facebook rss twitter

ACS:Law loses file sharing cases

by Sarah Griffiths on 13 December 2010, 12:35

Tags: General Business

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qa3jv

Add to My Vault: x

File sharing fiasco

A judge has dismissed all 8 file sharing cases brought to court by controversial firm, ACS:Law.

The firm is infamous for firing out thousands of letters to suspected copyright thieves, hoping they will cough up instead of risking court and got its fingers burnt this September when a seemingly unencrypted list of people suspected of sharing porn films was posted online for all to see.

While the firm usually relies on its letter writing campaign to pull in the pounds (and illegal file sharers of course) asking for a couple of hundred quid for an out-of-court settlement,  it actually brought 8 people to court in a rare move, TechWatch reported.

Leaving the firm with a lot of egg on its face, judge Birss reportedly dismissed all 8 cases.

The story goes that ACS:Law had tried to get a default judgement, which means that the firm sought to get a verdict against the defendant simply because they had not appeared in court or responded to the summons.

According to TechWatch, some of the people accused of illegal file sharing had filed a defence or there was no proof that a claim had been served.

The judge reportedly said:"The claimant's right to be a claimant at all is somewhat unclear on the face of the pleading. A copyright case can be brought by the owner of copyright or an exclusive licensee but the Particulars of Claim does not allege the claimant is either of those."

"The allegation is that the claimant ‘represents' such persons. There is a plea that the claimant has an agreement with the Rights Owner to identify, pursue and prosecute instances of copyright infringement but no plea that the claimant owns the copyright or has an exclusive licence."

While all the legalese may seem a tad complicated, ACS:Law's actions will no doubt attract undesirable attention again. The firm is still believed to be waiting to hear whether it will suffer a huge fine from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to the tune of half a million pounds for not keeping information about suspected file sharers safe.

There have also been calls to find a new way of hunting down copyright thieves following the data breach and Guardian report that ACS:Law pockets around 40 percent of the settlement payment, with rights holders only receiving between 20 and 30 percent.



HEXUS Forums :: 2 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
sounds to me that this case was thrown out more because it was badly brought and presented, rather than because the case has no merit. Reading this article it seems that the judge hasn't made any statement regarding the merit or lack there of, so we will have to see what happens next…. I suspect that there will be a load more cases brought that will be thrown out on such technicalities before the actual issue even gets discussed.

Honestly I think the horse has already bolted and the various industries (music, tv, movies, games e.t.c.) would be better served by looking at the technology that is out there and seeing how they can best make money off it, rather than trying to close and bolt the door that the horse has already left way behind it.
HEXUS
Leaving the firm with a lot of egg on its face, judge Birss reportedly dismissed all 8 cases.

Not quite - he dismissed the request/application for judgment in default (of a reply from the Defendant). That's a summary procedure to allow quick judgment when the Defendant doesn't even bother to respond to the Claim. The Claimant/ACS law can still pursue the alleged filesharers using the normal court process ending in a full trial.

Mainly these were technical procedural points that the claim for judgment was rejected on, or issues that could easily be remedied the next time ACS law try bringing a claim (e.g. not expressly stating something that presumably ACS can say in the documentation next time).

The interesting comments in the judgment relate to the issue of unsecured wifi connections. ACS are arguing that the Defendant should be liable even if if wasn't actually the Defendant that committed the (alleged) copyright theft/infringement. The Judge pointed out that allowing someone to commit copyright theft through an unsecured wifi network is not the same as authorising copyright theft/infringement. It's the latter which is the terminology used in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. The judge expressly did not make a ruling on that issue - he was merely making the point that there is no decided cases either way in English law that he knows of.

The full judgment is here for anyway bored enough :mrgreen:: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2010/17.html