Anti-Piracy Law Firm Torn Apart By Leaked Emails

[blanco]

I think you're missing the point though, ACS dont have to prove a single thing.

 

They can just send 10,000 letters out every month, saying they're going to take you to court for £20,000 for sharing files, or you can settle for £500, I guess 90% will pay the out of court settlement. I would.

 

Im sure I read a London woman refused to settle and was sucessfully sued a couple of years ago for £20,000 for sharing a game.

[Agrajag]

I think you're missing the point though, ACS dont have to prove a single thing.

 

They can just send 10,000 letters out every month, saying they're going to take you to court for £20,000 for sharing files, or you can settle for £500, I guess 90% will pay the out of court settlement. I would.

 

Im sure I read a London woman refused to settle and was sucessfully sued a couple of years ago for £20,000 for sharing a game.

 

The woman you are referring to was Isabella Barwinska and they were awarded £16,000, which they never got as it is widely believed that she was an immigrant who left the country shortly afterwards, she certainly never turned up to court.

 

ACS:law made a big deal out of it a couple of years ago, but left out a few of the more important details, like the complete lack of any defence.

[Eck!]

If I interpret these emails correctly, "Claus" asks if they want all IP addresses to be confirmed, to which "Terence" replies, no they don't, because they don't expect their software or data collection methods to be scrutinised.

 

This leak is a unique insight into the murky world of copyright law. They are essentially asking "Should we break the law and download copyrighted data?" - which is clearly the only way to gain any sort of evidence.

 

I do wonder just how much a lawyer would have to prove though, and how much is down to the discretion of their golf buddy judge. He/She just has to establish reasonable doubt on the say so of an "expert" that the lawyer gets to choose and the case becomes too expensive to defend.

[blanco]

The woman you are referring to was Isabella Barwinska and they were awarded £16,000, which they never got as it is widely believed that she was an immigrant who left the country shortly afterwards, she certainly never turned up to court.

 

ACS:law made a big deal out of it a couple of years ago, but left out a few of the more important details, like the complete lack of any defence.

 

Yes thats the one. Thank you. The fact the court ruled against her is worrying though. Were there special circumstances to this case, or is this what would happen if we found ourselves with a letter?

 

As a direct result of this case, a friend of mine settled for £500 after 'trying' a PC Rally game before buying it.

[Agrajag]

I do wonder just how much a lawyer would have to prove though, and how much is down to the discretion of their golf buddy judge. He/She just has to establish reasonable doubt on the say so of an "expert" that the lawyer gets to choose and the case becomes too expensive to defend.

 

ACS:Law have system where if they face a situation where the accused denies everything and seeks their own legal advice, they drop it. Some of the emails indicate that the very last thing in world they want is for someone to actually turn up to court to challenge them, so they avoid that whenever they can.

 

The fact that they have never actually faced anyone in court was of concern to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

 

Yes thats the one. Thank you. The fact the court ruled against her is worrying though. Were there special circumstances to this case, or is this what would happen if we found ourselves with a letter?

 

As a direct result of this case, a friend of mine settled for £500 after 'trying' a PC Rally game before buying it.

 

The ruled against her in her absence because she was probably long gone by then. It's been suggested that ACS:Law knew this, and is why they let it get as far as court in the first place.

[Eck!]

I think you're missing the point though, ACS dont have to prove a single thing.

 

True. I do wonder what the next evolution is though in copyright law. There is a court case on Monday where the next ACS clone will be asking for an order to release another batch of IPs.

 

In an ACS email I read, Crossley states that "Davenport Lyons were a bit rubbish at this, and too arrogant for my liking", implying he had refined the procedures. The next set of shysters (Gallant Macmillan) might find extortion business a little wiser and be forced to adapt the process further by actually filtering the data to support a court case.

 

One landmark case could open the floodgates for these vultures.

[L00b]

This leak is a unique insight into the murky world of copyright law. They are essentially asking "Should we break the law and download copyrighted data?" - which is clearly the only way to gain any sort of evidence.

There's no murkiness to the "world of copyright law". The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is there for all to see on opsi.gov, and most of the relevant precedents (and a fair few informed opinions by qualified practitioners) are freely accessible on the Web.

 

The only murkiness is that of 'practices' (and I use the term as loosely as possible here) like ACS:Law which -judging by Agrajag's earlier post at 17:32- understand the CDPA1988 and relevant Case Law about as well as the unfortunates they are targeting.

I do wonder just how much a lawyer would have to prove though, and how much is down to the discretion of their golf buddy judge. He/She just has to establish reasonable doubt on the say so of an "expert" that the lawyer gets to choose and the case becomes too expensive to defend.

Stereotype much? "Golf-buddy Judges" love nothing more than shooting down Counsel in flames for an ill-thought or ill-constructed legal argument. As I've posted before, an (ACS-) lawyer would have to prove vastly more than what they apparently consider to be sufficient. What is the work, who owns it, are they representing the owner, has a substantial portion of the work be copied, is the accused the copier, etc, etc.

[Eck!]

Stereotype much?

Bad experience

 

"Golf-buddy Judges" love nothing more than shooting down Counsel in flames for an ill-thought or ill-constructed legal argument. As I've posted before, an (ACS-) lawyer would have to prove vastly more than what they apparently consider to be sufficient. What is the work, who owns it, are they representing the owner, has a substantial portion of the work be copied, is the accused the copier, etc, etc.

 

It would be nice to believe that, but as has been mentioned, cases go the wrong way despite an apparent lack of any conclusive evidence. Given that absolute evidence of downloading/uploading is hard to come by, if not impossible - there would be no case to answer, and yet people are prosecuted.

 

Lots of test cases are included in the ACS emails and lots of debating about what they can and cannot get away with in court. I dont believe they are as inept as you seem to have them flagged for. There are lots of private correspondence with a respected QC amongst the emails that arent there for show.

[L00b]

It would be nice to believe that, but as has been mentioned, cases go the wrong way despite an apparent lack of any conclusive evidence. Given that absolute evidence of downloading/uploading is hard to come by, if not impossible - there would be no case to answer, and yet people are prosecuted.

I'm only aware of one 'P2P' case in the UK (Pinball game, lady alleged uploader), with more holes in it than a rusty old sieve. To my knowledge this case was not defended, and in such circumstances the Judge had little choice than to rely on the claimant's submissions. It's not the Judge's job to object to these (unless they are flagrantly baseless - even when wrong, they rarely are, tbh), it is the defense's.

Lots of test cases are included in the ACS emails and lots of debating about what they can and cannot get away with in court.

Until a Judge agrees or disagrees with the output of this 'debating', it's only ever (legal) opinion, with no more authority than a diverging opinion by another Counsel.

I dont believe they are as inept as you seem to have them flagged for. There are lots of private correspondence with a respected QC amongst the emails that arent there for show.

Fair enough. Looks like I'll need to get hold of these emails and have a look for myself

[sccsux]

Were there special circumstances to this case

 

Yes and no.

 

No defence was submitted, so the judge awarded agsint the alledged sharer (which happens in al uncontested suites).