Skip Navigation

ACS:Law in trouble with the courts over unlawful file-sharing case
Tuesday 18 January 2011 17:41:21 by John Hunt

ACS:Law have had a motion they put to the courts thrown out by the judge presiding over the case. The company requested to have 27 cases dropped but the judge instead decided that following a review that he would be refusing to accept a discontinuation of the cases for the moment. The cases concerned alleged file-sharing incidents which were being brought by ACS:Law's client MediaCat. Due to procedural and legal irregularities by MediaCat, Judge Briss QC had decided to try all these cases at once. Despite sending letters to defendants stating they were dropping the cases, this will not now happen.

ACS:Law are themselves facing disciplinary proceedings for failing to bring individuals to court whilst sending out invoices to users who had allegedly taken part in unlawful file-sharing. Another faux-pas by the company meant that following a DDoS, the company leaked personal information of broadband customers who were being pursued by the company.

Lawyers who were present at the hearing on Monday for defendants said they would be seeking costs against MediaCat and ACS:Law. The judge will rule on this at a later date. Andrew Crossley, the owner of ACS:Law also failed to show for the hearing due to a family accident. After a discussion about whether MediaCat are even able to bring these claims to court, the judge decided to postpone the hearing until Monday 24th January to allow everyone to examine the current state of these cases. More detailed information about the hearing can be read at the Open Rights Group and Torrent Freak websites.


Posted by JohnUK over 6 years ago
fo-par? wtf?

It's faux pas duhhh
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
Stupid TB editors misleading again.

So others aren't mislead, it isn't illegal, it is a civil issue.
Posted by SheepFarmer over 6 years ago
Breaking civil law *is* illegal (ie it goes against the law), it just isn't criminal.
Posted by tommy45 over 6 years ago
Yeah you can blame the media for the misleading as they refer to it as illegal too, if it was,the accused would have rights to a fair trial, and they would need that something called evidence,and therefore have to prove beyond reasonable doubt to get a conviction,what this current system is ,is a circus
Posted by otester over 6 years ago

In this case MediaCAT doesn't even have the rights to the content hence not illegal, in this case.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
As tommy45 said, the civil law system is a joke though.

Hope these people learn to use a VPN next time though.

Down with IPR!
Posted by Firefalcon over 6 years ago
What does it matter? Andrew Crossley and associates are nothing more than an extortion artists, IMO anyone who sides with them should really wake up and pay attention to what hes been doing.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Love it... I hope he gets a hefty fine and his firm goes bust
Posted by SheepFarmer over 6 years ago
otester if somebody has broken the law, civil or criminal, it is an illegal act. It is illegal, (ie not legal) it is against the law. It is pretty straightforward use of English.

The way the any trial is dealt with is down to whether it is civil or criminal law that has allegedly been broken, not whether it is illegal or not.

I can make an illegal move in chess and not be a criminal. I am making a move that the rules don't allow.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago

Yeah, but in this case for the file-sharing to be illegal under civil law, the plaintiff must have exploitative rights which in this case they don't, only prosecutive.
Posted by tommy45 over 6 years ago
And the sheer lack of any conclusive evidence and an ip address is not enough nor should it even become enough so sharks like crossley can exploit the feeble system that is in existence,the way he and others before him operated should be illegal in the criminal sense
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
DEA worries me more than this speculative invoicing scheme.

How long have we got until it's fully operation?
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
Posted by boostar over 6 years ago
Sheepfarmer, unlawful isn't illegal, please do your P's and Q's before you start spouting utter drivel.
Posted by ElBobbo over 6 years ago
"illegal 1) adj. in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance, which may be criminal or merely not in conformity. Thus, an armed robbery is illegal, and so is an access road which is narrower than the county allows, but the violation is not criminal."
Ps and Qs a legal dictionary, boostar. Unlawful and illegal are synonyms.
Posted by damien001 over 6 years ago
owned lol
Posted by pigfister over 6 years ago
all that needs to be heard is the evidence, & that these mass letters were NOT plain extortion from innocent ppl, just because i pay the ISP bill, does not mean i downloaded any illegal files.
Posted by pigfister over 6 years ago
wow check out the pro copywrite trolls, looks like the riaa scum have appeared.


# Sony BMG
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group


# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
Posted by otester over 6 years ago

Not necessarily trolls, just ignorant of how to share copyrighted content themselves so they hate on others.
Posted by c_j_ over 6 years ago
Various sources are reporting that ACS:Law have today abandoned this particular income stream. Crossley blames death threats etc but even the Telegraph points out that ACS:Law were on weak legal ground and may have decided simply to cut their losses (with the alleged death threats as a cover story).

ACS are also the subject of a Solicitors Regulatory Authority investigation.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.