This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Business News Legal Top Stories
And now more ACS:Law stuff
By CMU Editorial | Published on Monday 4 October 2010
And so back to P2P litigators and data-leakers in chief, ACS:Law. According to TorrentFreak, the London legal firm was already on wobbly ground before the aforementioned data leak, one of the UK’s biggest ever Data Protection Act breaches. TorrentFreak know this because they’ve been reading the emails of ACS:Law boss man Andrew Crossley, which were also published as part of the big data spill.
In public Crossley has always been very bullish about the performance of his legal practice, which specialises in targeting individuals suspected of illegally accessing content online with copyright infringement litigation and, some have claimed, in pressurising or embarrassing those accused into out of court settlements, turning such litigation into a revenue stream in itself rather than simply a means to protect intellectual property.
But emails leaked last week show that, after Which? magazine’s previously reported criticism of Crossley and the resulting Solicitor’s Regulatory Authority investigation into his operations, the legal man did start to worry about the future of his company.
According to TorrentFreak, Crossley wrote to an advisor recently: “I am worried about the latest developments. Apparently there are presently over 500 complaints against me thanks to the internet campaign and Which? Each complaint is essentially the same and they are borne out of a determination by some to stop legitimate steps being taken to curtail illegal file-sharing. However, I do not know how I can avoid being found guilty of something, with 500 complaints to choose from”.
ACS’s private emails also show that the legal firm was behind on paying many of its bills. Although that’s not uncommon for small companies, the late payment demands unearthed have also revealed that internet service providers charge legal firms like Crossley’s every time they are asked to provide the contact information of an IP address where illegal file-sharing has been spotted.
The courts which order ISPs hand over such information allow for the net firms to make an administrative charge, though the level of those charges are for the content owner, internet provider and their respective lawyers to agree. One ISP, Entanet, had told ACS it would stop handing over the details of suspected file-sharers because of unpaid admin fees.
Sky, the ISP whose users were most exposed by the ACS data leak, last week admitted to The Inquirer that it charged legal firms that it provided customer data to, but stressed it did not make a profit from such charges.
A spokesman said: “Sky has only disclosed account information to ACS:Law when served with a court order requiring us to do so. Because this process inevitably imposes a burden on ISPs’ resources, the court has ordered that they should be entitled to recover the reasonable costs of complying. It is wrong to suggest that we have provided information for commercial reasons. This is simply a question of complying with a legally-binding Order and recovering the reasonable costs of doing so”.
If you want to know more of the secrets contained within the leaked ACS:Law emails (though be warned, there are no major revelations other than those just mentioned) you can check the full TorrentFreak article at this URL.
As previously reported, although the music industry is most associated with sue-the-fans litigation, ACS:Law didn’t work for any notable music companies.
