Law firm and firm which represented copyright owners shut up shop ahead of judgement on Tuesday which could have left them open to damages. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/feb/04/acs-law-mediacat-close-filesharing)
QuoteA law firm that sent out hundreds of letters to people it accused of illegally sharing copyrighted files has shut down, days before a key court decision on whether it defendants could claim damages from it.
ACS:Law, which had sent out "speculative invoicing" letters to people accused of illegally downloading content on behalf of its client MediaCAT - and threatening court action if they didn't pay - apparently closed on Monday 31 January. MediaCAT is understood to have closed down as well.
The closure marks the end of a tumultuous chapter in rows over filesharing and piracy in Britain. Although a number of people have been sued in the past decade by record companies, it appears to have had only minimal impact on levels of piracy and filesharing. The use of "speculative invoicing" - alleging infringement without definitive proof - had looked like a new front in the battle.
But instead it turned into a three-way row between ACS:Law, the alleged infringers and internet service providers from whom user details had been demanded.
The closedown comes ahead of a judgement due on Tuesday afternoon at the patents county court at which 27 people who had received letters were seeking a definitive ruling from the judge on whether they could claim damages after both ACS:Law and MediaCAT declined to put forward any evidence...............(more)
Isn't that strange,they get challenged in court,decline to present evidence and now they close down .............. hopefully they won't be able to escape the law.
If they are solicitors involved with these companies then they should be struck off for bringing the profession into disrepute.
And hopefully will be, Alf.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/02/05/internet-copyright-infringement-solicitors-acs-law-uk-and-mediacat-shut-down.html
I would have thought that, regardless of the firm's closure, Crossley himself should be disciplined, preferably struck off.
Quote from: Rik on Feb 05, 2011, 11:02:19
I would have thought that, regardless of the firm's closure, Crossley himself should be disciplined, preferably struck off.
I've got a strange feeling that "ABCS Law" or another similar but not legally binding name, will spring up in a weeks time. :shake:
"BS Law" would be more fitting.
Quote from: Rik on Feb 05, 2011, 11:02:19
I would have thought that, regardless of the firm's closure, Crossley himself should be disciplined, preferably struck off.
Mostly likely sued as an individual, disciplined and struck off. I don't think he's likely to escape just because his shut down his scam... sorry I mean law firm ::)
Let's hope.
Quote from: cavillas on Feb 05, 2011, 09:28:16
If they are solicitors involved with these companies then they should be struck off for bringing the profession into disrepute.
Lawyers/solicitors are often of ill repute anyway.
Indeed, that's why many of them end up as MPs. :whistle:
Or, worse, ministers!
:eek4:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/09/acs_law_media_cat_judgment/
QuotePatent judge hits out at legal tactics used against file-sharers
ACS:Law ceases trading
By Kelly Fiveash • Get more from this author
Posted in Law, 9th February 2011 12:05 GMT
Free whitepaper – Desktop virtualisation: One size doesn't fit all
A senior patent court judge has heavily criticised a law firm that pursued online file-sharers with threatening letters and then ditched its cases against 26 defendants.
ACS:Law and its client Media CAT had fired off thousands of threatening legal missives to alleged illegal file-sharers, offering them the chance to pay a £495 settlement rather than face going to trial.
At the end of last month, solicitor Andrew Crossley, who founded ACS:Law – and is currently being investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority – said he was quitting the cases that went to trial in a patent court in London last month.
However, Judge Colin Birss QC said in his Tuesday afternoon ruling that the process of linking copyright infringement to a named individual by pinpointing an IP address associated with that person was extremely problematic.
"It is not at all clear to me that the person identified must be infringing one way or another," he noted.
"The fact that someone may have infringed does not mean the particular named defendant has done so."
He also questioned the methods employed by ACS:Law and was critical of the fact that the firm took the majority of the fines collected, with a small percentage going to unnamed copyright holders................ (more)
One of the problems is that you are (whether rightly or not) responsible for the downloads over your connection. Even if it was not you. However, if your car was stolen, and used to rob a bank, you are let off as not responsible. If it's a video someone watches, you get prison. :dunno:
It's not really a satisfactory end to the case, but it should deter any similar operations - if the recipients of demand letters know about this judgement.
Quote from: Technical Ben on Feb 09, 2011, 13:47:31
One of the problems is that you are (whether rightly or not) responsible for the downloads over your connection. Even if it was not you. However, if your car was stolen, and used to rob a bank, you are let off as not responsible. If it's a video someone watches, you get prison. :dunno:
No you are not as this judgement implies, the IP address does not prove who was responsible for the "download". If you own a house where a crime is committed and you are not aware/present are you responsible?
No, but which one of the grannies, or 14 year olds was able to defend themselves in the US when the lawyers turned up? :shake:
American lawyers are a different breed. ;)
For anyone that's interested, here's the full transcript of Judge Birss's judgement.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/6.html
It's a very interesting read to say the least.
Pretty comprehensive and pretty damaging I would say, Zap.
A further development is reported in the BBC news today. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12767714)
Terrible news for Andrew Crossley ;D
Couldn't happen to a nicer man could it?
Indeed ;D
This judge has been very outspoken, so I'm hoping he will award costs. :fingers:
Here's a thing... (taken from the BBC report)
QuoteHis barrister Paul Parker argued in Wednesday's court hearing that he should not be liable for costs.
He said that Mr Crossley's file-sharing case load had operated at a loss, with Mr Crossley claiming to have spent £750,000 on pursuing net pirates while making £300,000 from people paying fines.
How grossly incompetent can you get. It cost £750,000 to send out 10,000 scam... I'm sorry, letters of claim? How is it even possible for a solicitor to lose money? Of course it must be true or it's perjury but since when did an omission of gross incompetence present a defence against the awarding of costs ::)
Never, Zap, and I don't believe him either. Of course, what he probably means is that he billed his time at an exorbitant rate, say £10k per letter?
There's an update on ACS here. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13116796)
More bad news for Andrew Crossley.
Shame! ::)
Yet another update here. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13358896)
So he gets away with a £1000 instead of £200,000 because he says he can't pay .......... anyone else being fined in court does not get that consideration, the fine is imposed according to the law and they have to pay in installments. :eyebrow: :eyebrow:
Crossley is going to walk away from much of the flak because he can't pay. Personally, I'd like to see HMRC audit him, I don't believe for one moment he hasn't squirreled the money away somewhere.
I'd assume this was not heard in a court of law but a fine imposed by the regulatory body, the ICO? If it was a court of law ability to pay shouldn't carry any weight. It does appear to be a very strange penalty. If it was set by the ICO I don't understand why ability to pay would have an influence either.
It seems to have been set by the ICO.
Quote from: DorsetBoy on May 11, 2011, 13:18:43
So he gets away with a £1000 instead of £200,000 because he says he can't pay .......... anyone else being fined in court does not get that consideration, the fine is imposed according to the law and they have to pay in installments. :eyebrow: :eyebrow:
I agree, at times though it appears plea bids do sometimes allow you to get a lesser fine. IE "pay now, get 10% knocked off of the debt" or "I'll admit liability if you cut the price". However, this would easily favour the rich and guilty, as the innocent would not admit guilt, and the poor not afford any amount.
PS, at £1000, it still seems a profitable con. :shake:
It looks like he mab be back in business (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14215510) :shake:
Lets hope not
It does make you wonder, I certainly wouldn't put him past it. If he is, let's hope the IC re-visits the fines he handed down.