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.
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.
"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.
The precedent is binding on all courts of the same level, which in this case is the lowest level in the English courts system, but can be overridden by a higher court.
The concept of class action does not exist in English law.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Actually, if you read the article, it's not just a matter of procedure. The judge specifically mentions the 'unusual' aspects of the claim, for instance the injunctions requested were to require the defendants to secure their internet connections, not to stop breaking copyright law which would be the logical and reasonable approach. The judge also mentions points of law, for instance there's UK legislation where 'authorising' copyright violations is an offence, but the lawyers were equating this with 'allowing', and then equating having a poorly secured wireless router with 'allowing' in order to show culpability, something which the judge threw out.
That sounds like the crime of fraud to me.
a) this constitutes animal cruelty - do you really think it is ethical to allow a dog or similar animal to eat a lawyer?
b) selling their offspring into sex slavery might produce additional offspring - you can't take the chances...
The judge did insist that the claimant be the copyright holder and the defendant be someone actually involved in the alleged infringement rather than someone who just sat back and let the infringement take place. That could make things a bit difficult for ACS:Law.
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.
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/
My 7 year old border collie says the soft bits are tasty. Plus, while the taste of the chops may not be the best, at least they're very tender. Not a lot of backbone to remove, which makes filleting easier.
With the right marinade, and slathered in crème fraiche, lawyers aren't bad at all.
You are welcome on my lawn.
b) selling their offspring into sex slavery might produce additional offspring - you can't take the chances...
Bill Gates' parents are both lawyers.
Free Martian Whores!
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?
But there's money in those downloaders pockets. A few laws and procedures are not going to stop "The suing rush". Pan-handling in the courts has worked well in a few courts in the states so it should work well in the UK.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
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.
I hear pigs love lawyers - those things will eat anything!
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Is that piracy? Or something else?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
"The concept of class action does not exist in English law."
Wrong, it's called Mass Tort Litigation.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
They aren't the same thing. They are similar, however.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
"Legal aid. Cookie?"
FGD 135
The key word is 'concept.'
Regardless of how the plaintiffs get their reward, everything else is pretty much the exact same.
Thus, the 'concept' clearly exists. The actual wording may not match but the idea is the same; a class of people bring action against a defendant with regards to a common complaint.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.