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.
Their internal docs that were leaked after the DDoS on their website showed clearly that they were well aware of what they were doing.
If some random law firm threatens to sue you for something you haven't done, apparently you MUST respond or you're guilty.
Wrong, three separate ways:
1. No, you should put in a defence when actually served with court papers.
2. You may get a case ruled against you if you don't bother to put in a defence but that didn't happen here.
3. It's a civil case, so guilty does not apply.
Well, yes. If you could get away with things by simply not responding when sued, the guilty would use that as way of avoiding judgment. Of course, when it comes to court and the plaintiff requests judgment in default, he mist convince the judge that there was a real case to answer - which failed this time, which is why the judge correctly dismissed the claims against those technically in default. You are not guilty without evidence, but if the plaintiff presents reasonable evidence and you do not refute it, the judge has no choice but to accept the plaintiffs case.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
I asked. He refused to answer unless I paid him several hundred dollars.
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.
Just make sure you know who it is you need to respond to.
I understood that the obligation was to respond to the court and not to ACS (in this case).
blog.sam.liddicott.com
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.
Er... and what's shocking about that? It's called a *default* judgement (hence, the judgement that would be entered unless you changed the circumstances). Literally one line of a piece of paper or turning up at court when notified would immediately change the *default* judgement into "innocent until proven guilty" (if applicable). If someone does actually serve a legal paper against you then you are a true idiot to just ignore it - it's like ignoring a parking fine or a tax bill, it will NOT improve the situation. At the most basic level, it's also the rudest thing you can do - you're basically telling the *COURT* to fuck off, not the person filing and even if that person is an idiot, you've just insulted the court system that decides what happens to you. That's THE single most stupid thing you can ever do. "Contempt of court" is an offence in itself, remember, not that you'd get that far for this particular incident.
Plus, it takes a matter of minutes to write any letter that basically says "I don't understand what I'm accused of", "Fine, I'll see you in court", or "I didn't do it", or even "Contact my lawyer, here's his number". If someone files a legal case against you - RESPOND. You don't need to say "I did it" or "I didn't do it" (as the other people who did respond almost certainly didn't admit either way), you just need to tell the court "I heard. I'll be cooperating with the legal system." Whether the case itself is a heap of shit of not is another matter and really needs a properly worded reply to avoid further insult. That's why at *that* point, even a LAWYER receiving that threat would consult another independent lawyer. Simple things like failing to get the correct form in on time can result in a default judgement against you and, yes, you probably can appeal that in some fashion but it just shows the court that you're going to be troublesome and time-wasting before you even start.
Even without a lawyer's help, a politely worded letter would work wonders in your favour:
Dear Mr Whatever,
I understand from your previous correspondence that you intend to initiate court action against me for the alleged act of XXX. Without admitting or denying these allegations, I am informing you that I will participate fully in any properly-filed case that you bring against me in these matters, however my initial reaction is that they may be indiscriminately targeted at the innocent and guilty alike based on the media coverage surrounding your company and its recent actions in similar cases against innocent people. I am currently reviewing my legal options but I consider any action out-of-court to be ill-advised and without merit. If you wish to proceed with legal action, my legal representative is XXX.
Yours,
Mr Someone
I *guarantee* that ACS:Law got hundreds of those letters and none of those people ever ended up anywhere near a court, or needed to. You didn't even need to file a defence in court to "win" - just turn up and cooperate, a defence is for when the allegations are clear and you've had time to respond, hire representation, gather evidence and it's actually *going* to court. A friend of mine got one of those letters that demanded cash and a signed statement that they wouldn't infringe again on the basis of zero evidence. My wife was legally-trained. They wrote a letter (not a legal one, just a letter that basically said "Nope... if you think I did wrong, take me to court."). They *NEVER* heard from them again. It was all an elaborate bluff but there's always ONE idiot who ignores the letters, misses the court date, gets a default judgement against them and then people like ACS:Law can say "We won a case already, wasn't even contested, the court gave us our costs and the money we demanded from the other side, now we'll go pick on someone else with a case history on our side too!".
If you receive any legal correspondence whatsoever, write back or get your lawyer to. Hell write back and say "I received your letter, I'm consulting my lawyer, deal
We must also do something about the quantum of damages that is being sought. In a civil procedure on a technical matter, it amounts to blackmail
He was clearly just quoting Lord Lucas
Costs nothing to write a letter. Costs nothing (99% of the time) to hire a lawyer on no win, no fee (which almost all the people here would have done) basis. Costs nothing for the first hour or so of a lawyer's time. Costs literally a few quid to get a lawyer that would take this on and write a couple of letters for you that would stop it going to court in the first place. And if it *does* go to court, you'll end up with almost all of those fees back if you were innocent (if you're guilty, that's a different matter entirely!).
But sending a letter and informing the court that you contest the allegation costs *NOTHING*. That's why so many people never heard from ACS:Law again, even if they had no legal training whatsoever.
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
"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"