Skip Navigation

ACS:Law quit anti-piracy work
Tuesday 25 January 2011 15:17:30 by John Hunt

ACS:Law have decided to stop chasing alleged file-sharers after a second court hearing into 26 cases was heard in front of Judge Birss. Andrew Crossley, and his firm ACS:Law had sent out thousands of letters demanding payment on behalf of their client MediaCat from alleged file-sharers or the firm threatened to take them to court. Last week, the law firm tried to have the cases thrown out, but the Judge, having taken note of peculiarities in the case, refused to allow this.

Crossley was present at the hearing in the morning, but in a statement read to the court in the afternoon session said that he had ceased all work in anti-piracy cases.

"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. It has caused immense hassle to me and my family."

Andrew Crossley, ACS: Law

Around 11,000 letters had been sent out to the public demanding payments of around £500 with around 1/3rd disputing the claim and 2/5th's not responding. ACS:Law were taking a 65% share in any recouped revenue whilst the copyright owners received around 30%. Many claimed that ACS:Law had no intention to take people to court over this.

The hearing proceeded with MediaCat trying to get the cases dropped with an intention to re-issue them at a later date. The judge questioned why they wanted the cases dropped and considered banning MediaCat from sending further letters to alleged copyright infringers until these cases had been resolved. The case is further confused in that MediaCat are not the copyright owner but are a licensee. Judge Birss stated that MediaCat should "get its tackle in order" before proceeding with legal action.

Of equal interest was the fact that barristers acting on behalf of the accused questioned whether an IP address was enough to be able to identify the person who downloaded the unlawful content. This case could therefore have some significant consequences depending on the Judge's decision which is expected in a few days.


Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing Andrew the best and obviously feel sorry for the immense hassle he's suffered.


Sorry I meant caused. Its your comeuppance Crossley... I hope you get to bathe in it for sometime to come :)
Posted by String over 6 years ago
Why do i struggle to find any sympathy for someone that made his entire business on scaremongering and empty threads when he complains about being caused "hassle" ?

Possibly getting out now before the entire structure of his business (court cases) comes crumbling down along with a large fine for breach of the DPA and another investigation into him for breach of practice codes.
Posted by JttB over 6 years ago
I know I shouldn't, because no matter who he is its completely out of order getting threats like that but...

Posted by whatever2 over 6 years ago
Hacked, or did he expose his email when their site was reinstated? I would hope he has to provide evidence of these crimes so they can be investigated. Perhaps he has an IP log or something?
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
LOL @ Crossley.


He was targeted by an Anonymous DDoS attack using the LOIC application.

Prosecuting DDoS attacks is very difficult.
Posted by c_j_ over 6 years ago
"no matter who he is its completely out of order getting threats like that"

Perhaps you mean "alleged threats" (and whatever2 means "alleged crimes").

When even the Torygraph wonders whether the allegations are just cover for a semi-dignified exit due to a failed business model with business practices as "less than ideal" (Solicitor's Regulatory Authority investigating)...
Posted by sadvampire over 6 years ago
No sympathy for him at all, the breach of the DPA will hopefully cost him & his porn pushing friends everything they have.
Posted by Firefalcon over 6 years ago
AWWWWWWWWWWWWWW poor Andrew Crossley is feeling unloved because he extorts money from anyone and everyone and exposed all of them to potential cases of fraud because of his incompetence at trying to turn a quick buck..... DIDDUMS, good riddance
Posted by madkingsoup over 6 years ago
Maybe next time he tries to circumvent the fundamental legal rule that one is innocent until proven guilty, he'll be prepared for the backlash.

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword, eh?
Posted by Whitefort over 6 years ago
He WASN'T 'hacked'. He left his data right out in the open. I think there's a difference?

Personally I think that saying he was 'hacked' = giving false information to the court.

Anyway, couldn't have happened to a nicer person.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.