Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anti-Piracy Lawyers Caught Pirating Each Other

Posted by samzenpus on from the dog-eat-dog dept.

An anonymous reader writes "We would like to think that the lawyers that are prosecuting alleged copyright infringers are practicing what they preach, but it looks like one of the most high profile firms involved in such cases are just as guilty of stealing others' work as those who are downloading illegal media."

4 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Article has problems with facts by Sierran · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article presents the situation as Andrew Crossley being in conflict with ACS:Law over the use of templates. The problem with that is that Andrew Crossley is in fact the proprietor ("principal?" Don't know the correct term) of ACS:Law, so it would be difficult for ACS:Law to steal his work. To quote WikiP: "The main partner of the company, and its only registered solicitor is Andrew Crossley."

    --
    A hero is someone who knows when to run away. I am a hero. -Trent the Uncatchable
  2. Re:They probably don't care. by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, as officers of the court, their job also includes dissuading their client from suing if they don't have good cause (rather than wasting court resources and everyone's time and money). When the client DOES have good cause their job becomes vigorous representation (either as plaintiff or defendant).

  3. A More Factually Correct Article by Fnord666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you want to read about what is actually going on, please see this article. The article linked in the summary is riddled with factual inaccuracies.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    1. Re:A More Factually Correct Article by opposabledumbs · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except the law is not on their side. This is from an article about this on Wired.com, though, so you're welcome to take it from whence it comes.

      the basic gist of this is that in the UK, where these guys have been practicing, there is no statutory claim to damages, and the lawyers in the UK system in a case like this would usually be able to claim only as much as the retail price of one item in damages. That would mean 75p in the case of a single downloaded music track.

      The law firms are sending letters of demand for much more than this, and sending them to people in financial difficulty - who cannot afford to get legal representation, and who often pay up to make it go away. Hearing about massive damages awarded in cases similar to this in the States probably is a factor.

      The lawyers typically don't go after people who haven't paid, and bring them to court. But one of them is considering moving from the UK to the US just because of the statuary damages angle that RIAA have managed to make law.

      The wired article is here -http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/10/the-legal-blackmail-business/ - so everyone can ignore that one, as well, and write whatever comments they feel.