The solicitor at the center of that lawfirm, Andrew Crossley, was both fined and suspended from practicing law, which seemed to put a hold on similar cases.

However, it didn’t dissuade everyone. Yesterday, the UK’s High Court approved a case involving UK pornographer Ben Dover (real name Lyndsay Honey) and his company Golden Eye International. Now, ISP O2 will have to release the details of up to 9000+ subscribers listed in the document for Dover and Golden Eye. The precise number is unclear, as other companies that attempted to send letters through Golden Eye were denied the opportunity.

It’s success at last for the pornographer, as he’s had several similar cases thrown out in the past including a partnership with 170-year-old law firm Tilly Baily Irvine which ended in sanctions last year.

This claim process started 6 months ago, and with O2 stating they would not contest the case. Chief Master Weingarten, in response,  suggested that Consumer Focus (a government funded body looking after consumer rights) represent the IP addresses – the intended defendants – in court instead, a role Consumer Focus accepted.

Despite a strong defense, including pointing out all the issues with these kinds of actions, Weingarten approved the order, but with conditions. In perhaps a first for this sort of litigation, the court will be supervising the content of letters sent out to the alleged infringers, partly because of the ACS:law debacle.

In particular, the one-sided nature of the letters – only indicating the consequences should the alleged infringer lose – was not deemed appropriate, being indicative of bullying. Instead consequences should they successfully defend themselves should also be included.

Yet the most important part of the ruling is near the end, and might stop this practice once and for all; blanket fees to “make it all go away” are not acceptable.

137.   Fifthly, I think that Mr Becker’s response in his second witness statement to the point made by counsel for Consumer Focus referred to in sub-paragraph 60(v) above is telling:

“… it assumes that £700 will be successfully obtained from each of the 9000, when that is plainly wrong. In fact, it is likely that only a small proportion will result in a successfully obtained payment of any sum.”

This comes quite close to an admission that the figure of £700 has been selected so as to maximise the revenue obtained from the letters of claim, rather than as a realistic estimate of the damages recoverable by the relevant Claimant from each Intended Defendant. In any event, that is the inference I draw in the light of the matters discussed above and in the absence of any disclosure of the information referred to in paragraph 88 above.

138.   Accordingly, I do not consider that the Claimants are justified in sending letters of claim to every Intended Defendant demanding the payment of £700. What the Claimants ought to do is to proceed in the conventional manner, that is to say, to require the Intended Defendants who do not dispute liability to disclose such information as they are able to provide as to the extent to which they have engaged in P2P filesharing of the relevant Claimants’ copyright works. In my view it would be acceptable for the Claimants to indicate that they are prepared to accept a lump sum in settlement of their claims, including the request for disclosure, but not to specify a figure in the initial letter. The settlement sum should be individually negotiated with each Intended Defendant.

No more fee demands. Instead they can only state that they will accept a lump sum payment as settlement, to be negotiated if the accused accept liability. Otherwise, it will be down to the courts. It also seems that after many cases, Chief Master Weingarten has understood that these cases are about profits, not protecting rights. Very little money and a lot of grief was the prediction we highlighted earlier this month, and that seems to be the case.

Meanwhile, up to 9124 households are going to get a letter through their door talking about the porn they’ve allegedly downloaded. Let’s just hope that the tracking software, claimed to be ‘forensically accurate’ (huh?) does better than in times past, or there’s going to be a lot of needlessly embarrassed families, and unnecessary family strife when the postman calls.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

But bad publicity and intense controversy greeted the law firm and its owner Andrew Crossley at every turn and eventually the company went bust. Today, Crossley faced the ultimate shame as a lawyer, by appearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).

Despite previous displays of stubborn bravado, according to ‘Speculative Invoicing’ expert Will Gilmour who was in court today, Crossley disputed only one of the seven charges against him.

Firstly, the charge that he allowed his independence to be compromised and acted in a manner contrary to the best interests of his clients – ironically the copyright holders on whose behalf he extracted cash settlements from the public – was not contested.

Crossley, whose disastrous foray into this controversial work was laid bare when his company documents were leaked onto the web in 2010, lodged no dispute against claims that he acted in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public places in him or in the legal profession.

The fourth accusation, that Crossley “Entered into arrangements to receive contingency fees for work done in prosecuting or defending contentious proceedings before the Courts of England and Wales except as permitted by statute or the common law” was also met with acceptance from the lawyer.

Furthermore, Crossley did not contest that he acted where there was a “conflict of interest in circumstances not permitted, in particular because there was a conflict with those of his clients,” nor that he “used his position as a Solicitor to take or attempt to take unfair advantage of other persons being recipients of letters of claim either for his own benefit or for the benefit of his clients.”

The only point contested by Crossley related to an SRA/SDT accusation that he acted improperly in connection with data breaches from ACS:Law’s website during 2010. Crossley pointed the finger at the company’s web host for allegedly leaving a backup of the lawfirm’s data in a publicly accessible area.

In their decision announced just a few moments ago, the Tribunal suspended Crossley from operating as a lawyer for 2 years and ordered him to pay costs of £77,000. While opponents had hoped for a permanent ban, the lengthy suspension will be seen as a huge black mark against his reputation.

Also revealed in the hearing was the personal cost to the now-suspended lawyer. In addition to being unable to find work since the revelations against him, Crossley remains bankrupt and has split from his partner of 15 years.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Golden Eye, having already obtained the identities of file-sharers and retained the services of lawyers Tilly Bailey & Irvine (TBI), must’ve thought that the cash would come rolling in, but things quickly went wrong. Alongside client MediaCAT, the now-defunct ACS:Law was in the process of destroying the marketplace for would-be profiteers, and it all got too much for TBI, who announced they were pulling out.

But what do you do if you’re Golden Eye, and you’re in possession of a paid-for list of names of people who may, given the right pressure, send you several hundred pounds to settle a file-sharing case? The answer appears to be “keep trying”.

Readers will be familiar with His Honour Judge Birss QC of the Patents Country Court, the judge who narrowly missed becoming 2011′s Internet Hero after bringing ACS:Law’s scheme to an end. According to court documents, a trio of cases filed by Golden Eye against alleged file-sharers have caught his attention.

The first, filed in the Northampton County Court against a Mr Maricar, sets out the picture as follows:

On 27th November 2009 the Claimant [Golden Eye] believes the defendant unlawfully made all or part of the film [Fancy an Indian?] available from his IP address for downloading by third parties.

On 29th September 2010 the Claimant sent a letter before action to the Defendant setting out in full its claim for breach of copyright. The Defendant failed to reply. The Claimant sent another letter to the Defendant on 8th November 2010 to which no response was received. The Claimant claims £700 for breach of copyright.

Judge Birss notes that the particulars in a second case against a Mrs Vithlani (whose identity was handed over by her ISP BSkyB following a Norwich Pharmacal order made by Mr Justice Vos on 4th February 2010) are essentially the same, some details aside.

“Right away it will be seen that these claims bear some striking similarities to the claims in the litigation concerning the company Media CAT Ltd, the subject of my judgment Media CAT v Adams [2011]..,” Birss writes.

“However I should also make clear that there may very well be important differences between the present cases and the Media CAT cases. At this stage I do not know.”

Although Birss did not elaborate, one of the key reasons that the ACS:Law/MediaCAT cases collapsed was that MediaCAT were not the rightsholders of the copyright material in question. From the details available it seems that Golden Eye aren’t the rightsholders of ‘Fancy an Indian?’ either, Ben Dover Productions are. The latter would need to be joined with Golden Eye as claimants for the case to proceed.

But, yet again, the path to judicial scrutiny in these file-sharing cases has been hindered by the claimants. After discovering that against their will the case would not be heard in a county court but at the Patents County Court under Judge Birss, on 8th August 2011 Golden Eye tried to discontinue the case against Mrs Vithlani. The status of the case against Mr Maricar is uncertain, but it too has been transferred to the Patents County Court.

Defendant Mrs Vithlani has now applied for Ben Dover Productions to be joined to the proceedings and then allow the case to be struck out – but with costs awarded to her. In this event, those costs, and they could already be substantial, would have to be met by Ben Dover Productions.

When Sheptonhurst/Darker Enterprises, the original copyright holders in the ACS:Law/MediaCAT partnership refused to join their proceedings, MediaCAT went bankrupt to avoid picking up the bill. ACS:Law decided on the same fate.

Judge Birss also notes there is a third case on file against a Mr Rajan. After travelling through the county courts, it too ended up at the Patents County Court during March 2011. Shortly after Golden Eye filed to discontinue the case.

“Finally, since it is apparent that the claimant has commenced and is pursuing copyright infringement proceedings in the county courts arising presumably from information provided as a result of the order of Mr Justice Vos, the claimant is invited to consider and make submissions as to how any other of its pending cases arising from that order might be dealt with conveniently,” Judge Birss concludes.

So, cards on Judge Birss’ table then for Golden Eye and Ben Dover, for all subscriber identities obtained so far.

There’s a sneaky feeling that, given Judge Birss’ experience in this field, the outcome won’t be favorable for Golden Eye and it will be them and their settlement partners who will have to bend over, not the three targets of their scheme.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The Solicitors Regulatory Authority have just published a list of the charges Crossley will face. They claim that the lawyer:

1) Allowed his independence to be compromised
2) Acted contrary to the best interests of his clients
3) Acted in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public places in him or in the legal profession
4) Entered into arrangements to receive contingency fees for work done in prosecuting or defending contentious proceedings before the Courts of England and Wales except as permitted by statute or the common law
5) Acted where there was a conflict of interest in circumstances not permitted, in particular because there was a conflict with those of his clients
6) Used his position as a Solicitor to take or attempt to take unfair advantage of other persons being recipients of letters of claim either for his own benefit or for the benefit of his clients.

and finally..

7) Acted without integrity in that he provided false information in statements made to the Court.

Earlier in the year Crossley, a recently declared bankrupt, complained that he has no money to mount a proper defense at the forthcoming SDT hearing. In order to cut costs he requested that all expert evidence be excluded from the Tribunal.

Crossley’s demands were denied across the board. His tribunal will be heard in October.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

As readers will be aware, last year the company succeeding in spilling the details of around 6,000 Internet subscribers onto an unprotected web page following a Denial of Service attack carried out by Anonymous.

“This case proves that a company’s failure to keep information secure can have disastrous consequences. Sensitive personal details relating to thousands of people were made available for download to a worldwide audience and will have caused them embarrassment and considerable distress,” said Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham.

“The security measures ACS Law had in place were barely fit for purpose in a person’s home environment, let alone a business handling such sensitive details.”

The ICO revealed that Crossley did not obtain professional advice when setting up his systems, didn’t operate a firewall and used a web-hosting package intended for domestic users.

So how much, exactly, will be Crossley expected to pay for this complete failure to live up to his obligations? According to Graham, ACS:Law’s fine would have been £200,000 given the severity of their conduct, but there are mitigating circumstances.

“Penalties are a tool for achieving compliance with the law and, as set out in our criteria, we take people’s circumstances and their ability to pay into account,” Graham continued.

That’s a long-winded way of saying that Crossley is insisting he’s broke, so he can’t pay. Which is interesting.

PC Pro are reporting that they asked the ICO if they had taken steps to verify Crossley’s financial status but are yet to receive a response. Maybe the following will help.

Only last year Crossley was boasting of being a resident of Monaco and you need a few quid knocking around to achieve that. His taste in expensive cars has been well documented too. But there’s more.

Some time ago TorrentFreak acquired a copy of a document dated October 2010 where Crossley swore to a court that he had a “thriving and successful law firm” (this is after the data breach) that had collected more than £1.5 million in settlements. We know, from recent court proceedings, that he was collecting 65% of money recovered. You can do the math.

In the document Crossley also swore to jointly owning a £750,000 home and having £200,000 of work in progress at ACS:Law, yet now we are expected to believe that Crossley can only afford to pay £1,000 in fines.

That’s equivalent to just two of the £500 settlements he expected Internet users to cough up for the alleged sharing of a single 3rd rate movie, based on claims that were so weak that neither he nor his clients were prepared to see them through to conclusion in court. Yet he collected these settlements from thousands.

Disappointing decision by the ICO? You bet.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The decision follows the law firm’s campaign of threats against individuals accused of sharing movies, many of them pornographic, on BitTorrent networks.

Recipients of ACS:Law letters were told to pay cash settlements of around £500 or face being taken to court by Media C.A.T, a client of ACS:Law. While many resisted, thousands paid up. ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley, Media C.A.T and other clients together collected around £1.5m in the scheme.

Always accused of not wanting to bring any cases to court, in the end ACS:Law was effectively forced to deal with 27 cases they had filed earlier with the Patents County Court in London. Few observers were surprised when they tried to abandon them all at the 11th hour.

However, the defendants and their lawyers had run up significant bills dealing with Crossley’s accusations. They called for ACS:Law and Media C.A.T to pay “wasted costs”, something that Judge Birss has been considering since the cases were dismissed last month and has ruled on today.

“I am quite satisfied to the standard necessary for this stage of a wasted costs application that Mr Crossley is responsible for the Basic Agreements [the licence agreements between Media CAT and original copyright holders] and has thereby acted in breach of the Solicitors Rule 2.04,” said Judge Birss, as reported by Ralli Solicitors, a law firm in court today representing some of the defendants.

“In my judgment the combination of Mr Crossley’s revenue sharing arrangements and his service of the Notices of Discontinuance serves to illustrate the dangers of such a revenue sharing arrangement and has, prima facie, brought the legal profession into disrepute. It may be better placed under the revenue sharing heading in this judgment but it is, prima facie, improper conduct in any event,” Birss added.

The language being used by Birss will undoubtedly damage Crossley’s prospects of continuing his career in the legal profession. Having your conduct described by a senior judge as both “chaotic and lamentable” and “amateurish and slipshod” is damning.

Both ACS:Law and Media C.A.T, who were previously accused by Judge Birss of doing everything they could “to avoid judicial scrutiny”, pulled their departing stunt at the end of January 2011, by quietly closing down both of their businesses.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Following yesterday’s judgment in the Patents County Court, today TorrentFreak is pleased to welcome BeingThreatened.com spokesman James Bench, who will give us more detail about this legal debacle and explain how the judgment has implications for the UK’s Digital Economy Act.

BeingThreatened ON BIRSS’ JUDGEMENT IN Media CAT Ltd v Adams & Ors [2011]

On Tuesday HHJ Colin Birss QC handed down judgement in the hearing for Media CAT Ltd v Adams & Ors a.k.a. the Media CAT 27. The full judgement is well over seventeen thousand words and is a near-encyclopaedic catalogue of the errors, omissions, misrepresentations, factual flaws, and thoroughly insufficiently considered and ill-conceived (supposed) legal stance of Andrew Crossley’s ACS:Law and his associate, pornography licensee Lee Bowden, trading as Media CAT Ltd.

The 117-section judgement thoroughly discusses the events of the hearings that took place at the Patents County Court on the 17th and 24th of January and the extraordinary business model that brought the cases to his courtroom. The judgement dissects, with terminal accuracy, the operational practices that have been employed by ACS:Law (and indeed by the other law firms that have adopted the same model – Davenport Lyons, Tilly Bailey Irvine and Gallant Macmillan).

Despite a thorough search, readers will struggle to find a good word said about the work of the ‘anti-piracy’ lawyers. The judgement, though, is damning with good reason. It is made abundantly clear that HHJ Birss is wise to the genuine motivation behind the actions of these individuals.

He wrote, “Simple arithmetic shows that the sums involved in the Media CAT exercise must be considerable. 10,000 letters for Media CAT claiming £495 each would still generate about £1 Million if 80% of the recipients refused to pay and only the 20% remainder did so.”

It has always been clear to unbiased observers that the principal incentive behind speculative invoicing was revenue generation for the lawyers involved. Birss was under no illusions about Media CAT’s claims to be a ‘copyright protection society’. “No copyright lawyer would use that term to describe Media CAT,” he stated. A ‘copyright exploitation company’ would perhaps be a marginally more accurate term but Crossley and Bowden’s single-minded misapplication of copyright law with the intention of extracting cash settlements from threatened broadband subscribers means that a number of the other labels that may also have been applied to them could also be seen as accurate.

While keen observers, amateur adversaries and the personally aggrieved will doubtless be pleased by the terminal judgement on Media CAT and the fate of symbiotic law firm ACS:Law (and inevitably, in the longer term, Andrew Crossley personally) there are bigger issues that arise from Birss’ deliberations and decisions.

The Digital Economy Act (DEA) was pushed through Parliament during the ‘wash up’ in spring 2010 with numerous elemental flaws. This was despite a massive majority of the public responses to the Government’s consultation opposing its underdeveloped ‘anti-piracy’ measures. Now, unsurprisingly, the Act, which was already due to be subject to a Select Committee review, will also be reconsidered in a judicial review next month upon the application of ISPs BT and TalkTalk.

Birss, in his judgement has now judicially questioned the key concept behind the ‘three strikes’ provision of the DEA – casting doubt on theories and assumptions upon which the DEA was unwisely founded and which had not previously seen the light of a courtroom.

In his judgement Birss referred to technical issues raised by barrister Francis Davey for the defence and cast doubt himself as to whether the “process of identifying an IP address [from a tracker system] establish[ed] that any infringement of copyright has taken place by anyone related to that IP address at all”.

Birss also enters into discussion regarding the use of internet routers and difficulties in determining who may, or may not, have carried out (or authorised) an alleged infringement. “… I am aware of no published decision in this country which deals with the issue of unsecured internet connections in the context of copyright infringement…. The point about “allowing” is that the word used in s16(2) of the 1988 Act is “authorising” not “allowing”. They are by no means the same and the difference may be very important if the allegation is about unauthorised use of an internet router by third parties.

“[The claimant’s] monitoring exercise cannot and does not purport to identify the individual who actually did anything. All the IP address identifies is an internet connection, which is likely today to be a wireless home broadband router. All [this] monitoring can identify is the person who has the contract with their ISP to have internet access. …[the claimant does] not know who did it and know that they do not know who did it.”

In fact, there are serious doubts as to whether the monitoring has accurately determined ‘if it was done’ at all – and certainly similar doubts may well arise with monitoring that may be commissioned as a result of the DEA, should those provisions ever be realised.

HHJ Colin Birss QC, in these thorough hearings and incisive judgement, has demonstrated that we do have reason to hope that justice may yet prevail. In the event that justice suffers any hiccups, or is delayed, all would do well to remember – public and ‘copyright protection societies’ alike – that the demise of this scheme, and the likely potential fate of future similarly-founded strategies was first and foremost brought about by the people. To everyone that played a part: never forget that you did this, and you can do it again.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

On 17th January at the Patents County Court, Judge Birss QC said he was “astonished” by the conduct of the pair as they tried to discontinue cases against 27 alleged file-sharers at the 11th hour. The hearing was eventually adjourned and everyone returned to court 24th January to find solutions to numerous problems, including the joining of copyright owners to the action and the addressing of various procedural failings. After five hours that hearing was also adjourned for deliberations.

Today everyone returned to court to hear the ruling from Judge Birss QC. As was expected, neither ACS:Law’s Andrew Crossley nor MediaCAT’s Lee Bowden bothered to turn up. While ACS:Law had a new barrister in court, MediaCAT had no representation at all.

The court decided that ACS:Law would not be allowed to drop the 26 cases against alleged file-sharers, an answer to one of the key questions from the earlier hearing. While the copyright holders are being given 14 days to join the action, it is doubtful they will. If this happens, all MediaCAT cases against these defendants will be dismissed in March.

Yet again ACS:Law and client MediaCAT were heavily criticized, with the Judge reiterating that both companies have “a very real interest in avoiding public scrutiny” because of the revenue they generated from “wholesale letter writing.”

“Whether it was intended to or not, I cannot imagine a system better designed to create disincentives to test the issues in court,” said the Judge. “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?”

The Judge said that the processes employed by the pair were “based on untested legal and factual propositions and issues of technology” and their letters “materially overstate[s] the untested merits of Media CAT’s approach.”

Judge Birss also described ACS:Law’s earlier claim that they could not provide documents for the court’s scrutiny as “extraordinary”.

“A party who keeps key documents which are cited in the Particulars of Claim in storage is not a party anxious to progress their claim in court,” he said.

As reported by Ralli, the lawfirm representing defendants in the case, the Judge was also critical of the involvement of GCB Limited, the company that popped up to carry on the MediaCAT letter writing campaign.

“The GCB episode shows that Mr Crossley’s client had every intention of doing precisely that and that ACS:Law were perfectly well aware of it. It is very difficult not to draw the inference that this was nothing more than a last ditch attempt to make some money from the letter writing exercise.”

The case was adjourned again, this time until 16th March. The issue of wasted costs to be picked up ACS:Law and/or MediaCAT will be heard then.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Crossley, in his usual spin-doctor style, tried his best to blame just about everyone else for his downfall but for those who have followed these cases closely it was clear who was to blame. Crossley and client Lee Bowden, owner of copyright troll MediaCAT, had been the architects of their own doom.

With the Patents County Court hearing adjourned by Judge Birss QC, most observers believed that his ruling, which is now due next week, would be the next significant milestone in this whole sorry affair. But for companies that operate as unusually as ACS:Law and MediaCAT, there’s always a surprise in store.

Since TorrentFreak were the first outlet to report on the activities of ACS:Law back in 2008, it’s perhaps fitting that we should now be the ones to break the news of the company’s ultimate demise.

According to a copy of a document obtained by TorrentFreak, which appears to have been sent out by Crossley during the last week, ACS:Law have not only stopped all file-sharing related work as previously reported, but actually shut down completely 31st January 2011.

Furthermore, the document adds that ACS:Law’s only remaining speculative invoicing client – MediaCAT – has also ceased trading.

“Ahead of Judge Birss’ judgement due on Tuesday, it would seem to some that Mr Crossley and Mr Bowden are attempting to avoid not just ‘judicial scrutiny’ but financial responsibility for the flawed claims that they foolishly decided to issue,” consumer group BeingThreatened told TorrentFreak on hearing the news.

“They perhaps hoped that they might gain a judgement which they could use to threaten future letter recipients, instead their greed has led to the exposure of the significant and manifold flaws in the legal and evidential basis of the speculative invoicing scheme they employed.”

There has been recent speculation that MediaCAT may choose to close their business, particularly since they are now facing an application for “wasted costs” following their recent catastrophic legal venture against 27 alleged file-sharers. But even closure may not save the company’s owner from some hefty payouts.

“MediaCAT’s status as a private limited company may not protect [Bowden] from personal legal liability for the costs that will be demanded by the defendants of the claims MediaCAT brought,” notes Bench. “ACS:Law was not a limited company in any sense. Mr Crossley will remain entirely and personally liable for all the actions of his firm.”

Joe Hickster, the blogger behind the ACS:Bore blog who has worked tirelessly behind the scenes supporting many people who have fallen victim to ACS:Law and similar companies, welcomed the news.

“The news of the pair’s demise is a vindication for the people who stood strong against ACS:LAW/Media C.A.T,” he told TorrentFreak. “The damage they have caused cannot be overestimated, so it’s great news that their campaign of fear against many innocent people seems to be at an end.”

“With Crossley’s upcoming appearance at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, a warning has been sent out to those Solicitors who think they can pick up the poisoned baton of Speculative Invoicing.”

Perhaps the big question now is how the closure of ACS:Law and MediaCAT will affect next Tuesday’s court hearing where Judge Birss QC is due to deliver a ruling on the pair’s activities.

“The timing [of the closures] will be no coincidence, but while these actions may have been conceived as a damage limitation exercise, they will do nothing to appease Judge Birss who is already wise to the ‘twists and turns’ of this scheme and who is unlikely to let the duo’s plan work out quite as they perhaps intend,” concludes BeingThreatened’s James Bench.

So, the show isn’t over yet. Be sure to tune in here on Tuesday to hear what Judge Birss has to say. And bring some popcorn, this should be very interesting indeed.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

In a hearing punctuated by mounting criticism of both ACS:Law and their client MediaCAT, Judge Birss found himself “astonished” by their conduct as the pair tried to discontinue cases against 26 alleged file-sharers at the 11th hour.

Yesterday all parties were back in court again to find solutions to various problems, including the joining of copyright owners to the action (see previous articles for detail) and the addressing of various procedural failings.

Today we bring you our report with the invaluable help of consumer group BeingThreatened.com, who were present at the hearing and have been supporting victims of ACS:Law’s predatory legal actions since they began.

Perhaps the biggest news is that if ACS:Law is to be taken at its word, the company is now done with trying to extract money from alleged file-sharers.

After beginning with owner Andrew Crossley and a couple of assistants, in order to cope with the huge amount of settlements the company grew out to employ around 16 people. Following the catastrophic email leak, those people have either left or been made redundant by the firm. Rising insurance costs have also taken their toll since the leak, from a low of £15,000 to a crippling high of £120,000.

Crossley did not deliver this welcome news to the court in person. While present in the court during the morning session, in common with last week’s hearing he claimed he needed to help family members who had been involved in a recent accident.

The court carried on with its afternoon session without him, with Judge Birss QC condemning the conduct of ACS:Law and MediaCAT, accusing the pair of “trying to minimise the amount of [judicial] scrutiny” placed on their work, a reference to the failed default judgment attempts earlier this year.

It has long been suspected that ACS:Law and MediaCAT pursued this “speculative invoicing” business purely for profit purposes. Judge Birss QC put it to MediaCAT that their attempt to withdraw the previously mentioned 26 cases was so that the scrutiny of “inconvenient judges” could be avoided which would enable them to go back to sending pay-up-or-else letters.

The ever problematic issue of MediaCAT not being the copyright holder of the works they seek settlement on raised its head again. Judge Birss QC asked MediaCAT’s barrister Tim Ludbrooke if he accepted that his client has no right to bring infringement proceedings without joining together with the copyright holders.

“There was little doubt among those present in the courtroom that MediaCAT was lacking the appropriate rights to proceed — which might include the step of discontinuation — alone,” BeingThreatened’s spokesman James Bench told TorrentFreak.

Judge Birss QC noted that if MediaCAT was allowed to discontinue the outstanding cases, it could simply pick up where it left off and continue sending letters. Then the rather inconvenient specter of GCB Limited raised its head.

As detailed in our earlier article, GCB Limited burst onto the scene a couple of weeks ago claiming to be MediaCAT’s new ‘agent’ in these settlement letters matters. ACS:Law, it was declared by company owner Andrew Crossley, had absolutely nothing to do with them.

GCB’s exit was as quick as their entry. The company controversially aborted their business with MediaCAT within a couple of days. Nevertheless, Judge Birss QC mentioned the company in court and this led to a revelation – Crossley was forced to admit that GCB Limited had been set up by two of his former employees.

“If I had a suspicion before, seeing the GCB letter makes it plain,” said Judge Birss QC.

“Aren’t you flirting with abuse of the court?” he asked MediaCAT, while going on to describe these events as “mind boggling”.

According to James Bench, things then took a turn for the bizarre. In an attempt to distance himself from the “inept” settlement letters, MediaCAT barrister Tim Ludbrook told the court: “I promise that I had no part in writing either of these documents,” a statement which led to laughter in the courtroom. Those present knew who had likely drafted them.

After five long hours, Judge Birss QC announced he would deliver his ruling later this week on whether or not MediaCAT can discontinue the cases without being joined by the copyright holders and whether there has indeed been an abuse of process.

“Solicitor Andrew Crossley’s statement that this work has brought him ‘immense hassle’ should sound alarm bells with others that might have considered similarly exploitative schemes,” said BeingThreatened’s James Bench in a statement last night.

“The problems he has brought upon himself however, pale into insignificance against the distress caused by the campaign of legal threats that he has carried on against innocent broadband account holders for his own personal profit.

“The speculative invoicing of Andrew Crossley and his counterparts which have dropped by the wayside, Davenport Lyons, Tilly Bailey Irvine and Gallant Macmillan, was never about protecting copyright; this was never about piracy. We have heard in court today about the 65% of proceeds that Mr Crossley earned from each letter of claim. This scheme was simply an attempt by Mr Crossley and his conspirators to get-rich-quick in an exploitative scheme where the vulnerable were targeted with unfounded accusations and demands for cash in settlement of claims which had no basis in law.

“In addition to his upcoming appearance at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal, Judge Birss will now also consider if Mr Crossley is guilty of entering into a champertous agreement with rights holders.

“The public, and today the justice system, have demonstrated that they will not tolerate
attempts by the greedy and unprincipled to bully the public for their own personal gain, and under the banner of copyright protection.”

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.