Quote:
|
ACS:Law, the much-criticised scaremongering law firm, is famous for firing out thousands of threatening letters to alleged file sharers. The firm has previously tried to squeeze settlements out of accused people rather than going to trial. But this week it did actually try to take eight cases to court – but all were dismissed by the judge.
|
Quote:
But a judge in the Patent County Court this week threw all eight cases out of court.
In three cases a defence had been filed so there was no way a default judgement would be granted.
In three other cases there was no evidence that the claim had been served on the defendant.
In the two remaining cases, ACS:Law had failed to make a formal application – which the judge believed was necessary to get a default judgement.
Judge Birss also expressed strong doubts about ACS:Law's claims.
Firstly, he questioned whether the law firm could even really represent the owners of copyright – only the owner or a licensee has the right to pursue such a case.
Secondly, he said it was uncertain that the owner of an unsecured Wi-Fi connection could be held responsible for any copyright infringement that might take place over that connection.
Thirdly, he questioned the accusation that possessing such an insecure internet connection was the same as "allowing" copyright infringement. The term used in the act is "authorising".
|
I bolded that last one, cos I think it's really quite important...
I find it interesting that a law firm, so sure that the things they are doing are proper and simply up-holding the law (like some here) can't even win a single case out of 8,
where not a single defendant was present or represented!
the judgement can be found here: bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2010/17.html