger is the fact that he has a link and it seems indeed that "Virtuallyinhouse" is a part of his Wifes larger business. Stranger still that a few years ago a group called "Davenport Cats" threatened to disclose details of a personal nature regarding Mr and Mrs Miller in light of the  "Bullying and Harrasment" that Davenport Lyons was conducting at the time and which has  now landed Mr Miller and his Co-Director David Gore in hot water with the SRA. 

 Now my point regarding this is that at the time it seemed unsightly that Mr Millers Wife should be dragged into an argument merely because she was married to a "Bully", and I agree she should not, however nor do I believe it is right that Mr Miller trades off his Wifes name if he feels that he does not want the spotlight to shine on her unfavourably.  Does that make sense? 

See for yourself.  Mr Millers Amateurish business site is here http://www.virtuallyinhouse.com/  See for yourself on the links.  Read how it describes Mr Miller then check out the link "Recomendations" and see that the link still shows Mr Miller working for Davenport Lyons.  Can we say shoddy? I thought we could

EDIT: Of course I realise that my little Blog may well look amateurish, but that is ok, I dont have money from people I have "bullied and harrassed" to build a better one......

The Davenport "TWO": Their Solicitor speaks out

[caption id="attachment_126" align="alignleft" width="122" caption="Mark Stephens - Stephens Finers Innocent "][/caption]

The Solicitor representing Davenport Lyons EX Director Brian Miller and and current Director David Gore, has spoken out about his clients innocence.  Mark Stephens from the improbably named "Finers Stephens Innocent" said the following

Mark Stephens, a partner at Stephens Finers Innocent who is representing the two solicitors involved, rejected the consumer group’s allegations. He said Davenport Lyons has a long tradition of protecting the rights of creators, and its methodology for handling illegal file-sharing cases conforms to industry best practice, and has been adopted in the Digital Economy Bill currently going through parliament. Stephens said it was not correct to say the solicitors’ conduct was inappropriate in the manner alleged by Which?, adding that Davenport Lyons has a 100% success rate for the illegal file-sharing cases that it has taken to court. Stephens accepted that there was a ‘small concern’ regarding the information provided by the internet service provider, which Davenport Lyons had relied on. In a few cases, he said the ISP had wrongly identified the people involved. But once the error was discovered, the cases against them were not pursued. There were also a number of people who had left their computers in an insecure state and third parties had gained control over them. Again, said Stephens, these people were subsequently not pursued.

Here at "Received a letter from ACS:LAW?" we like to take the opportunity to share with you the results of this information when we fed it through our "Bull$hit Detector"

[caption id="attachment_125" align="alignleft" width="121" caption="The Davenport/ACS/TBI Bull$hit Detector - Click here"][/caption]

It does not look good.  The FULL Statement can be found at http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/two-solicitors-accused-over-file-sharing-bully-tactics

ACS LAW: Lord Lucas "How the game works" and "If the SRA wont do anything about them then WE will"

Lord Lucas and others in the House of Lords give some hope to the thousands of innocent people accused of wrongdoing by these scheming scamming Solicitors.  It is long but WELL WORTH LISTENING TO.  Check the part from 1:20, he really sums it up well

Tilly Bailey & Irvine, ACS:LAW and Logistep: An Embarrassment to the Creative Rights Industry

Lord Clement Jones lays into these Scamsters Lawyers in VERY strong terms in the House of Lords

Tilly Bailey & Irvine - Speculative Invoicing Letters - Follow ACS:LAW

Well it HAD to happen, another greedy Solicitor representing the Porn Industry has followed the lead of Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW and issued letters blackmailing asking innocent people to cough up £800 for downloading some horrendous Pornography that no-one has ever heard of but with such a provoctive title that rather than talk to their family about it they feel compelled to pay these swindlers  Solicitors their hard earned cash.  DONT DO IT!

Here is an example of one of their letters, of course with the personal details left out!

[gallery link="file" orderby="title"]