Patent judge hits out at legal tactics used against file-sharers

The Register
09.02.2011
By Kelly Fiveash

A senior patent court judge has heavily criticised a law firm that pursued online file-sharers with threatening letters and then ditched its cases against 26 defendants.

ACS:Law and its client Media CAT had fired off thousands of threatening legal missives to alleged illegal file-sharers, offering them the chance to pay a £495 settlement rather than face going to trial.

At the end of last month, solicitor Andrew Crossley, who founded ACS:Law – and is currently being investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority – said he was quitting the cases that went to trial in a patent court in London last month.

However, Judge Colin Birss QC said in his Tuesday afternoon ruling that the process of linking copyright infringement to a named individual by pinpointing an IP address associated with that person was extremely problematic.

“It is not at all clear to me that the person identified must be infringing one way or another,” he noted.

“The fact that someone may have infringed does not mean the particular named defendant has done so.”

He also questioned the methods employed by ACS:Law and was critical of the fact that the firm took the majority of the fines collected, with a small percentage going to unnamed copyright holders.

“Media CAT’s financial interest is actually much less than that of ACS:Law. Whether it was intended to or not, I cannot imagine a system better designed to create disincentives to test the issues in court,” he said.

“Why take cases to court and test the assertions when one can just write more letters and collect payments from a proportion of the recipients?”

Late last week, Media CAT wound up its operations and said it had “ceased trading”. In effect, ACS:Law and Media CAT tried to back out of taking action in court.

According to the judge, Media CAT asked Crossley to “notify the court that it had ceased all activities and will not at any time in the future be sending letters or pursuing anyone in relation to the alleged infringements of copyright”.

Separately, ACS:Law said it would “close permanently” at the end of last month.

“Media CAT and ACS:Law have a very real interest in avoiding public scrutiny of the cause of action because in parallel to the 26 court cases, a wholesale letter-writing campaign is being conducted from which revenues are being generated. This letter-writing exercise is founded on the threat of legal proceedings such as the claims before this court,” said the judge.

Ralli, a law firm that represented some of the defendants in the cases, said it was pleased with the outcome for its clients.

“It was important for all the defendants in these matters that discontinuance was properly obtained so no collateral advantage could be obtained against them by anyone not a party to these proceedings,” said solicitor Michael Forrester in a statement.

“The judgment highlights a number of legal and technical difficulties with these cases which we had advised our clients of throughout.”

The two firms have 14 days to involve the copyright owners in the cases. If they fail to do this then the proceedings will be dropped.

Forrester said Ralli expected another hearing to take place to deal with legal costs and to discuss whether ACS:Law should be required to pay a proportion of those costs.

“We are dealing with cases where consumers have explained how they cannot possibly have uploaded or downloaded copyright protected material, but they are still pursued,” said Forrester.

Full article

Related:

Unknown Music Crimes 2008 - what does it mean for you & me? *

UK Surveillance: Families ‘fined’ thousands after downloading computer games *

Nothing To Hide - Part 1 - Privacy Protects From Tyranny *

Eircom Agrees To Block Websites, Automatically, Chosen By Corporations

City wants all passwords - State access to public’s online communications - Mom fined $1.9m for 24 songs

Corner shop worker told to stop singing in her store - or pay for a performing licence

End of Nations - EU Takeover and the Lisbon Treaty