UK Copyright Blackmailers Rebuked By Court 64
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."
Find Lawyer (Score:2)
Re:Find Lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
Well, they are being investigated by the SRA and the Law Society as well as the Consumer Action Group, so fingers crossed.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, and they will be severely chastised for publicizing lawyers regular, everyday behaviour.
Hurray (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
It's good to see that at least some default judgement requests are failing -- maybe we are seeing a tidal shift in purse-seine litigation?
Naw, too much to hope for.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
b) selling their offspring into sex slavery might produce additional offspring - you can't take the chances...
Bill Gates' parents are both lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear pigs love lawyers - those things will eat anything!
Re:This isn't an end to the cases (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:This isn't an end to the cases (Score:5, Informative)
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.
All 8 were denied (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All 8 were denied (Score:4, Informative)
As I commented above, they're currently under investigation by virtually every legal and consumer rights body in the UK, so I imagine this incident will just be added to the already extensive list of reasons to disbar, fine and possibly imprison the people in charge at ACS:Law.
Criminal as well as unethical? (Score:1)
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.
Re:Criminal as well as unethical? (Score:4, Informative)
Their internal docs that were leaked after the DDoS on their website showed clearly that they were well aware of what they were doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Criminal as well as unethical? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"The concept of class action does not exist in English law."
Wrong, it's called Mass Tort Litigation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Default (Score:2)
"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.
Re:Default (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Default (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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).
Re: (Score:1)
>>>apparently you MUST respond or you're guilty.
Dear MAFIAA:
Fuck off. Take your extortion letter ("Give us $5000 or else"), shape it into a dildo, and shove it into a lower orifice.
Sincerely,
Commodore 64 Fan
Re:Default (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 diff
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple.
Legally DDoS someone in 25 different countries and have all the court dates the same?
Re: (Score:1)
Not an error, a crime (Score:3)
That sounds like the crime of fraud to me.
Re: (Score:1)
Disbarring (Score:3, Interesting)
Very brave, timothy (Score:2)
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.
Re:Very brave, timothy (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [the-statio...fice.co.uk]
He was clearly just quoting Lord Lucas [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that. I'm glad that Lord Lucas has agreed, but I don't think that it's legally binding. He was expressing an opinion too. The legalities of it weren't determined (He states himself that it is legal blackmail).
Not to mention that Lord Lucas had parliamentary privilege [wikipedia.org], you can libel and slander whoever you like on the floor of the Lords.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the title's my original one. And as noted below, I'm hardly the first to draw the comparison. In fact given the legal incompetence shown by the firm, one can either assume it was a bad-faith shakedown by a firm that knew it had no legal ground to stand on, or an honest case of spectacular incompetence by a bunch of idiots. I think I was being kind by assuming the former.
how long before they force you in to arbitration? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
(Well, not only in a contract situation, but in the scenario you're imagining.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Legal aid. Cookie?"
Re: (Score:2)
No, because in England, you can't agree to exclude the jurisdiction of the court.
Hmmm (Score:1)
Is that piracy? Or something else?
Re: (Score:2)
Courts are reluctant to punish people who bring suits and lose, lest they make people fear to go to court.
Obtaining money by the threat of legal action based on a false and fraudulent pretense, however, may be something a court, or more likely the appropriate law society, would act on.
IMHO, the critical point is the degree to which the claim can be demonstrated to be fraudulent. An oldish definition is, in part, "An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon