Andrew Crossly, the owner of ACS:Law, has made a career out of sending settlement letters to UK residents who allegedly infringed on copyrights by sharing music and movies from peer-to-peer applications on their computers. The tactics used in his firm have been widely criticized, and Crossly has been notified that he will appear in front of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for a disciplinary hearing regarding his actions next year.
Meanwhile, ACS:Law is still bringing cases that are currently in-progress before judges in the British court system, the latest of whom was not amused with the legal preparations of Crossly and his staff.
Judge Birss QC of the Patents County Court in the UK sat before a case this week between Media C.A.T Limited, a “front” company for copyright holders, and 8 John Doe defendants accused of illegal file-sharing.
The judge pointed out that the cases had “a number of unusual features” as reported by TorrentFreak:
1. The claimant, Media C.A.T, is not the rights holder of the works in question. A copyright case can only be brought by the owner of a copyright or an exclusive licensee. Indeed, the Judge later noted that: “There is no plea that the works qualify for copyright protection at all.”
2. “The Particulars of Claim include allegations about unsecured internet connections. I am aware of no published decision in this country which deals with this issue in the context of copyright infringement,”
3. “The plea that ‘allowing’ others to infringe is itself an act restricted by s16 (1)(a) and 17 of the 1988 Act is simply wrong.The term used by those sections of the Act is ‘authorizing’ and the difference may be very important if the allegation is about unauthorized use of an internet router by third parties. A key part of the plea of infringement rests on an assertion [by ACS:Law] that ‘allowing’ others to infringe is itself an infringing act, when it is not.”
4. “The injunction claimed in the prayer is unusual too. There is no claim for an injunction to restrain copyright infringement, as one would ordinarily expect to see in a copyright claim. The injunction claimed relates to ‘safeguarding’ the defendant’s internet connection. This relates to the previous points.”
Judge Birss then went on to present ACS:Law with a verdict that equates to an epic fail for the firm: “In two cases it appears the defendant is in default, in three others there is simply no evidence proceedings have been served and I refuse to find that they have been and in the final three cases the defendant has responded to the claim, filed a defense and is not in default at all,” Birss stated.
Needless to say, there likely won’t be many people shedding a tear over this blow to ACS:Law. Hopefully, the SRA has filed this away so they can bring it up at Crossly’s disciplinary hearing in a few months.
