Slashdot Mirror
ACS: Law Withdraws Pursuing Illegal File-Sharers
Necroloth writes "As mentioned previously on Slashdot, ACS: Law has been sending out letters to thousands of alleged file-sharers on behalf on its client, MediaCAT. However, solicitor Andrew Crossley has now ceased all work on such cases, citing criminal attacks and death threats. Judge Birss doesn't seem to be taken by this, and comments, 'I am getting the impression with every twist and turn since I started looking at these cases that there is a desire to avoid any judicial scrutiny.' Judge Birss is expected to deliver his judgment on the case later in the week... perhaps all is not lost in the British judicial system."
Translation: ACS:Law sensed they were about to lose, and are trying to withdraw to avoid actually having a precedent set which could hurt their MafiAA-type overlords.
Any lawsuit filed, even one you can successfully defend against, is a pain to deal with and causes emotional stress. It's good to see practices like these become less popular.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
Logic? In the justice system? Please let this continue!
Yeah, death threats. Sure, buddy *snicker*
Free Martian Whores!
It wouldn't be the first or last of "brilliant" lawyers to find ways to abuse the spirit of the law while following the letter of the law. Defamation, copyright, patent, trademark, licenses, brands, contracts, a number of things are created which ultimately are applied in such a manner as to become a legalized form of censorship.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
In September, ACS: Law was the victim of a cyber attack and it accidentally exposed thousands of its e-mails online when its website went live again. These e-mails detailed all the people it was pursuing and the pornographic films they were accused of downloading for free.
They pursued porn filesharers? Surely that's about 75% of people who use the internet?
It's interesting that the lawyers and people who have controlled our world are brushing up against a reality where their targets/victims can find out who they are and retaliate. It has become absurdly easy to track them, and respond in kind.
Wikileaks is part of this process. The stage has been set for a turning point in human society. Governments and the Powers-that-Be will fight the process, but they will be overcome, at last, by Justice.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
must be terrible when your client threatens to kill you after making a hash of the job
Filesharing is terrorism!
Huh? Well, we needed a new strawman. The old one has been reduced to a source for caricature and ridicule.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Pretty sad when people will actually scream "terrorist" as a fake distraction. It shows how much credibility the term has left in it, every politician and their mother has screamed "terrorists!" for one advantage or another. He should be forced to back up that assertion or be accused of perjury or whatever.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
If they are not going to be prosecuted, and therefore not found guilty, no one should be labelling these people or their actions as "illegal". You are only illegal if a court finds you breaking the law. Accusations don't make anything be illegal. Let's stop playing into this scare game.
metageek
A totally criminal scam if I ever heard of one. File sharers were threatened with court, and told if they 'settled out of court', paid up 500 quid, then the case would be dropped against them. Meanwhile the media in the UK and USA are full of stories of people being sued for millions by music companies etc, and everybody knows it costs thousands of pounds to hire a lawyer. So what are you going to do if you don't know your rights and you're not particularly assertive? Probably get frightened and pay up 500 pounds which is a lot of money but most people can find it somehow. I can imagine a number of people thinking that's their cheapest and easiest way to end the nightmare.
A pure criminal exercise, no more than blackmail and extortion I'd say. The company has sat down and said "well I reckon if we pull this stunt 10% (or whatever) people will just get scared and pay up, let's send out a few thousand letters and watch the money roll in, and ignore anybody who fights back, just move on to the next poor victim". Easy money. Just a step up from a gang of muggers sitting outside a bar on a Saturday night waiting for easy targets to come past...
As for the legal firm getting death threats? well put up or shut up. Here in the UK that's taken very seriously. If they have received death threats, well turn over the evidence to the police and the police will duly investigate and arrest anybody who has being making these threats. And if the law firm is lying about this, well making false claims like these are also considered serious offenses. If there have been such threats, I would have thought a law firm before anybody else would know their rights and call in the police. I am not convinced...
ACS: law was owned by one guy, and pwned by another.
rewriting history since 2109
You missed the point where he was targeting porn fileshareres, so presumably he was attempting to target people who would settle rather than go in to court to explain why they downloaded "Daddy's Little Girl #6" from a Torrent.
Crossley asserts: "The lurkers support us in email".
Intimidation is a two edged sword. You can't expect to try to ruin someone's financial life and not expect some kind of retaliation in return. When things are completely out of balance you will see more of one than the other, and there are certainly more poor people being sued than those rich ones doing the suing. Those that are more inclined to file share for financial reasons have little to loose in the high stakes legal arena, and they are therefore much more prone to engaging in such anti-social behaviour. Its human nature to want to fight back, and if all you have is email and a phone then that is what you will use. They are after all emotionally compromised. If you are going to try and sue a Jane Doe, don't expect her to just sit back and take it. For these people sitting back and 'enjoying it' is never going to happen, even if they know they should not do what they are doing. The threat just justifies their cause in their own mind and makes them want to fight back even more, by file sharing more. Emotionally speaking, intimidation by threat is a loosing move.
Not enough. Nothing less than the cold reality of death will do for the ACS:Law thugs. Their skin shall be ripped to shreds, their bones broken, their sinews snapped and their eyes gouged. Bloody intestines shall burst from their sliced bellies and their quivering remains shall be defecated upon and set on fire.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
I tried posting this earlier as my first submission ever but couldn't get it to post as an Anonymous Coward. Stupid thing.
http://acsbore.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/acslaw-letters-issued-by-gcb-ltd/
and
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/364501/exposed-file-sharing-lawyers-collect-fines-using-dormant-company/2
The new company pursuing the claims, GCB, is a dormant company that was "borrowed" from a friend by none other than... Andrew Crossley. It's real owner, David Fisher, now disavows any connection and advises anyone who received a demand letter from GCB to ignore it. (See the techdirt article for more info.) So while publicly proclaiming he was "no longer persuing" file downloader, Crossley was in fact still persuing them, but trying to obfuscate who was actually responsible.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
You missed the point where he was targeting porn fileshareres, so presumably he was attempting to target people who would settle rather than go in to court to explain why they downloaded "Daddy's Little Girl #6" from a Torrent.
I don't think they were targeting porn file sharers exclusively. Also some music files (I can't remember what at the moment though).
I remember seeing warnings on DVDs several years ago (mid 00's ish) claiming that the funds from piracy directly fed into organised crime and terrorist organisations (even though the vast majority of "piracy" by that point was in the form of downloads).
So, if rather than buy a pirated movie, I were to go download it, I would be depriving terrorists and organized crime money? Sounds like a solid argument for filesharing to me!
ROBIN, TO THE BAT-TORRENTS!
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I don't know if you've been overseas but porn doesn't have the stigma it has here in the states. In the UK hardcore porn magazines are sold wherever newspapers and magazines are sold. They have the usual protective covers on them and are only sold to adults. Hardcore porn videos are sold in licensed shops. I was in Germany a few years back and after 10pm, there's some very graphic stuff on regular TV. The Europeans seem to treat it just like they treat violent depictions: It's restricted for certain ages but not banned.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
A totally criminal scam if I ever heard of one. File sharers were threatened with court, and told if they 'settled out of court', paid up 500 quid, then the case would be dropped against them.
Here in America, we call that "plea bargaining". Hey, freedom ain't free!
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You're giving a little too much credit there. The UK may not be as puritanical as the States, but there are still plenty of people who wouldn't want their particular porn-viewing choices made public (or to be publicly linked to porn titles that they didn't actually even download, for that matter). I'm imagining the porn tactic worked particularly well against older, married types - higher disposable income, more likely to feel that sex carries some negative stigma, more likely to raise uncomfortable questions with their families, etc.
Even for younger people I imagine the willingness to be associated with this would vary - some might laugh it off, maybe get a few jokes from their mates along the lines of "What's the matter, couldn't get laid in real life?", while others (particularly those from a religious background) would still find it very embarrassing.
ACS = ....
American Chemical Society
American Cancer Society (I immediately think of these first two because I'm a member of one and a follower of the other...)
American Constitution Society (wow, i.e. we can play Mad Libs here - American Cxxxxxx Society)
American College of Surgeons
Association of Caribbean States (hah - now I'm not an Americentric...)
American Colleges of the South
Adobe Creative Suite (would make sense in a story about piracy)
Applied/Academic/Accounting/Agile/Awesome Computer Systems (this pattern is a regular pattern mine!)
Applied Common Sense (the summary is in need of, so an unlikely match...)
Shall I continue...?
Be careful of your thoughts; they could become words at any minute...
I read your post as:
I am a grammar Nazi, which means I have no argument or ability to argue or contribute anything, so therefore I will focus on some inconsequential part of a post which has NOTHING to do with the issue. It is my way of making myself look important, which my mommy told me I was.