Ares Connect

Followers of the ACS:Law file sharing cases recently heard at the Patents County Office in the UK would have been delighted to read Judge Birss’s comprehensive annihilation of Andrew Crossley’s law practice. The 17,000 word judgement was delivered on Wednesday 9th February and managed to criticise just about every aspect of the ill-thought out ACS:Law copyright infringement cases brought against alleged file sharers as a result of the much maligned “speculative invoicing” campaign.

Judge Birss criticised all aspects of the case, from basic errors, to misrepresentation and factual flaws, and indeed, it seems that ACS:Law and its partner, MediaCAT managed to do very little that was right throughout the whole debacle.

However, more interesting were the comments made by the judge with regard to the monitoring of IP addresses, and specifically whether this actually established if an offence had even taken place. As such, many feel that the ACS:Law judgement could have far reaching repercussions on the new Digital Economy Act designed to clamp down on alleged file sharing over the Internet. And indeed, the DEA is now the subject of a judicial review next month, so once again, we await the results with interest.

But it seems that their reign of terror is finally over and as a result of an investigation, the Solicitors Regulatory Authority has referred the case to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for a hearing next May. ACS:Law principle lawyer, Andrew Crossley, is also facing the same fate, so he will be watching the results of the case very closely.

There has been a great deal of adverse publicity of late about file sharing lawyers, ACS:Law, following a catastrophic leak of documents relating to dubious business practices involving alleged filesharing cases, but now Davenport Lyons are the subject of fresh file sharing scandal following a leak of documents.

The lawyers were the first to make big business out of sending pay-up-or-else letters to people accused of alleged file sharing and over the last few years they have made a fortune conducting generic schemes designed to frighten people into paying hefty fines in order to make phantom court cases go away. Unfortunately for them, evidence now proves that the firm of anti piracy lawyers knew all along that the evidence they were using to threaten people was mostly unreliable and would never stand up in court.

Davenport Lyons were the first in a long line of lawyers to realize just how lucrative it would be to target people with pay-up-or-else letters threatening legal action for alleged file sharing. Way back in 2007 they first came into the public eye with a landmark case against a woman accused of illegal file sharing and it was not long before other firms of lawyers saw the benefits of pursuing similar claims.

Unfortunately for Davenport Lyons, documents have now come to light which prove they were fully aware all along that the evidence they were using against people was flimsy at best and very unlikely to stand up to serious scrutiny. Of course the cases were never intended to be taken to court as the simple generic letters were designed to scare innocent people into paying up rather than risk expensive litigation.

The Solicitors Regulatory Panel has now decided that Davenport Lyons has breached the code of conduct expected of solicitors and as such has referred the case against two of Davenport Lyons partners to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal next year. The hearing will go ahead in May and will last approximately 7 days.

The judge at the centre of the much publicised ACS:Law and MediaCAT copyright infringement case recently heard at the Patents County Court, finally delivered his scathing judgement on Wednesday 9th February.

There were more than seventeen thousand words of criticism against the two protagonists responsible for a catalogue of speculative invoicing cases, but as well as the long litany of criticisms against Andrew Crossley and his partner in crime, MediaCAT, the judge raised a few issues that could have serious implications for the Digital Economy Act in the UK.

Judge Birss commented that monitoring done to identify an IP address as part of a copyright infringement exercise cannot possibly identify whether an infringement has actually taken place given the widespread use of Internet routers. This technicality is crucial to the Digital Economy Actsomething that will probably be discussed at a planned judicial hearing next month following applications by leading ISPs BT and Talk Talk.

The ruling could have serious repercussions on future speculative invoicing scams carried out by other greedy law firms in the anti piracy arena who are seeking to make an easy profit, of which there are still a few left despite the humiliations suffered in recent months by ACS:Law.

Anti piracy firm, ACS:Law, has hardly been out of the headlines in recent times. First they came into the public eye following months of speculative invoicing against alleged file sharers; next their website was attacked by angry activists as a result of their dubious anti piracy business practices; and finally, when they tried to bring a number of cases to court in an attempt to further their speculative invoicing business empire, their scheme was exposed as full of legal flaws, much to the derision of the judge in charge at the time.

In the wake of his last disastrous appearance at the Patents County Court in the UK, Andrew Crossley, boss of ACS:Law announced his was quitting the anti piracy business. However, most people didn’t take him all that seriously, so when a further announcement came this week that ACS:Law and its partner in crime, MediaCAT had both closed their businesses down completely, it was something of a surprise to all familiar with the case.

But given ACS:Law and MediaCAT could be facing an action for “wasted costs”, plus Andrew Crossley has a solicitors disciplinary hearing to look forward to, the damage limitation exercise might be too late.

After seeing their insurance rates rise from 15,000 to a crippling 120,000 following the disastrous leak of confidential information on to the Internet, it is no wonder that solicitor Andrew Crossley , owner of ACS:Law, has decided to call it a day. In the last few months, Andrew Crossley has faced an ever-increasing barrage of criticism from the public, consumer bodies, and finally the courts.

This week, ACS:Law was back in court yet again, along with its anti piracy partner, MediaCAT, in the hope that it could persuade the judge to discontinue the 26 file sharing cases currently making their way through the judicial system at the Patents County Court in the UK. Both parties are fully aware that if the cases are withdrawn, ACS:Law can continue sending ‘pay up or else’ letters to extract more money.

But since the judge was apparently even less amused at the extent of the shenanigans displayed by ACS:Law, Andrew Crossley has apparently decided to throw the towel in and call it a day. However, he still has the disciplinary hearing to face in a few weeks, so his woes are not completely over.

Andrew Crossley, principle solicitor of much maligned anti piracy firm, ACS:Law, has announced that he is quitting the anti piracy business for good. After months of bad publicity and a few well-publicised media leaks of sensitive material, Andrew Crossley and ACS:Law have become the butt of many a joke on the Internetand beyond.

ACS:Law was a pioneer of the ‘pay up or else’ letters sent to innocent broadband customers in the hope of extracting money for alleged file sharing abuses. Many people paid up in the belief that they would be taken to court, but a few fought back and some of those cases WERE taken to court.

This week, in a culmination of a series of file sharing cases brought before a judge at the Patents County Court in the UK, once again ACS:Law faced a volley of criticism from the judge over a series of problematic issues. ACS:Law and its partner, MediaCAT, were hoping to have the final 26 cases discontinued, but the judge recognised that this was only being done so that the pair could resume their threatening letters. After more criticism, Andrew Crossley announced he was quitting for good.

In the wake of months of adverse publicity, Andrew Crossley, the man at the helm of ACS:Law, has apparently decided to close the doors on his much criticised anti piracy business for good.

Only a week ago, ACS:Law and Andrew Crossley faced another barrage of criticism from the judge at the centre of twenty seven cases brought against alleged file sharers. Judge Birss was heavily critical of the many deep flaws in the process that sought to make money out of accusing mostly innocent people of file sharing music and movie files on the Internetknown in the business as “speculative invoicing”. Judge Birss will be announcing his ruling on the ACS:Law cases next week, so the results should be very interesting for all concerned.

ACS:Law and its partner in crime, MediaCAT, have come under increasing fire in recent months for their scare tactics designed to frighten people into paying fines by threatening them with legal action based on unsubstantiated claims of illegal file sharing of copyright protected material. And given that Andrew Crossley is facing a solicitors disciplinary hearing imminently, it seems unlikely that any other firms will decide to pick up where ACS:Law and MediaCAT have left off.

Alleged file sharers can finally rest easy in the wake of the news that anti piracy firm, ACS:Law, has decided to call it a day and close down their business activities for good. Along with MediaCAT, ACS:Law’s partner in the much criticised “speculative invoicing” business, Andrew Crossely has not only ceased all of his file sharing related activities, he has also completely shut his law firm down as of 31 January 2011.

This surprise announcement comes hot on the heels of the last disastrous court appearance from Andrew Crossley. The judge who presided over the twenty seven cases against alleged file sharers brought to the Patents County Court by ACS:Law and MediaCAT was immensely critical of the way the two businesses had handled the whole affair and they now facing an application from the court for “wasted costs”.

Since ACS:Law is not a limited company, it is extremely likely that Andrew Crossley will now face claims for costs from the defendants of the various file sharing claims brought by ACS:Law and MediaCAT. And since he will be personally liable for any costs, it could prove disastrous for the man who thought he could make millions on the back of speculative invoicing.