ACS:Law Completely Failed in CourtAdded: Tuesday, December 14th, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
Earlier, the leader of the now infamous anti-piracy law firm ACS:Law, Andrew Crossley, has always announced that he was not afraid of hearing contested file-sharing cases at court. That might have been true until his recent attempt to get a court to issue default judgments against people who offered no defense, which failed on all the levels.
In short words, the UK Patents County Court has slammed an attempt by pro-copyright outfit ACS:Law to get default judgments against eight subscribers alleged of infringement or its facilitation. This case between Media C.A.T Limited and eight unknown and unrepresented defendants became a precedent.
First of all, the Judge announced that it’s convenient to deal with all the 8 cases together, since the claimant is the same, the cases raise issues in common, and the Court received the requests for judgment at the same time. Unfortunately, Media C.A.T Limited was just a company representing the UK copyright holders, but not a producer or rights owner of its own.
All in all, the Judge politely described the cases as containing a few “unusual” features. He pointed out that the claimant is not the copyright owner of the content in question, while only the owner of a copyright (or an exclusive licensee) can bring a copyright case. In addition, the Judge said that there was no plea that the content is question qualifies for copyright protection at all. Then, the Judge noted that the Particulars of Claim contained allegations about unprotected Internet connections, about which there’s no published decision in the UK, relating to copyright infringement. Finally, the Judge slammed the plea that “allowing” other people to infringe is restricted by the 1988 Act, ruling that it’s just wrong. The Act employs the term “authorizing”, which is quite a difference. Indeed, a key part of the plea was an assertion of the plaintiffs that “allowing” other people to violate is itself a law violation, but it is not.
Besides, the injunction claimed in the prayer was described as “unusual” as well, due to absence of claim for restraining copyright violation, which is naturally expected to be present in a copyright claim. Instead, the injunction claimed was to “safeguard” the defendant’s Internet connections, which was discussed above. Finally, the Judge called the Particulars of Claim of ACS:Law “defective”, and denied the company default judgments in each and every case. Bullying tactics have just failed in epic fashion!
Thanks to TorrentFreak for providing the source of the article
December 14th, 2010Posted by:
Tuesday, December 14th, 2010
|posted by (2010-12-14 15:17:46)|
|Thanks for the info!||
Most Popular Stories