Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

[Mullard47]

It would be interesting to know if he is the same Adam Glen who co-authored the conference paper that is listed HERE. The title of the paper is "Regulation of Online Infringement of Copyright - No Risk of Penalty for Infringers, No Avenue for Protection for Copyright Owners" [Andrea Cerevkova and Adam Glen, Department of Law & Criminology, Edge Hill University] and the tenor of the abstract suggests that the paper is questioning whether it is possible at all for copyright owners to control on-line infringement or whether it would be better to abandon that quest and seek alternative business models.

There was an Adam Glen at Edge Hill University who graduated with an LLB in 2010 (See HERE), and the Adam Glen at ACS did at about that time refer to having lost access to Westlaw and LexisNexis and was trying to find someone with access to a an Athens account. The loss of that sort of access would be consistent with someone finishing as an undergraduate, although that director info would put him in his late 50's. Of course, the Adam Glen at ACS was based in Liverpool, but that doesn't mean it is the same person.

It might well be a co-incidence of names. I believe that Crossley referred somewhere to his AG as some sort of bright trainee, and it would be a bit late in life to be working in London, based in Liverpool, doing a degree etc. and training to be a solicitor. Also, that house might have been rented and owned by someone else.

[Stressed_Out]

Came across these references to an Adam Glen a while back:

http://www.bnap.tv/OurPeople/meet.html
click on his photo for overview.

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1ntdt/ ... ces/17.htm
AG at Cannes.

BskyB CEO:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/b ... iptv-22654

Are these links in any way connected?????

[jsx]

Came across these references to an Adam Glen a while back:

http://www.bnap.tv/OurPeople/meet.html
click on his photo for overview.

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1ntdt/ ... ces/17.htm
AG at Cannes.

BskyB CEO:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/b ... iptv-22654

Are these links in any way connected?????

Hi Stressed, I'm pretty sure that Adam Glen from Stranger Films isn't the same Adam Glen connected to ACS:Law.

[Mullard47]

Although "Adam Glen" is not a common name, there are quite a few of them in the UK. The interest would be if the ACS man was the co-author of that paper, because of the contrast between the assertions made at ACS, and the different outlook in the paper.

But, as I have said above, if it is the same person, there would be a number of very unusual features about it, and it might be co-incidence. Also, it cannot be assumed that the 2010 graduate is the co-author of the paper. The information could collectively relate to three AG's.

[bpaw]

Mr Clem "Expert Witness" Vogler website is back up and running.

http://www.adlitem.co.uk/

[Stressed_Out]

Sorry guys, I'm having difficulty with the Adam Glen issue.

http://www.getoto.net/noise/category/acslaw/
TorrentFreak Article: Suing Blind and One Legged Pirates is Bad PR

It states that Adam Glen (spelled with double 'n' - taken from the then SRA investigation) is/was a 'Supervisor' at Davenport-Lyons.

Then in this link below

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/productsan ... 68.article
4. Regulatory requirements

It implies that a 'Supervisor' should be a Qualified Solicitor.

Maybe we are being distracted in an effort to track his whereabouts because of the mis-spelling of his name.
Which one is correct - Glen or Glenn???

It is further compounded by the convention in submitting technical papers for review/presentation.
If I remember correctly the Supervising/person commissioned to research the subject - the senior academic - his/her name - appears first on such submissions.
All very confusing!!!! - as it offers no clue as to whether Glen/Glenn is the same person associated with 'Fat-Andy' - is or is not a qualified solicitor or a student.

Any thoughts???

[jsx]

Although "Adam Glen" is not a common name, there are quite a few of them in the UK. The interest would be if the ACS man was the co-author of that paper, because of the contrast between the assertions made at ACS, and the different outlook in the paper.

But, as I have said above, if it is the same person, there would be a number of very unusual features about it, and it might be co-incidence. Also, it cannot be assumed that the 2010 graduate is the co-author of the paper. The information could collectively relate to three AG's.

Hi Mullard, when the post was made on TF re A.Cerevkova and A.Glen it was assuming that Cerevkova had found somebody from the legal field who was willing to co-operate in writing a paper about file sharing. It wasn't known at the time that that the co-author A. Glen was at or had studied at Edge Hill too, but as you've proved in an earlier post somebody with that name did graduate from Edge Hill.
However is it the same A.Glen who worked at Davenport Lyons and ACS:Law. Could he have been at Edge Hill and freelancing for DL & ACS, or maybe the other way round, working for DL & ACS but continuing studies at Edge Hill ? Remote or part time working for either one or both.

There is in the leak however an email from Glen to Crossley identifying a weakness in Crossley's plan to identify infringers by linking them to an IP address. See "Heads of Action available against Internet Account Holders" at 16/08/2010 14:49
The email starts "Andrew

Please find attached my analysis of the existing case law that supports action against an internet account holder for the infringement of ACS Law’s client’s copyright by way of the internet account holder’s internet connection.

It may not make comfortable reading and it may result in a change of the legal justification of the business model presented to a client of ACS Law. "
There is a 5 page word document attached to the email detailing Glen's views.

Adam Glen is on Skype too as adam.glen52 giving a birthday of 30th January 1952 and a location of Liverpool which ties in with info available about the dissolved company Adam Glen Limited.

[Mullard47]

Although "Adam Glen" is not a common name, there are quite a few of them in the UK. The interest would be if the ACS man was the co-author of that paper, because of the contrast between the assertions made at ACS, and the different outlook in the paper.

But, as I have said above, if it is the same person, there would be a number of very unusual features about it, and it might be co-incidence. Also, it cannot be assumed that the 2010 graduate is the co-author of the paper. The information could collectively relate to three AG's.

Hi Mullard, when the post was made on TF re A.Cerevkova and A.Glen it was assuming that Cerevkova had found somebody from the legal field who was willing to co-operate in writing a paper about file sharing. It wasn't known at the time that that the co-author A. Glen was at or had studied at Edge Hill too, but as you've proved in an earlier post somebody with that name did graduate from Edge Hill.
However is it the same A.Glen who worked at Davenport Lyons and ACS:Law. Could he have been at Edge Hill and freelancing for DL & ACS, or maybe the other way round, working for DL & ACS but continuing studies at Edge Hill ? Remote or part time working for either one or both.

There is in the leak however an email from Glen to Crossley identifying a weakness in Crossley's plan to identify infringers by linking them to an IP address. See "Heads of Action available against Internet Account Holders" at 16/08/2010 14:49
The email starts "Andrew

Please find attached my analysis of the existing case law that supports action against an internet account holder for the infringement of ACS Law’s client’s copyright by way of the internet account holder’s internet connection.

It may not make comfortable reading and it may result in a change of the legal justification of the business model presented to a client of ACS Law. "
There is a 5 page word document attached to the email detailing Glen's views.

Adam Glen is on Skype too as adam.glen52 giving a birthday of 30th January 1952 and a location of Liverpool which ties in with info available about the dissolved company Adam Glen Limited.

I think that it has to be "Glen" and not "Glenn" purely on the basis of the internal emails and so on. I imagine that "Glenn" is a misspelling.

So you have:-

The Guy who worked at ACS who is associated with that address in Liverpool, and where Liverpool is referred to as to where he was based.

The student who graduated with a 1st in law in 2010.

The co-author of that paper.

The Guy at that address who is the company director, aged 59/60 and associated with that Skype etc.

Also, you have the leaked data that, in the summer of 2010, the ACS guy no longer had access to Westlaw/LexisNexis and was looking for someone with an Athens account, but also referred to his copy of Clark & Lindsell being from 2006.

Given those associations etc. it would be remarkable if there were four Adam Glens involved. Having said that, if there is only one, then you are talking about a mature student starting a law degree in his mid 50's at a university in Liverpool, and getting a first whilst working at DL and then ACS, who is subsequently involved in that paper.

I wonder if there are two related Adam Glens (father/son?) where one is the paralegal and the other the student?

But even then, if someone either gained a 1st themselves, or their son etc. did, why no reference to it in the office emails?

The possibilities are endless.

[Hickster]

The possibilities are endless.

Well lets just use "Occams Razor" and say they are the same guy!

[unclet]

Firstly, I wish all a belated happy new year!!
I may not have joined in most posts but, have tried when possible to do "catch up". I was happy to see that crossley got his at last, maybe not as much as I would have liked to have seen but still it is punishment, he is going to hurt for a while at least.
I suppose he will be releasing his CD soon because the "FAT LADY HAS SUNG!!!!!!!"
I believe its titled " I'M A ER, I'M A ER

[StripeyMiata]

Was clearing up my Outlook archive file and saw I had RSS Feeds archived, and one with the original post announcing ACS:LAw from their RSS Feed. Thought I'd post it for historical reasons.

Terencetsang1982@googlemail.com (Administrator)

Sat 07/07/2007 10:54

ACS:Law Solicitors

Welcome to ACS:Law Solicitors. We are a law firm which specialises in assisting intellectual property rights holders exploit and enforce their rights globally. Illegal file sharing costs the creative industries billions of pounds every year. The impact of this is huge, resulting in job losses, declining profit margins and reduced investment in product development. Action needs to be taken and we believe a coordinated effort is needed now, before irreparable damage is done.

We have developed effective and unique methods for organisations to enforce their intellectual rights. By working effectively with forensic IT experts, law firms and anti-piracy organisations, we seek to eliminate the illegal distribution of copyrighted material through our revolutionary business model. Whilst many companies offer anti-piracy measures, these are often costly and ineffective. Our approach is quite the opposite, it generates revenue for rights holders and effectively decreases copyright infringement in a measurable and sustainable way.

We offer high quality advice and excellent client care by delivering a thorough and reliable service. If you are interested in our services, please contact us for a no obligation consultation.

[Mullard47]

With hindsight, the only bit of that statement by Crossley that has stood the test of time is the bit about anti-piracy measures being costly and ineffective.

For a more accurate analysis of what he was up to, see the SDT judgment HERE.

It is interesting to see that the retainers he had with some clients for this type of work explicitly excluded court action.

[Renegade]

Nah, I'm sure Judge Birss would still agree that their methods are 'unique' too.

[concerned100]

With hindsight, the only bit of that statement by Crossley that has stood the test of time is the bit about anti-piracy measures being costly and ineffective.

For a more accurate analysis of what he was up to, see the SDT judgment HERE.

It is interesting to see that the retainers he had with some clients for this type of work explicitly excluded court action.

After all this time, it's good to see things summarised by the SDT in one document. Although I'm sure there will be solicitors etc. out there who still think Crossley was just doing his job and that if recipients of LoCs were 'distressed', that was their problem. Interesting to see all the flaws in the LoCs summarised in one place.

[Dustin_D_Lense]

Ive cheen checking every week or so and just spotted that the SDt has now posted the Crossley judgement online

http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/Co ... ossley.pdf

[factual]

I particularly like this pleasingly blunt statement of fact:

91.12 Many of the Letters of Claim stated that the Respondent’s client had evidence that the recipient had made the copyright available when it did not.

<snip>

Neither MCAT nor the Respondent had evidence that the “Work” had been made available.

Now tell us something we didn't know.

[jsx]

Well well well. Terence Tsang aka Terence Jintin of PSB-Law http://www.psb-law.co.uk/pagess/member-6/ gets his own mention in the SDT Judgment.
"24. During an inspection visit on 11 June 2009, the Respondent confirmed that the letters sent to the original four clients (RP, T, DP and T2) had been prepared by Firm A. The retainer letters for the firm's new clients (MCAT and YP) had been prepared by TT
who was a paralegal in the firm. The letters sent to each of the clients were effectively the same."

One to keep out of the CV eh Terence ?
-----------------
So on further consideration, the SDT charges 1.4 & 1.5, do they apply to the Client retainer letters which in the case of Media Cat and "YP" were actually authored by Terence Tsang ?

Oh yes and a lot of the early part of the document mentions firm "A", which I presume is Davenport Lyons to whom Crossley was paying a license fee to use the "business model" as exposed in the Davenport Lyons SDT Judgment.

------------------------------
OK a bit more...... a pretty good summary of Crossley's "legal blackmail scam".

"91.5 It was the Applicant’s case that the Letters of Claim and subsequent correspondence to the alleged infringers were misleading in a number of respects and were calculated to pressurise or intimidate the recipients into paying the settlement sum demanded regardless of whether or not they were liable for the alleged infringement(s). As a result of the letter writing campaign, the Respondent had received payments from alleged infringers totalling at least £936,000 and had received for himself at least £341,000."

------------------------------
LB = Lee Bowden.
"44. The company MCAT was owned and operated by an existing client of the Respondent named LB."
Why don't the SDT just name these people ?

[sradude]

So what's the score with Terence Tsang now working under the name of Terence Jintin?

Has he changed his name by deed poll, to hide his past failings? (I wonder if his new employer is aware of his activities?)

[Hickster]

So what's the score with Terence Tsang now working under the name of Terence Jintin?

Has he changed his name by deed poll, to hide his past failings? (I wonder if his new employer is aware of his activities?)

Jintin is his middle name Terence J Tsang

It is interesting read the SRA findings as it does prove there was NO evidence that was held by ACS:LAW and yet in a twitter leak that was sent to me Terence quite clearly stated that they had evidence that would be produced in court. LIAR

And yes PSB LAW are well aware of Terences activities, they just dont care, indeed they approve of them, as seen in the character reference that PSB LAW partner Eddie Parladorio gave for Andrew Crossley at the hearing.

[sradude]

So what's the score with Terence Tsang now working under the name of Terence Jintin?

Has he changed his name by deed poll, to hide his past failings? (I wonder if his new employer is aware of his activities?)

Jintin is his middle name Terence J Tsang

It is interesting read the SRA findings as it does prove there was NO evidence that was held by ACS:LAW and yet in a twitter leak that was sent to me Terence quite clearly stated that they had evidence that would be produced in court. LIAR

And yes PSB LAW are well aware of Terences activities, they just dont care, indeed they approve of them, as seen in the character reference that PSB LAW partner Eddie Parladorio gave for Andrew Crossley at the hearing.

So do we assume that PSB LAW is most definitely another firm to keep a very close eye on, regarding the DL/ACS file sharing model?

[bpaw]

I think the speculative invoicing scam truly died with the Crossley SDT judgement.

I always thought that lowlife was the epitome of the scam, but realised his defence at his SDT was truly pitiful. A bit like the “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” man in the Wizard Of Oz.

So much was attempted last year to rectify the scam. GBC Ltd, GEIL, 100milemedia, wal-sca etc.

It is interesting that if you ping www.100milemedia.co.uk and www.wal-sca.co.uk, you get the same virtual server IP address of 68.178.232.100. Good coincidence!

I think with Terence Traitor Tsang, he was always ever the trainee. I think PSB is a path along the way to get his solicitor qualifications.

[jsx]

So, the SDT Judgment concludes that neither Media Cat or ACS:law had any proof of anyone making the works available over P2P networks. How does that leave Chief Master Winegarten who granted the NPOs ? Why did he grant the NPOs if ACS:law and Media Cat didn't have any evidence ? Would a competent judge allow himself to be hoodwinked by Crossley and Bowden.

Also does this SDT Judgment leave the door open to any private prosecutions against those involved in the scam ?

[Mullard47]

So, the SDT Judgment concludes that neither Media Cat or ACS:law had any proof of anyone making the works available over P2P networks. How does that leave Chief Master Winegarten who granted the NPOs ? Why did he grant the NPOs if ACS:law and Media Cat didn't have any evidence ? Would a competent judge allow himself to be hoodwinked by Crossley and Bowden.

Also does this SDT Judgment leave the door open to any private prosecutions against those involved in the scam ?

Even if the evidence was accurate, and the IP/timestamp was correctly mapped, all that could be said was that PART of a work had been made available to the investigator. Whether or not that amounted to copyright infringement would have been subject to further argument and evidence as to whether it was a substantial part.

The reality of the matter was that the claimant had no idea who had conducted the alleged infringement, and had no evidence at all that could link the use of the connection to the alleged infringing copy of the work on the perpetrator's computer.

The evidence, if accurate, could merely lead to the identification of the bill payer for the connection, and show that the connection had been used for a purpose which MIGHT amount to copyright infringement. (This is an aspect of the law which the Digital Economy Act code would have to get to grips with. On the face of it, the evidence that the draft code requires to be produced is potentially arguably insufficient to demonstrate that an infringement has actually taken place.)

As regards the High Court, on the face of it, the judges were misled. They were told that it was likely that the subscriber was the person who had personally conducted the alleged infringement. This was commented on by HHJ Birss in the MediaCAT case HERE at paras. 53-56. And in para 135 of the Davenport Lyons SDT hearing, it says "He agreed that the Norwich Pharmacal application referred to a prima facie case that the subscribers associated with the IP addresses had copied the work onto their personal or office computer without permission for the purpose of making it available on a file sharing website.

It appears from the SDT and MediaCAT judgements that unsustainable assertions had been made in the High Court which had made their way into NPO's (where the court had not tested those assertions), and the mere fact that those assertions had got that far somehow became the justification for the action that followed. I suspect that similarly bad assertions have been assumed to be valid and formed the basis of some of the content of the DEA.

We know that BT went back to the High Court and, as regards MediaCAT, Digiprotect and Ministry of Sound, all of the outstanding obligations on the ISP's were set aside. It would be very interesting to see exactly what went on in that process.

The ISP's who were party to the NPO's in question have access to all of the paperwork and evidence that was produced, and it is they who would be in a position to re-open the question of whether the court was misled in a criminal sense. Somehow, I don't see that happening.

[Hickster]

Just for the archives really!

Daryl Blake

Terence "Jintin" Tsang

Oh and guys, before you delete the images as has been done before, know that they are "Archived"

[concerned100]

I think Terence may be due to finish his training contract shortly and take up life as a solicitor