+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4
General Chat Thread, ACS:Law Take Alleged File-Sharers To Court – But Fail On a Grand Scale in General; ACS:Law Take Alleged File-Sharers To Court – But Fail On a Grand Scale | TorrentFreak Could be the end fo ...
  1. #1


    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,047
    Thank Post
    42
    Thanked 161 Times in 93 Posts
    Rep Power
    143

    ACS:Law Take Alleged File-Sharers To Court – But Fail On a Grand Scale


  2. #2

    MK-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    3,237
    Thank Post
    149
    Thanked 581 Times in 307 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    200
    hah.
    interesting point though, what about all those that paid the fine they offered. if there was no legal case to bring against them, surely that then leaves ACS open to counter claims now

  3. #3

    ZeroHour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    5,628
    Thank Post
    920
    Thanked 1,336 Times in 816 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by MK-2 View Post
    hah.
    interesting point though, what about all those that paid the fine they offered. if there was no legal case to bring against them, surely that then leaves ACS open to counter claims now
    The fact they have paid basically will have meant there is an admission of guilt and that would probably be in the letter they have to sign so no appeals.

  4. #4
    Gibbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    911
    Thank Post
    207
    Thanked 344 Times in 238 Posts
    Rep Power
    93
    URL blocked here but here's the article:

    Andrew Crossley, owner of the now infamous anti-piracy lawfirm ACS:Law, has always insisted that he has no fear of taking contested file-sharing cases to court. Now it has emerged that he recently tried to get a court to issue default judgments against individuals who offered no defense, but the hearing failed on so many levels its difficult to know where to start. Nevertheless, we’ll have a go.

    catfishThe Patents County Court in the UK has slammed a messy attempt by law firm ACS:Law to get default judgments against 8 internet connection owners who it is claimed infringed or allowed others to infringe copyrights.

    The case between Media C.A.T Limited and 8 unnamed and unrepresented defendants was heard before Judge Birss QC. ACS:Law must’ve thought they were going to shoot fish in a barrel. What they didn’t expect was that they and Media C.A.T turned out to be the fish and it was the judge, not them, holding the gun.

    “This judgment deals with a series of Requests for Judgment made by the claimant in eight parallel actions. The claimant is the same but the defendant is a different individual in each case. The cases are separate but they raise issues in common and the requests for judgment were received by the Court at the same time. It is convenient to deal with them together,” began Judge Birss in his ruling.

    The claimant in the case was Media C.A.T, a company which “represents various owners or exclusive licensees of copyrighted works (“Rights Owners”) to monitor and protect their copyrighted works from acts of infringement.”

    For those unfamiliar with Media C.A.T, it is a kind of ‘front company’ for rightsholders being represented in the UK’s well known ‘speculative invoicing’ schemes which target illicit file-sharers. It neither produces nor owns any media of its own.

    Each defendant in the case was described by ACS:Law as either the infringer or “someone authorised by him to use his internet connection, or someone who gained access to the defendant’s internet connection due to the router to that connection having no adequate security..[..]”

    Monitoring of alleged infringements was carried out by NG3 Systems Limited (a company referred to heavily in the ACS:Law leaked emails). It was noted that the company logged infringements between 30 May 2009 and the end of November 2009.

    The Particulars of Claim in the case state:

    “By reason of the infringement(s) the claimant has suffered loss and damages and by this claim seeks compensation for the loss and damages suffered together with an injunction against the defendant to prevent repetition of the infringement and/or an injunction to compel the defendant to take adequate measures to effectively secure their internet connection.”

    Judge Birss somewhat politely described the cases presented as having “a number of unusual features.”

    1. The claimant, Media C.A.T, is not the rights holder of the works in question. A copyright case can only be brought by the owner of a copyright or an exclusive licensee. Indeed, the Judge later noted that: “There is no plea that the works qualify for copyright protection at all.”

    2. “The Particulars of Claim include allegations about unsecured internet connections. I am aware of no published decision in this country which deals with this issue in the context of copyright infringement,” wrote Judge Birss.

    3. “The plea that ‘allowing’ others to infringe is itself an act restricted by s16 (1)(a) and 17 of the 1988 Act is simply wrong,” noted Judge Birss. “The term used by those sections of the Act is ‘authorising’ and the difference may be very important if the allegation is about unauthorised use of an internet router by third parties.”

    Judge Birss later noted: “A key part of the plea of infringement rests on an assertion [by ACS:Law] that ‘allowing’ others to infringe is itself an infringing act, when it is not.”

    4. “The injunction claimed in the prayer is unusual too,” he continued. “There is no claim for an injunction to restrain copyright infringement, as one would ordinarily expect to see in a copyright claim. The injunction claimed relates to ‘safeguarding’ the defendant’s internet connection. This relates to the previous points.”

    Judge Birss then goes on to explain that the Particulars of Claim presented by ACS:Law “are defective on a number of somewhat technical but important grounds”, including non-compliance with at least four Civil Procedure Rules.

    ACS:Law took these cases to court on November 30 where they asked for default judgments, stating:

    The defendant has not filed an admission or defence to my claim, or an application to contest the court’s jurisdiction and the time for doing so has expired. I request that judgment be entered for an amount including costs, to be decided by the court.

    In respect of two defendants, the Judge decided that they had failed to respond to court papers, which meant that they were, in principle, in default. However, in three other cases, defendants had actually responded to the court papers with their defense.

    “There is no conceivable basis for default judgment in these two cases,” wrote Judge Birss. “The requests for judgment should never have been filed.”

    The Judge offered his summary as follows:

    “In two cases it appears the defendant is in default, in three others there is simply no evidence proceedings have been served and I refuse to find that they have been and in the final three cases the defendant has responded to the claim, filed a defence and is not in default at all.”

    The end result was that ACS:Law were denied default judgments in each and every case.

    “I should end by recording that I am not sorry to have reached the conclusion I have in refusing all the requests for default judgment,” noted Judge Birss, later adding:

    “In all these circumstances, a default judgment 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.”

    So, rather than living up to his word that he would bring proper, full and properly defended cases to court, ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley has again taken what will be viewed by many as the coward’s way out. Those same observers will be absolutely delighted that these bullying tactics have failed in such epic fashion.

  5. Thanks to Gibbo from:

    Dom_ (10th December 2010)

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 6th October 2010, 11:55 AM
  2. [Video] Another Fail: This Time: Car Wash Fail
    By DaveP in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 7th March 2010, 08:50 PM
  3. [Pics] Fail Blog Post Says It All: Fire Prevention Fail
    By DaveP in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th August 2009, 05:57 PM
  4. acs office solutions
    By russdev in forum Recommended Suppliers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 6th February 2006, 12:57 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •