Featured Articles

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

Research firm IHS got hold of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone and took it apart to the last bolt to figure out…

More...
Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Samsung’s Galaxy S5 has finally gone on sale and it can be yours for €699, which is quite a lot of…

More...
Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel has added a load of Haswell refresh parts to its official price list and there really aren’t any surprises to…

More...
Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

During his appearance at PAX East panel and confirmed on Twitter, Titanfall developer Respawn confirmed that the first DLC pack for…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Friday, 10 December 2010 11:06

Anti-file-sharing lawyer out of his depth

Written by Nick Farell
y_lawbookhammer

After all those letters
Andrew Crossley, the UK lawyer behind controversial P2P settlement letter firm ACS: Law, has finally taken someone to court rather than just threaten them.

However the high-profile case in the UK has not gone very well. Crossley wanted default judgements in each case, but the England and Wales Patents County Court refused to give him any money and appears to have sent him packing.

Judge Birss said that in three of the eight cases, the defendant has responded and requests for judgement should never have been filed. In three other cases the court saw no evidence that the defendants were even notified of the case against them. Crossley failed to check before filing the default judgement claim.

Two defendants were notified and failed to file any response, so they are in default. Normally Crossley would have won but his filing was so full of holes that the judge refused to award him cash even in these cases.

Judge Birss did not think that Media CAT, even has the right to sue claims can only be brought by the rightsholder or by an exclusive licensee. Crossley thought that the person he has named in each lawsuit should be responsible for file-sharing, even if a child or a friend or a someone from the neighbouring apartment used their Internet connection.

The Judge said that Crossley was wrong and says that the law speaks only about "authorising" copyright infringement. If such infringement was committed over someone's Internet connection without authorisation, it's not clear that the Internet subscriber is responsible.

The judge concludes that the nature of the allegations made in the Particulars of Claim are such that “it would be unfortunate if it were possible to obtain a default judgement without notice" to the defendant. Copyright owners appear to not have won a single case in the UK where the internet subscriber has contested the evidence in a full hearing.

Nick Farell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
+17 #1 Warhead 2010-12-10 11:19
This was a well written article. Well done Nick!
 
 
+15 #2 Warhead 2010-12-10 11:20
In fact, could you also start writting about ATI cards as well :D ?
 
 
+4 #3 Fud_u 2010-12-11 01:31
"Copyright owners appear to not have won a single case in the UK"

Amen, Thou shalt not be a D!iK about it.
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments