Slashdot Mirror
UK Copyright Blackmailers Rebuked By Court
Sockatume writes "The first eight ACS:Law cases have reached the courts, and have already fallen on their face. The law firm hit the headlines when it demanded money from tens of thousands of Britons for illegal file sharing, threatening legal action. It seems its bark was worse than its legal bite, as default judgments have been refused in six of the cases for such egregious errors as attempting to make a claim when one is not even the copyright holder. Two of the cases were found in default as the defendants had failed to respond, but not on the merits of ACS:Law's case."
The lawyers themselves may however have some answering to do before their professional bodies.
I thought their argument was flawed but I didn't realise there were quite so many holes in it, it's a pity though that some of the people targeted will have settled out of court already.
Not nearly enough. Confiscate all of their possession down to their underwear, throw them into the cold streets smeared in pig blood with a pack of hungry bloodhounds on their heels, sell their cursed offsping into sex slavery.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
This is merely a demonstration of a court insisting on at least some adherence to the existing ethical standards of the bar. This is telling lawyers to follow procedure, not a questioning of the merit of the process itself. It's really nothing more than that.
Don't feel confident in it.
Also isn't this a dupe?
The judge in fact refused all 8 requests for default. Of the eight, 3 had in fact filed defences, and there was no evidence of service in 3 more. The remaining two were technically in default, but the judge found the case lacked any legal merit due to the plaintiff not actually being the rights-holder or exclusive licensee, and therefore incapable of bringing a copyright infringement action. It looks as if ACS:Law's business model of speculative invoicing is holed below the waterline and sinking rapidly. The question I have is whether launching actions with such fundamental errors in law and procedure amounts to mal-practice? It certainly wouldn't be the first allegation of this type for ACS:Law.
I wonder whether ACS:Law's behaviour approaches the legal definition of Extortion?
There are really only two explanations: that they were incompetent or, alternative, entirely competent, and trying it on.
..The Judge tore Andrew a new one there ;-) That idiot cannot gain a default against undefended cases ;-))
- dunno about the value of precedence in an English County Court Judgement either, however, the absolute refusal to entertain a sham company front as representing the actual Rightsholders was indeed promising. Shame about those still sitting in Wandsworth on somewhat loosely defined grounds, regardless, this has restored my faith in UK Justice somewhat, cheers!
Class action by the rest of the mugs who gave into his extortion to recover their dosh would be the icing on the cake - doubt thats happening anytime soon tho. Where art thou now, Mr Crossley..
"Two of the cases were found in default as the defendants had failed to respond, but not on the merits of ACS:Law's case."
So a lesson for us all there. If some random law firm threatens to sue you for something you haven't done, apparently you MUST respond or you're guilty.
That sounds like the crime of fraud to me.
From what I understand, it's not actually doing wrong that will get you disbarred (yes if you kill someone you'll be disbarred) but rather the appearance of doing wrong that may put the profession into bad light (ie. unethical things that put the professions integrity into question). I have not evidence to substantiate this since it was a college (Law) prof who told the class this but he was a practicing lawyer for a number of years before going back to teaching.
so, we now require that we be compensated (besides getting to see the hysterically humorous/pathetic dramatics of greed, fear & ego run amok) for every sound forced into our patentdead time & space by your artificial gadgets. this will 1/2 to come off the 'top', as the end users are not responsible for the infringements perpetrated by the gadget manufacturers, & the makers of artificial noise.
Accusing a law firm of blackmail. I'm pretty sure they call that "libel" both in the US and the UK.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you! That's my opinion, however, not the title of a story on an IT news website.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
silence has been almost totally destroyed. the aggrieved users class has been barraged with unwanted excess noise (mostly deception) for decades now.
silence is planning a comeback, to proportionally correct levels. time marches on, but remains offended at how we are using our gifts against each other. nobody likes 'bad' history.
The lawyers themselves may however be facing firing squad.
Costs nothing? Try sending the court a letter without a stamp.
"Costs literally a few quid to get a lawyer that would take this on and write a couple of letters for you"
Hence the lawyers don't care if there are criminal (as in breaking the law) lawyers because they'll get paid.
Default judgement is bollocks.
If you've been served by non secured mail then you may not know. If you're in the wrong COUNTRY you may never know how.
But default judgements still go through.
And they wonder why we have contempt of courts.
how long before they force you in to arbitration?
can they do that anyways by say once you down load something (don't need any real poof) then you must go to arbitration?
Arbitration can only happen when there's a contract between two parties to mandate it. And the kind of mandatory, binding arbitration you refer to is practically a nonentity in the UK.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
(Well, not only in a contract situation, but in the scenario you're imagining.)
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Tell me about it. I've seen people being "awarded" payouts by Employment Tribunals, then the employers saying "Well, that's nice, now we'll see you in Grown Up Court. Our lawyers are on salary - how about yours?"
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
No, because in England, you can't agree to exclude the jurisdiction of the court.
Is that piracy? Or something else?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Harsh but fair. If they reoffend, I'm sure the judge will tell them to sit on the naughty step for fifteen whole minutes.
"Legal aid. Cookie?"
FGD 135