Skip Navigation


ACS:Law cases thrown out, law firm seeking costs
Thursday 17 March 2011 17:21:43 by John Hunt

The 27 controversial alleged copyright infringement cases brought before the courts by ACS:Law have now been officially closed by Judge Birss following a hearing at the patent courts yesterday. ACS:Law had been working on behalf of a company called MediaCAT who were accusing 27 defendants of using file-sharing software to distribute content. ACS:Law had written to around 11,000 people demanding payment of around £500 or face legal action for alleged copyright infringement.

Ralli, the law firm representing five of the accused is seeking £90,000 in costs against ACS:Law, although this is only usually imposed where legal representatives have behaved improperly. However, due to the peculiarities in how the case was handled, this may be one of those times. Judge Birss stated "If ever there was a case with conduct out of the norm it was this one."

ACS:Law were accused of performing a letter writing campaign as a way of making money but Paul Parker, the barrister acting on behalf of ACS:Law's owner, Andrew Crossley, said that he had spent £750,000 pursuing Internet pirates whilst only receiving £300,000 in fines from people. Crossley is also under investigation for misconduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) whilst the Information Commissioner is also considering a fine against ACS:Law following a data leak of alleged file-sharers details from the company.

The ACS:Law case has also raised questions over whether IP addresses are suitable to be used for identifying a person alleged of participating in file-sharing. This remains untested in the courts but MPs are hearing evidence over the Digital Economy Act which relies on this information next week after a judicial review was granted following complaints from ISPs BT and TalkTalk.

Comments

Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
Glad an ambulance chaser got his comeuppance. They should throw him out of the profession.
Just hope the people who wrote the digital economy act get theirs one day too.
Posted by cf492bcc over 6 years ago
"also raised questions over whether IP addresses are suitable to be used for identifying a person alleged of participating in file-sharing"

Absolutely not. Even an IP observed to be actively connected into a 'swarm' of peers engaged in exchanging unauthorised content by no means means that that IP is being used to actively exchange the infringing media. It should be objectively proven that the IP in question has been actively engaged in the unauthorised distribution to be accurate.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
Good.

Freedom of information!

Down with IPR!
Posted by greemble over 6 years ago
"Andrew Crossley, said that he had spent £750,000 pursuing Internet pirates"

Odd, I don't think anyone he has written to has been found to be a 'pirate' and £750,000? That's a lot of letters to send out
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
A total of 1829268 first class stamps :)

He has been a busy boy...
Posted by c_j_ over 6 years ago
I believe Mr Crossley has counted a rather expensive Land Rover as a business expense in the £750K (source: their own leaked emails). Maybe a few other similar expenses too?
Posted by tommy45 over 6 years ago
mmm, such as a renting a luxury home with a large amount of private land as well, crossley was/is a crook
Posted by bigfoot101 over 6 years ago
hmmm 11000 letters costing £750k ... £68.19 a letter, i'm in the wrong job!
Posted by Jimkirk363 over 6 years ago
I know the guy did wrong and hes a crook and so on but i dont agree with people threatening his family as they did.
Posted by XRaySpeX over 6 years ago
"whilst only receiving £300,000 in fines from people."

Those weren't fines. Fines are imposed by courts to punish wrongdoings. These were blackmail and extortion.
Posted by tommy45 over 6 years ago
I hope those who are taking him to court are successful and he end's up penniless (although i know the chances of that happing a remote) it would be nice to see happen,
with these cases all failing in the courts, i hope the DEB is changed to prevent some other crook doing the same or worse
Posted by chrysalis over 6 years ago
no surprise really, I said this rubbish wouldnt stand up in court. I be surprised if he has even lost 750k due to infringement. As the assumption every downloaded copy is a lost sale is a false one.
Posted by tommy45 over 6 years ago
just as the governments assumptions too, as most of them are not based on accurate data or facts
Posted by shaunhw over 6 years ago
Thank goodness for a judge who seems to have some understanding of the issues.

What a refreshing change.
Posted by tommy45 over 6 years ago
And above all common-sense, maybe he knows someone who got such a letter ,lol
Posted by ANZAC over 6 years ago
The problem with common-sense is that it's not very common!
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.