Gallant Macmillan use Digirights as their “Forensic Experts”

Gallant Macmilan the lawyers representing “Ministry of Sound” amongst others as well as ironically “Liberty” are the latest Lawyers to jump onto the “Speculative Invoicing” Bandwagon, causing the recipients of their letters a whole lot of upset and confusion.

Whilst I personally would be embarrassed even being caught on a CCTV camera in the Lawyers favourite music store HMV 2, actually BUYING a Ministy of Sound album, personal taste is NOT the issue here though.

In their letters Gallant Macmillan state that “Ministry of Sound instructed a Software Company to identify occasions when their music is made availiable for download on peer to peer (“p2p”) Networks without it’s consent”.  Now Gallant Macmillan DO NO STATE which “Software Company” this is.  ACSBORE can reveal that the “Software Company” is none other than DIGIRIGHTS SOLUTIONS(DRS). 

In an interview Simon Gallant stated We’ve only just started doing this work. We are working for our client Ministry of Sound and we work with a German software company called DigiRights, who go on file-sharing sites and they identify IP addresses that are making available Ministry of Sound music

DRS were the subject of a leak last November when their “SALES PITCH” Information was leaked by a dissatisfied worker.  Torrentfreak did an excellent post regarding this issue which is available here.

Basically the “Turn Piracy into Profit” Scheme works like this, according to the Powerpoint DRS send out an email demanding say £500, they work on the principle that 25% of people will be scared into paying up, the last thing they want is to actually go to court.  From the monies they collect they keep a whopping 80% leaving 20% for the “Rightsholders” who are rarely the creative people behind the works but usually the Lawyers and Labels.  DRS claim that 25% of people pay up WITHOUT question.

As has been stated elsewhere “DRS states that it’s realistic to track and pursue about 5,000 filesharers per month per title. Considering that 25% of those people pay the €90, then the copyright holders would have to make about 150,000 online sales. Which is equal to the number of sales that are required for a Gold record award in Germany.”

As stated in the Torrentfreak article this makes it 150X more profitable to target YOU than it does to make money through normal routes.  This is what is SO distasteful, it is like a Mob run racket.  As an Attorney working a similar scheme in the US said “We’re creating a revenue stream and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel

The Powerpoint in German is available on the Torrentfreak Site there is a rough English version here.

So there we have it, Gallant Macmillan may well have learnt from the mistakes that ACS:LAW have made but by using the same “Forensic Experts” system that they and others have used, it is no good for the “Letters” to be sweetened.  If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd, It is of no use to pick it up, you KNOW what it is…..

About Hickster

I am one of the many innocent people who have been accused of file sharing by Copyright Trolls, my letter came from the now infamous ACS:LAW, but they have now been emulated by many more using the same system. Their ruse is simple, Send out letters of claim with NO Real evidence beyond an IP address that they claim was captured using a frowned upon hack of Shareaza. My REAL opinion of these companies turned when they started sending out Pornography claims, THAT is what I find most disturbing. People who HAVE to pay up without the option of having their day in Court. THAT is NOT Justice. Why can't they just go to Court? because the Lawyers, pitch the price of paying the "Compensation" at about the same rate as hiring a lawyer to fight it. Things have changed in the last 8 years though. I would advise people to read the "Speculative Invoicing Handbook Part 2", research these people yourselves, and find me at Slyck Forums, or on Twitter. Do NOT Worry, Stand Strong
This entry was posted in digiprotect, Gallant Macmillan and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Gallant Macmillan use Digirights as their “Forensic Experts”

  1. Mc says:

    I have received a follow up letter from GM. From the look of the what do they know site it appears they are only sending second letters too those who have sent letter of denials. How discriminative of them!

  2. BA says:

    It seems Galland McMillan now sent out a follow-up letter to everyone who sent in LoD’s. That seems to stir the community up quite a bit, at the moment, as noone really knows what to make of it or do with it.

    Dear xxxx,

    We refer to your letter of xx xxxx xxxx.

    We note that your letter takes the form of a standard template response obtained from the internet. You do not attempt to respond to the specific allegations made against you.

    Moreover, contrary to what your response says, our letter of claim makes it very clear that our client does consider that you have personally infringed its copyright(or have authorised
    someone else to do so). This claim is evidenced by (a) the software that identified the IP address responsible for making the work available on the P2P network on the date and time set out in our earlier letter;
    and (b) your having been identified by your ISP as the subscriber associated with that IP address.

    The fact that you are the individual who was, at the relevant time, in control of the internet connection used to infringe our client’s copyright raises an inference that you(or someone authorised by you) carried out that infringement.

    The court’s rules require that parties co-operate with each other before proceedings. They have to exchange information in writing to understand each others position and to make informed decisions about settlement and how to proceed.
    You will find more information about the practice direction relating to pre-action conduct in this link:…on_conduct.htm

    Your letter merely makes a series of unsupported denials, including:

    1. Denying any liability under the CDPA 1988;and

    2. denying possessing a copy of the work, distributing it or authorising anyone else to distribute it using your internet connection.

    Mere denials are incompatible with the practice direction. In the absence of a proper explanation as to why you are not liable, the inference of wrong doing remains.
    The same comment applies to your unsubstantiated conclusion that you have been a victim of foul play.

    Our client has no desire to pursue individuals who have done nothing wrong. They are however entitled to identify and pursue infringer s. The practice direction obliges you to give a full response to
    the allegations that we have made but you can be rest assured, if that response shows, on proper consideration, that you are not responsible for the infringement, our client will take no further action.

    If, for example, there were other users of your computer, or other individuals in your home sharing your internet connection at the time the infringement took place, you should identify those individuals
    so that our client may approach them. It is certainly unnecessary to involve a forensic expert at this stage.

    In summary, therefore, we have advised our client that, as matters stand, an inference has been raised that you are responsible for the infringement alleged in our letter of claim and the nature of your response
    to date has failed to rebut that inference.

    We would again recommend that seek independent legal advice.

    We would ask for your response to this letter within the next 14 days and shall reconsider the position in light of any further information you then provide.

    Yours faithfully

    Gallant Macmillan LLP

  3. tony says:

    It has been noted in other forums that part of the code requires them to include a copy of the code if they are communicating with non lawyer types. So if that is true they have broken/deviated from the code themselves. No doubt to save on postage!

  4. Nohemi says:

    I needed to draft you a bit of note so as to give many thanks the moment again with the incredible knowledge you have shared in this article. This is simply shockingly generous of you to allow unhampered exactly what a few people would’ve sold for an e-book in order to make some money for their own end, notably given that you might have tried it in case you desired. These principles also worked as the easy way to be aware that many people have similar fervor just like mine to find out more and more concerning this issue. Certainly there are a lot more pleasant occasions in the future for individuals who take a look at your blog post…. Donella @

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s