Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

For discussion of the threatened legal action surrounding the alleged filesharing of pornography, computer games and music. (Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK)
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

Welcome to this forum, should you have received a letter do not panic, read the threads and make a (hopefully more informed) decision on how you want to proceed.

To avoid repeating previous posts, please familiarise yourself with the following information before posting.

Summary site (BeingThreatened.com) and Chat (IRC) or Chat (WebClient)

Speculative invoicing and “pay up or else” schemes for copyright infringement - Citizen's Advice Bureau

Speculative Invoicing Handbook

I've received a letter, what should I do? and Davenport Lyons - What can we do as a group?

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:27 am

Thanks Mullard.

I know it is a revisit of previous discussions and not really able to change anything but many of the High Court NPOs were for disclosure from many ISPs at the same time. With the witness statement provided to them, if even one ISP objected to the witness statement, could that have progressed to further analysis of the evidence?

I don't know what may happen with the DEA and any chance of NPOs in the future, but if the witness statement is ever used again, I hope ISPs won't be so spineless as before.
bpaw
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:34 am

bpaw wrote:Thanks Mullard.

I know it is a revisit of previous discussions and not really able to change anything but many of the High Court NPOs were for disclosure from many ISPs at the same time. With the witness statement provided to them, if even one ISP objected to the witness statement, could that have progressed to further analysis of the evidence?

I don't know what may happen with the DEA and any chance of NPOs in the future, but if the witness statement is ever used again, I hope ISPs won't be so spineless as before.


The stereotypical NPO would cater of a situation where a claimant has a prima facie case against an unknown party and the objective is to identify that party, where the identity sought by the NPO is that of that party. I suspect that had the NPO's been applied for on a footing other than the subscriber being likely to be the party who personally conducted the infringement, then questions would have been asked which, in the event, were not.

The MediaCAT NPO's involved several copyright owners and it is arguable that the owners should have been joined for the purposes of the NPO and that a separate NPO would have been needed for each owner. But that is somewhat hypothetical. They only applied for NPO's where the ISP's did not contest, and worked on the footing that MediaCAT could proceed with an action in their sole name.

I imagine that the saga that went on in the PCC has not gone unnoticed and that any further NPO applications of this sort would be closely scrutinised. As HHJ Birss said, if the party whose identity is sought might not be the eventual defendant, than that is something that warrants further consideration at the NPO application stage. The matter is also referred to in this article Media CAT v Adams: the CAT that did not get the cream.

As to the DEA and similar legislation, the underlying issue is, as someone eloquently said, uncorroborated opinion is being accepted as fact in the absence of evidence. The government have made it clear that any "evidence" that is used as a basis of further legislation has got to be proper evidence which has been and/or is capable of peer review. In my opinion, the same should apply to the already enacted measures before they proceed any further with them.

I see that the Crossley hearing is before the same three who heard the DL case. See HERE.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby concerned100 » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:46 pm

And it's the same solicitor too.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:36 am

concerned100 wrote:And it's the same solicitor too.


I imagine that having handled the DL issue, they will be well versed from the matinee performance.

It will be interesting to see exactly what they are referring to when they said "Acted without integrity in that he provided false information in statements made to the Court."

Does anyone propose going to see what happens?
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Renegade » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:32 pm

http://www.chooseisp.co.uk/broadband-gu ... -lies.html

Still can't keep himself out of the press, even if only review articles.. looking forward to next weeks entertainment now.
Renegade
 
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 12:37 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby lymmranger » Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:50 am

Renegade wrote:http://www.chooseisp.co.uk/broadband-guide/news/acs-law-guide-filesharing-lies.html

Still can't keep himself out of the press, even if only review articles.. looking forward to next weeks entertainment now.


it would be nice if this hit ALL the mainstream press....

but what the hell - its a brilliant and fairly constructed article

....nice find (as usual Ren) :D :D :D
lymmranger
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:29 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:52 am

After the hearing, maybe they could consider Crossley for this available job with the SRA:

http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/jobs/disciplinary-and-litigation-adviser.page

A qualified solicitor or barrister, you will have significant experience of litigation in private practice or a regulatory environment and a knowledge of the Solicitors Act 1974, the Legal Services Act 2007 and the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. Excellent drafting, analytical and communication skills are key, as is a commitment to work as part of a team and the ability to work under pressure and to deadlines.

Maybe not.....
bpaw
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Hickster » Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:24 pm

Renegade wrote:http://www.chooseisp.co.uk/broadband-guide/news/acs-law-guide-filesharing-lies.html

Still can't keep himself out of the press, even if only review articles.. looking forward to next weeks entertainment now.


Aww my Blog ignored again :shock: Nevermind.

bpaw wrote:After the hearing, maybe they could consider Crossley for this available job with the SRA:

http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/jobs/disciplinary-and-litigation-adviser.page

A qualified solicitor or barrister, you will have significant experience of litigation in private practice or a regulatory environment and a knowledge of the Solicitors Act 1974, the Legal Services Act 2007 and the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. Excellent drafting, analytical and communication skills are key, as is a commitment to work as part of a team and the ability to work under pressure and to deadlines.

Maybe not.....


Well why not.....

One of the Ex ACS peeps are now here... http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/CareersHom ... Barrister/ (dont let the irony choke you lol)

And another is here.... http://myworld.ebay.co.uk/leyladelight/ (Leyla Mehru)

Roll on Monday 16th, been a long time comming to hear this fat person sing. He might even get a fine lol judging on past SDT findings... :puke:
Please feel free to email me at:
acs.bore@gmail.com

Read the BLOG Here
http://acsbore.wordpress.com

Faceless Keyboard Warrior
User avatar
Hickster
Faceless Keyboard Warrior
 
Posts: 1477
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:25 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Dustin_D_Lense » Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:27 am

Mullard47 wrote:I see that the Crossley hearing is before the same three who heard the DL case. See HERE.


I notice the expected duration of the substantive hearing is only 1 day.

Im sure the DL case was much longer and Im wondering if due to similarity and the fact much of the work was inherited from DL and case details already heard and ruled on, ie the panel are already up to speed on the nature of the case.
Dustin_D_Lense
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby concerned100 » Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:24 am

Interesting to see that the judge today deemed O'Dwyer's conduct to be a criminal offence here as well. Doesn't sound right but I'll have to have another look at some of the cases and the statute.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:45 pm

With GEIL, I smell something very similar to what might appear in Crossleys undies on Monday.

A snippet from GEIL abbreviated accounts filed by Mr Becker & Mr Honey 19/12/11 for FYE 31/03/11:

Image

I assume one share for Mr Becker and one share for Mr Honey.

A snippet from an allotment of shares (SH01) filed on 10/01/2012:

Image

Additional 98 shares totalling 100 shares at 1 GBP each.

No other real detail in the SH01 document, so no detail on shareholders. For what reason are additional shares allocated for a company who had utter failure in what seemed to be their primary purpose is a mystery to me.
bpaw
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:32 pm

bpaw wrote:With GEIL, I smell something very similar to what might appear in Crossleys undies on Monday.

A snippet from GEIL abbreviated accounts filed by Mr Becker & Mr Honey 19/12/11 for FYE 31/03/11:

Image

I assume one share for Mr Becker and one share for Mr Honey.

A snippet from an allotment of shares (SH01) filed on 10/01/2012:

Image

Additional 98 shares totalling 100 shares at 1 GBP each.

No other real detail in the SH01 document, so no detail on shareholders. For what reason are additional shares allocated for a company who had utter failure in what seemed to be their primary purpose is a mystery to me.


Maybe there was a share issue to raise capital to pay for the costs of the litigation, but it was undersubscribed.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby concerned100 » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:07 am

Mullard47 wrote:
concerned100 wrote:And it's the same solicitor too.


I imagine that having handled the DL issue, they will be well versed from the matinee performance.

It will be interesting to see exactly what they are referring to when they said "Acted without integrity in that he provided false information in statements made to the Court."

Does anyone propose going to see what happens?


Wonder if the SDT has instructed the same Counsel as for DL. Also will be interesting to see if Crossley defends himself having pleaded poverty. He could always tell his girlfriend or his mother or whoever owns it to sell the Bentley.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby DukePPUk » Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:45 pm

concerned100 wrote:Interesting to see that the judge today deemed O'Dwyer's conduct to be a criminal offence here as well. Doesn't sound right but I'll have to have another look at some of the cases and the statute.

There's only really one other case on this sort of thing, which is the unreported TV Links case (listed as R v Rock & Overton in the ruling). The two main issues are whether or not providing links to something are "communicating [it] to the public" (under s107(2A) CDPA) and what level of involvement in running the site is required to lose the 'mere conduit' etc. protections of the Electronic Commerce Directive. The judge seems to have ignored the first part, and found that the latter protections were probably lost (unlike in TV Links) due to users being "vetted" (which I'm told didn't actually happen). However, they're appealing the case on that point.

Also, for anyone interested, the Digital Economy Act Judicial Review is in the Court of Appeal today (10.30am Court 68). It doesn't look like I'm going to make it, but I imagine someone will be tweeting from it.
DukePPUk
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:45 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby concerned100 » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:39 am

What I found unusual was that the judge was prepared to rule that the alleged offence was criminal.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby DukePPUk » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:43 am

That's not particularly unusual in that it just takes a broad interpretation of s107(2A) CDPA, and a narrow interpretation of the e-Commerce Directive. Reading the ruling, I get the feeling that he might have made his decision on principle (i.e. "someone making quite a bit of money running a website dedicated to copyright infringement should be punished") and then fit his interpretation of the law around that. However, I imagine he realised that whichever way he ruled the case would end up in the High Court.
DukePPUk
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:45 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:20 am

As regards Crossley, word is that he has admitted all of the allegations except for the one about false information being provided to the court.

http://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23acslaw

I wonder if those admissions are qualified by an "on their interpretation of the rules" proviso?
Last edited by Mullard47 on Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby steveh » Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:21 am

SDT in full swing. Crossley admits charges 1 to 6, but not allegation 7 relating to the data breaches.

In defence about the data breaches he said that it was as a result of being attacked by 700 criminals and fault of his ISP that left backup on the server. Said that Terrance Tsang chose the ISP.

Adjourned to consider verdict on data breaches charge.

Next up will be Crossley giving mitigation on the charges he admits to.
steveh
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:59 am

Can anyone clarify what the charges actually are. I don't recall there being any charge relating to the data breach at all, and I would be surprised if referring to what happened with his web site as "hacking" in his resignation letter at the PCC would be considered "false information" such as to be a charge in its own right.

The charges, as stated at the time, were:-

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.

7) Acted without integrity in that he provided false information in statements made to the Court.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Countalucard » Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:06 am

steveh wrote:SDT in full swing. Crossley admits charges 1 to 6, but not allegation 7 relating to the data breaches.

In defence about the data breaches he said that it was as a result of being attacked by 700 criminals and fault of his ISP that left backup on the server. Said that Terrance Tsang chose the ISP.

Adjourned to consider verdict on data breaches charge.

Next up will be Crossley giving mitigation on the charges he admits to.



Pah.

He named himself as data controller without regard for the responsibilities that entails. It's one thing being in charge of a butty shop with a six hundred strong mailing list and another to have financial, address, unfounded allegations of 20000+ people.

If he didn't want to get the flak he should have either done the job properly or appointed someone competent (not you tezza) to do the job properly.

Not that i am too pissed about this, it his own incompetence and hubris that brought this mess to the ground so quickly - and for that we should be grateful. Imagine if he was a half decent solicitor.
Countalucard
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:29 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby steveh » Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:38 am

Mullard47 wrote:
7) Acted without integrity in that he provided false information in statements made to the Court.[/i]

This one got dropped by SRA. The additional one of the data breaches was added recently, which he denied.

The data charges was proven.

Then he gave his mitigating circumstances for all the charges, and tribunal will resume at 2: 30 to announce their findings.


Edit 2:55 and they are still deliberating
steveh
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby steveh » Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:12 am

Crossley suspended for 2 years from today and to pay costs of 76,326.55
steveh
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby tohellwithDL » Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:37 am

What was the 55p for? :D
User avatar
tohellwithDL
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:39 am

tohellwithDL wrote:What was the 55p for? :D


A packet of tissues?
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Countalucard » Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:59 am

steveh wrote:Crossley suspended for 2 years from today and to pay costs of 76,326.55



Is this a proper fine that he has to pay or does his bankruptcy prevent him sticking his hands in his pocket?
Countalucard
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:29 am

PreviousNext

Return to Torrent Download Court Action Threat/Settlement Letter Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com