http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12253746
QuoteA lawyer has dramatically withdrawn from pursuing alleged illegal file-sharers in the middle of a court case he brought.
The patent court in London is currently scrutinising 27 cases brought by ACS: Law on behalf of its client MediaCAT.
The law firm had sent thousands of letters to alleged file-sharers.
But in a statement read to the court, solicitor Andrew Crossley, said he had now ceased all such work.
He cited criminal attacks and bomb threats as reasons.
"I have ceased my work...I have been subject to criminal attack. My e-mails have been hacked. I have had death threats and bomb threats," he said in the statement, read to the court by MediaCAT's barrister Tim Ludbrook.
"It has caused immense hassle to me and my family," he added.
In September ACS: Law was the victim of a cyber attack which exposed thousand of its e-mails online.
These e-mails detailed all the people it was pursuing and the pornographic films they were accused of downloading for free........... (more)
Well,well,well .....................
That's one solicitor headed for trouble, I hope.
Some might say he had it coming.
I find it curious that one solicitor in a law firm appears to be behind all this, as the report implies.
It's a law(less) firm of one, Andrew Crossley. The rest of his staff are purely administrative. It looks like his nasty little practice is about to feel the full weight of British justice. I hope it ruins him :)
Me too, Zap.
Quote from: Rik on Jan 25, 2011, 11:28:05
Me too, Zap.
I can't see it ruining you Rik. ;D Far too late. :out:
:lol:
It was the gin, Alf. ;D
:lol:
Quote"It has caused immense hassle to me and my family," he added.
It didn't bother him causing immense hassle to his victims and their families though did it, many who are allegedly innocent, so I've no sympathy for him.
I thought the term hassle was strangely inarticulate for a solicitor.
That's because he is inarticulate (allegedly) :) You have to be careful with Crossley, he's been known to serve defamation notices to anyone who dares question his integrity on the Internet.
Judge Colin Birss however was probably not subject to a notice when he said to Crossley in court; "I am not happy. I am getting the impression with every twist and turn since I started looking at these cases that there is a desire to avoid any judicial scrutiny".
Then there was Judge Colin Birss QC who stated during another court hearing: "In all these circumstances, a default judgement arrived at without notice by means of an essentially administrative procedure, even one restricted to a financial claim, seems to me to be capable of working real injustice."
Crossley is current being investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, The Law Society and the Consumer Action Group I believe.
Let's hope his 'hassle' continues, relentlessly :)
Indeed. :)
Does he realise he was never "hacked"? His emails were not hacked. His IT staff (or who ever was in charge of it) uploaded the entire computer database to their website. Granted, it was not linked to via their homepage, but was linked to via "/backups" or "/emails.html". :slap:
I do reckon the media companies have gone about this all wrong.
If they did not charge such high prices for CDs and DVDs then people would have less incentive to pirate them.
Something that interviewers and commentators never address, Mitch.
Its not in their interest too.
The computer software industry is just as guilty too.
I know. :)
Quote from: pctech on Jan 29, 2011, 18:05:06
I do reckon the media companies have gone about this all wrong.
If they did not charge such high prices for CDs and DVDs then people would have less incentive to pirate them.
I don't think the price of DVD's are too bad, and the price seems to have gone down a bit more since they brought out BluRay discs, but music CD's vary in price quite a bit and many are more expensive than a feature film on DVD.
Quote from: pctech on Jan 29, 2011, 18:05:06
I do reckon the media companies have gone about this all wrong.
If they did not charge such high prices for CDs and DVDs then people would have less incentive to pirate them.
Oh, but this current story has nothing to do with the "pirating" of anything. It's along the lines of mixing an ambulance chaser with a speeding ticket. Think of a lawyer printing out random car reg (or a list from police of people driving down a road). Then sending letters demanding fines from all the drivers, without checking if any law was broken. Or worse, knowing no law was broken.
That is not a case of speeding. Just as this is not a case of pirating. As no laws were broken. This is plain, outright extortion. (at least it looks that way so far) :eek4:
Maybe that's why he seems to have been keen to avoid going to court.
Quote from: Technical Ben on Jan 30, 2011, 10:09:47
Just as this is not a case of pirating. As no laws were broken. This is plain, outright extortion. (at least it looks that way so far) :eek4:
Entrapment, blackmail and extortion applied with a scatter gun approach (allegedly).
The scam, as reported, was to tag gay porn films (and possibly other material) with a unique identifier and plant them on file sharing sites. Anyone downloading the material had their IP logged and their names and addresses revealed to Crossley via a court order. Of course most people receiving notification of impending court action for downloading gay porn are probably going to pay up regardless.
This could have been a perfectly executed scam except the basic premise was flawed. You can't reliably attach an IP to an individual. What is a shame is that the apparent stigma of gay porn appears to have deterred any of the accused from counter claiming on a number of counts or possibly bringing an action against their ISPs. The ISPs should have seen the scam and fought the court order.
I guess it was simply easier for the ISPs to hand over the details. Obviously, they don't value their customers very highly.
Quote from: Simon on Jan 31, 2011, 10:13:31
I guess it was simply easier for the ISPs to hand over the details. Obviously, they don't value their customers very highly.
I think you will find that the ISP's were getting well paid to hand over customer details
Quote from: Simon on Jan 31, 2011, 10:13:31
I guess it was simply easier for the ISPs to hand over the details. Obviously, they don't value their customers very highly.
I'm not sure, but as it's a law firm, they may have gotten court orders to do so. The ISP may not have know to what extent or what kind of claim was being made.
Still not nice of them. If it was post, things would be totally different.
Surely the ISPs would have sought legal counsel and as they are fighting a one man law firm they may have seen it as too expensive to contest the order.
If they were getting payments then that puts a wholly different spin on it entirely.
ISPs should only give out the information in response to a court order.
indeed.