Slammed By Judge, ACS:Law Not Allowed To Drop File-Sharing C

In reference to torrentfreak.com/slammed-by-judge-acslaw-not-allowed-to-drop-file-s...:

Today, despite the apparent closure of both anti-piracy law firm ACS:Law and its copyright troll partner MediaCAT, the Patents Country Court began yet another hearing to announce how more than two dozen previously filed cases should be handled. Judge Birss QC slammed the scheme operated by the pair and denied them the opportunity to drop the cases.

In a statement read out in the Patents County Court earlier this month, ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley announced that he had quit the file-sharing claims business. Last week TorrentFreak discovered that he had completely closed down his business, along with his client MediaCAT who had also ceased trading. Nevertheless, the companies still have unfinished business � they can�t run away that easily.

On 17th January at the Patents County Court, Judge Birss QC said he was �astonished� by the conduct of the pair as they tried to discontinue cases against 27 alleged file-sharers at the 11th hour. The hearing was eventually adjourned and everyone returned to court 24th January to find solutions to numerous problems, including the joining of copyright owners to the action and the addressing of various procedural failings. After five hours that hearing was also adjourned for deliberations.

Today everyone returned to court to hear the ruling from Judge Birss QC. As was expected, neither ACS:Law�s Andrew Crossley nor MediaCAT�s Lee Bowden bothered to turn up. While ACS:Law had a new barrister in court, MediaCAT had no representation at all.

The court decided that ACS:Law would not be allowed to drop the 26 cases against alleged file-sharers, an answer to one of the key questions from the earlier hearing. While the copyright holders are being given 14 days to join the action, it is doubtful they will. If this happens, all MediaCAT cases against these defendants will be dismissed in March.

Yet again ACS:Law and client MediaCAT were heavily criticized, with the Judge reiterating that both companies have �a very real interest in avoiding public scrutiny� because of the revenue they generated from �wholesale letter writing.�

�Whether it was intended to or not, I cannot imagine a system better designed to create disincentives to test the issues in court,� said the Judge. �Why take cases to court and test the assertions when one can just write more letters and collect payments from a proportion of the recipients?�

The Judge said that the processes employed by the pair were �based on untested legal and factual propositions and issues of technology� and their letters �materially overstate[s] the untested merits of Media CAT�s approach.�

Judge Birss also described ACS:Law�s earlier claim that they could not provide documents for the court�s scrutiny as �extraordinary�.

�A party who keeps key documents which are cited in the Particulars of Claim in storage is not a party anxious to progress their claim in court,� he said.

As reported by Ralli, the lawfirm representing defendants in the case, the Judge was also critical of the involvement of GCB Limited, the company that popped up to carry on the MediaCAT letter writing campaign.

�The GCB episode shows that Mr Crossley�s client had every intention of doing precisely that and that ACS:Law were perfectly well aware of it. It is very difficult not to draw the inference that this was nothing more than a last ditch attempt to make some money from the letter writing exercise.�

The case was adjourned again, this time until 16th March. The issue of wasted costs to be picked up ACS:Law and/or MediaCAT will be heard then.

I stopped at:

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

troll

on the basis that it's not an objective article.

Would you be happier with
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/09/acs_law_medi...

O maybe this :BBC News But it's news a follow up for all those doubters that thought the likes of acslaw and mediaCAT were playing by the rules, Do you think that they will win 1 case in court? not a chance of that happening(unless the person admits to it) they never had any evidence that would stand up in a court,and they where never acting in there so called clients best interests, it was a big scam that will be proved in court, i hope crossely get's punished severely and the crook who runs media cat shouldn't get off scot free, to send out a warning to any other would be blagger out there,it won't be tolerated, what they have done is far more serious than file sharing, ,

whatever, freeloading scumbags evade their nemesis. So what.

Thats the point, they weren't freeloading scumbags. They were accused based on IP logs

In reply to a post by yarwell:

whatever, freeloading scumbags evade their nemesis. So what.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I bought a CD from HMV security-sealed. When I got home it wouldn't play, on inspection the CD is clearly scratched but HMV refuse to replace it. Should I download a copy from the internet?

no, you should get your rights at HMV.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

no, you should get your rights at HMV.

How?

Post deleted by billford

Evading language filter.

Edited by billford (Wed 09-Feb-11 21:15:37)

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Would you be happier with
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/09/acs_law_medi...

Yup.

A like for like replacement should be no problem

Actually we don't know, some might have not infringed copyright as alleged, some might have - who knows at this time

In reply to a post by tommy45:

Post deleted by billford

Evading language filter.

My like 4 like replacement, as i said to batboy, to reiterate what he said once you open a cd/dvd by removing its security wrapping/seal you are no longer entitled to a refund or now replacement it would seem, why is this ? answer is: to help stop piracy copying
so only the music/film industries to thank for that breech of consumer rights

on the subject of the topic, firstly i'm glad that crossley and his outfit have been exposed for his speculative invoicing scam that was only a get rich quick scheme,
they clearly thought nothing of how many innocent people that would get caught up in this mess, demanding money with menaces is in my opinion what crossley & co have done they didn't have the interests of the so called clients at heart,just as they didn't care if who they wrongfully accused even if they they where old &frail and didn't have the understanding of the internet let alone use bit torrent
they never intended any case to go to court,that was clearly the last thing they wanted to happen, as they are crooks,and should be locked up for it

Edited by tommy45 (Wed 09-Feb-11 21:36:30)

The solicitor representing the 27 seems to think not. Regardless of guilt or innocence, the judge rightly brought up concerns about ACS:Law's operating practice, which I think has been vindicated in the folding of both ACS:Law and their "client" mediacat.

Scaring people (often vulnerable or infirm) into paying money to avoid spurious lawsuits is despicable.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

A like for like replacement should be no problem

I'll tell them that

Oh, I see what you mean - they give me another scratched one. Funny.

Edited by deleted (Wed 09-Feb-11 21:50:53)

Sale of Goods Act. Push it, and do an online small claims court claim if they don't budge.

Their policies are just that, they aren't the law.

Do credit card purchases still make them the responsible party? Or do I remember some modification to that a while ago, either to restrict it to high value or low value? I forget if, and which .

In reply to a post by yarwell:

Sale of Goods Act. Push it, and do an online small claims court claim if they don't budge.

Yeah, I went online but I downloaded it instead. It's easier overall.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

How?

E-mail the HMV CEO, Simon Fox, and ask him to sort it out:

[email protected]

Wasn't these 27 cases ones where Sky alledgely gave out details of customers who weren't Sky broadband customers but TV only?

This is why ACS wanted them dropping as they had completely dropped the ball with things like actual proof.

Anyways they have closed up shop, nothing stopping them starting up again unless there professional body strips them of the ability to practice.

Crossley is already under investigation by these people SRA so that may well happen yet, do they call it disbarment from practicing law ?

Edited by tommy45 (Wed 09-Feb-11 23:37:48)

In reply to a post by undecidedadrian:

Wasn't these 27 cases ones where Sky alledgely gave out details of customers who weren't Sky broadband customers but TV only?

This is why ACS wanted them dropping as they had completely dropped the ball with things like actual proof.

Anyways they have closed up shop, nothing stopping them starting up again unless there professional body strips them of the ability to practice.

If I read you right then how could Sky give out details of customers based on an IP address if they weren't Sky broadband customers? Potentially they could look at the logs of people logging into their website but I don't believe that is what would have happened here.

By error or sloppy looking up of their customer records?

The person did have an account with Sky, but not for BB, only TV. Sky only needed to pull the adjacent record card from the file to get it wrong LOL!