TorrentFreak Email Update |
| ACS:Law Can’t Take The Pressure, Quit Chasing File-Sharers Posted: 24 Jan 2011 11:32 PM PST Check out TorrentFreak's new News Bits feed! . Last week we reported in detail on the 17th January directions hearing ordered by Judge Birss QC at the Patents County Court. In a hearing punctuated by mounting criticism of both ACS:Law and their client MediaCAT, Judge Birss found himself “astonished” by their conduct as the pair tried to discontinue cases against 26 alleged file-sharers at the 11th hour. Yesterday all parties were back in court again to find solutions to various problems, including the joining of copyright owners to the action (see previous articles for detail) and the addressing of various procedural failings. Today we bring you our report with the invaluable help of consumer group BeingThreatened.com, who were present at the hearing and have been supporting victims of ACS:Law’s predatory legal actions since they began. Perhaps the biggest news is that if ACS:Law is to be taken at its word, the company is now done with trying to extract money from alleged file-sharers. After beginning with owner Andrew Crossley and a couple of assistants, in order to cope with the huge amount of settlements the company grew out to employ around 16 people. Following the catastrophic email leak, those people have either left or been made redundant by the firm. Rising insurance costs have also taken their toll since the leak, from a low of £15,000 to a crippling high of £120,000. Crossley did not deliver this welcome news to the court in person. While present in the court during the morning session, in common with last week’s hearing he claimed he needed to help family members who had been involved in a recent accident. The court carried on with its afternoon session without him, with Judge Birss QC condemning the conduct of ACS:Law and MediaCAT, accusing the pair of "trying to minimise the amount of [judicial] scrutiny" placed on their work, a reference to the failed default judgment attempts earlier this year. It has long been suspected that ACS:Law and MediaCAT pursued this “speculative invoicing” business purely for profit purposes. Judge Birss QC put it to MediaCAT that their attempt to withdraw the previously mentioned 26 cases was so that the scrutiny of "inconvenient judges" could be avoided which would enable them to go back to sending pay-up-or-else letters. The ever problematic issue of MediaCAT not being the copyright holder of the works they seek settlement on raised its head again. Judge Birss QC asked MediaCAT’s barrister Tim Ludbrooke if he accepted that his client has no right to bring infringement proceedings without joining together with the copyright holders. “There was little doubt among those present in the courtroom that MediaCAT was lacking the appropriate rights to proceed — which might include the step of discontinuation — alone,” BeingThreatened’s spokesman James Bench told TorrentFreak. Judge Birss QC noted that if MediaCAT was allowed to discontinue the outstanding cases, it could simply pick up where it left off and continue sending letters. Then the rather inconvenient specter of GCB Limited raised its head. As detailed in our earlier article, GCB Limited burst onto the scene a couple of weeks ago claiming to be MediaCAT’s new ‘agent’ in these settlement letters matters. ACS:Law, it was declared by company owner Andrew Crossley, had absolutely nothing to do with them. GCB’s exit was as quick as their entry. The company controversially aborted their business with MediaCAT within a couple of days. Nevertheless, Judge Birss QC mentioned the company in court and this led to a revelation – Crossley was forced to admit that GCB Limited had been set up by two of his former employees. "If I had a suspicion before, seeing the GCB letter makes it plain," said Judge Birss QC. “Aren't you flirting with abuse of the court?” he asked MediaCAT, while going on to describe these events as “mind boggling”. According to James Bench, things then took a turn for the bizarre. In an attempt to distance himself from the “inept” settlement letters, MediaCAT barrister Tim Ludbrook told the court: "I promise that I had no part in writing either of these documents," a statement which led to laughter in the courtroom. Those present knew who had likely drafted them. After five long hours, Judge Birss QC announced he would deliver his ruling later this week on whether or not MediaCAT can discontinue the cases without being joined by the copyright holders and whether there has indeed been an abuse of process. "Solicitor Andrew Crossley's statement that this work has brought him 'immense hassle' should sound alarm bells with others that might have considered similarly exploitative schemes,” said BeingThreatened’s James Bench in a statement last night. “The problems he has brought upon himself however, pale into insignificance against the distress caused by the campaign of legal threats that he has carried on against innocent broadband account holders for his own personal profit. "The speculative invoicing of Andrew Crossley and his counterparts which have dropped by the wayside, Davenport Lyons, Tilly Bailey Irvine and Gallant Macmillan, was never about protecting copyright; this was never about piracy. We have heard in court today about the 65% of proceeds that Mr Crossley earned from each letter of claim. This scheme was simply an attempt by Mr Crossley and his conspirators to get-rich-quick in an exploitative scheme where the vulnerable were targeted with unfounded accusations and demands for cash in settlement of claims which had no basis in law. “In addition to his upcoming appearance at the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal, Judge Birss will now also consider if Mr Crossley is guilty of entering into a champertous agreement with rights holders. "The public, and today the justice system, have demonstrated that they will not tolerate |
| US Case Against Hundreds of BitTorrent File-Sharers Dismissed Posted: 24 Jan 2011 01:20 PM PST Check out TorrentFreak's new News Bits feed! . Since the beginning of last year various copyright holders have sued tens of thousands of BitTorrent users who allegedly shared films without permission. The copyright holders file mass lawsuits in order to obtain the identities of the alleged infringers, and then make them an offer to settle for hundreds of dollars. This idea has been copied from German and UK lawyers who’ve made millions with this pay-up-or-else scheme at relatively low cost. In the UK, however, the tide is slowly turning as judges are increasingly taking the side of the accused. In the US we now see a similar pattern emerging. Last month, the US Copyright Group (USCG) dropped thousands of alleged BitTorrent file-sharers from the Far Cry case because of a lack of jurisdiction. Although these cases can be refiled in other jurisdictions, it seriously limits the profitability of the law firm's business model. And today there is another victory for hundreds of BitTorrent users who were sued by the company DigiProtect, the poster child of the “pay up or else” scheme. DigiProtect is not a copyright holder in the true sense of the word, but simply licenses films and music for peer-to-peer distribution. A license to sue, basically. Attorney Robert Cashman of Cashman Law Firm just informed us that DigiProtect’s case against 266 alleged file-sharers has pretty much ended. Cashman, who represents one of the defendants accused of sharing ‘Anal Fanatic’, told us that the case was ‘orally’ dismissed by Judge Thomas Griesa. “I do not know on what grounds it was dismissed, but from what I heard, the judge was upset about the jurisdiction issues and the improper joinder issues with the case,” Cashman told TorrentFreak. The reason for the dismissal is not yet formally known since the paperwork has yet to be filed. Once this happens more information should be available on the grounds of the dismissal, which will then be official. It is beyond doubt, however, that this development represents yet another setback for the mass-settlement lawsuits that have been filed across the US. The second mass lawsuit that was filed by DigiProtect is also in trouble. In this case 240 alleged BitTorrent users were sued. However, there are signs that this one, which is appointed to another judge, will not be dismissed just yet. “I’ve heard that the other case is also in jeopardy because of the improper joinder and improper jurisdiction issues, but my contact did not seem to think it was going to be dismissed outright like the original one,” Cashman said. He advises anyone who’s involved in the case to not sign any settlement agreements yet. Behind the scenes there are a lot of dirty tricks being played out. Comcast even got involved as the company felt it was being pressured by DigiProtect to hand over subscriber info with deadlines they could not possibly meet. In addition, Cashman told us that DigiProtect continued to pursue settlements after the case was already orally dismissed. “As a side ethical issue, knowing the case was orally dismissed, DigiProtect’s attorney continued to solicit settlement agreements. It appears based on one of the settlement offers copied to me that he contacted my client directly in violation of the ethics rules.” “I have already let the court know about Britton Payne's settlement offers post-dismissal, and have forwarded a redacted copy of the settlement documents to Judge Griesa's chambers for his review,” Cashman added. All in all it looks like the once so profitable business model is getting quite a bit of resistance in the US as well as the UK. Although we don’t think it’s going to end soon, the ongoing troubles will at least make sensible copyright holders think twice before they enter this PR nightmare. DigiProtect on the other hand has little to lose. The company’s sole purpose seems to be to exploit the copyrights of others by suing users of file-sharing networks. They are copyright parasites in the truest sense of the word, and a prime example of how copyright – which was invented to protect makers of creative works – is being abused. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from TorrentFreak To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment