ACS:Law fails to obtain default judgement..

Milarky

..of illegal downloading of copyright material. The eight defendants were not in court. Summary default judgement was refused, however, because ACS:Law couldn't show they weren't actually just an independent party party sending out specious 'cease and desist' letters for cash.

http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2010/12/12/acslaw-loses-first-file-sharing-case/

Round one to the pirates!

JJ_Egan

Round one to the pirates!
Not really as many who where threatened where innocent of any possible illegal activities .

The so called war has already been won all that happens is the battleground moves .

jje

mongoose2009

this is just a money making exercise
they will just send out letters and work on the principle that if 10% pay then jobs a good un
they went to court and just tried to get a judgement but looks la bit flakey

http://www.francisdavey.co.uk/2010/12/acslaw-come-unstuck.html

sirmarcus

JJ_Egan wrote: »

Not really as many who where threatened where innocent of any possible illegal activities .

The so called war has already been won all that happens is the battleground moves .

jje

Agreed but hopefully it will now stop new people paying anything to ACS Law, when they receive one of their threatening letters.

The interesting part of the judge's statement was "The term used by those sections of the Act (i.e. Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) is 'authorising' and the difference may be very important if the allegation is about unauthorised use of an internet router by third parties."

The judge's decision is not necessarily binding in future cases, as the ruling itself was only delivered in a county court. However, it should cast huge legal doubt over prosecutions based solely on evidence of infringement on an IP address.

I'm guessing that ACS's revenue streams have been seriously diminished over the last few months since their data breach incompetence. Just do a google search on 'ACS law' and people can easily find loads of stuff; so people aren't paying them money as they were before. This court case was probably to try to get a precadent set to get people to start paying again.

Interesting to see what, if anything, ACS do next. However, I'm hoping that their days are numbered before they go to the wall.

suited-aces

ACS are scum.

sirmarcus

suited-aces wrote: »

ACS are scum.

Agreed.

For info, I am reliably informed that Andrew Crossley's email address, whom is ACS's CEO, is [EMAIL="andrew.crossley@acs-law.co.uk"]andrew.crossley@acs-law.co.uk[/EMAIL] is now active again. ACS Law's website is still down.

Give him feedback...I am sure that he will welcome it !:rotfl:

Pobby

It is very likely ACS are finished along with his mate Lee Bowden. Privacy International are on his case, the ICO, and of course the SRA.

kwikbreaks

Considering ACS:Law ceased trading weeks ago and are facing a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing you are probably right.

Why reopen an old thread to post that comment?