Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Firm stops pursuing net pirates
02-04-2011, 09:51 PM,
Firm stops pursuing net pirates
Quote:MediaCAT, a firm which has sent thousands of letters to alleged illegal file-sharers in the UK, has ceased trading, according to its law firm.

It follows the resignation of Andrew Crossley, who heads the law firm that pursued alleged file-sharers on its behalf.

Mr Crossley resigned during a court hearing, brought against 27 alleged illegal file-sharers.

He confirmed that MediaCAT had "ceased trading".

It comes days before a judgement is due on the case in a hearing at London's patent court.

During the case, Judge Birss criticised the methods used by Mr Crossley and the law firm he heads - ACS: Law.

MediaCAT had signed a number of contracts with copyright owners, allowing it to pursue alleged illegal file-sharers on their behalf.

Together with ACS: Law, it sent letters to people identified as downloading content without paying for it, asking them to pay a one-off fine or face being taken to court.

Consumer watchdog Which? highlighted a number of cases where people claimed they had been wrongfully accused.

The 27 people who chose to take their cases to court have found themselves caught up in a series of high-profile and dramatic court hearings.

During the court case it emerged that ACS: Law received 65% of any recouped revenue, while the copyright owners received a 30% share.

Almost as soon as the cases were brought, MediaCAT decided it wanted to drop them. But Judge Birss said granting permission to discontinue the cases was not a simple matter, due largely to the fact that the actual copyright holders were not in court.

This meant that, in theory, these copyright holders could continue to pursue cases against the 26 defendants.

"Why should they be vexed a second time?" he asked.

Judge Birss also questioned why MediaCAT wanted to drop the cases.

"I want to tell you that I am not happy. 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," he said at the time.

During the second hearing, a statement was read from Mr Crossley, saying he no longer wanted to deal with the cases because it was causing him too much "hassle".

Judge Birss will deliver his ruling on Tuesday. ACS: Law could be liable for legal costs, thinks Deborah Prince, head of legal affairs at Which?

"Whilst MediaCAT is the plaintiff, there were rumblings in the court to suggest that ACS: Law was so closely involved in receiving money, that the judge may be made to make a cost order against ACS: Law," she said.

The solicitor of some of the defendants has warned they may sue Mr Crossley for harassment.
The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall. - Che Guevara

Resistance Films Youtube Channel

TriWooOx Podcast
02-05-2011, 01:42 PM,
RE: Firm stops pursuing net pirates
Also reported by PC Pro
what i am gathering is coming from this is twofold.
IP does not equal ID(due to the ease with which wireless connection can be compromised and due to IP spoofing))
and due to this i feel that in Scotland,England and Wales the almost "factory process" of litigation won't happen the way it has in the US.
Of course ACTA does have am impact BUT ACTA does directly conflict with some EU privacy directives, EU directives on what constitutes piracy(ie it's a commercial counterfeit operation and not home down-loaders) and also UK,Scottish privacy laws and also UK/Scottish definition of what piracy is(agai9n it's defined as a commercial operation)
There is a "load of pish" as we say here is Scotland said about downloading.
on TV and in the *IAA propaganda it says downloading is illegal..... it isn't... now uploading is a different legal matter BUT it isn't a criminal offence, it's a civil case uploading is classed as "infringement by distribution"
ACTA tries to change this and was put through the westminster parliament on a VERY quiet day in an effort to get it through by hook or by crook..(mostly CROOK)
however it's in so much conflict with privacy laws etc as i mentioned it's going to be hard to implement. Even it's "three strikes" clause whereby you get "accused" of file sharing three times and your connection is gone has been challenged under human rights clauses and some ISPs are thinking of VPNs to circumvent actually having to deal with the laws coming in.good on them i say but i know they are not doing it for the good of their customers , they are doing it as it adds an overhead they'd rather not have as it will lower their all important profits.maybes with the exception is Andrews and Arnold who are more cavalier and will sell you a connection that classes you as an ISP in your own right... even if you are
what this means is that and an ISP with under 400,000 customers you are not within the scope of the law.
My ISP is also quite anti when it comes to filtering and throttling connection and does actually give you un-metered connections.
unfortunately ISP's like this are very much in the minority
[Image: siolflag.gif]

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Adult video-sharing list leaked from law firm drummer 2 1,586 09-28-2010, 07:33 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)