High-Profile, High Damages File-Sharing ‘Conviction’ Was a Farce
Written by enigmax on September 26, 2010In 2008, lawyers Davenport Lyons courted the mainstream media with the news that a court had found a woman guilty of sharing the game Dream Pinball 3D, an action which cost her around £16,000. Anyone with an understanding of these cases knew that something was wrong and now, thanks to yet more information from the leaked ACS:Law emails, we learn that this ‘conviction’ was built on foundations of sand.
In August 2008, we read the news here at TorrentFreak in disbelief. The BBC was reporting that Topware Interactive had won more than £16,000 following legal action against Isabella Barwinska of London, who shared a copy of their game Dream Pinball 3D using P2P.
“The damages and costs ordered by the Court are significant and should act as a deterrent,” said David Gore, a partner at Davenport Lyons who pioneered the “pay up or else” schemes multiplying in the UK and elsewhere.
Had the UK gone mad? £16,000 for sharing a single game? Why hadn’t we heard about this case in advance? Surely this wasn’t a ‘proper’ defended case? According to the “independent” IP barrister David Harris quoted by the BBC, it was just that.
“This is a proper Intellectual Property (IP) court that has made this judgement,” said Harris. “The previous ones were default judgements where defendants never turned up.”
So who exactly was this David Harris and who prompted him to make this announcement to the BBC? We don’t know, but one thing is certain – something felt wrong with his comments.
The hearing in the IP court meant the case had been rigorously analysed and the law properly understood, said Mr Harris, as quoted by the BBC. “It’s a much more interesting case in that respect,” he said.
It was indeed interesting, but for all the wrong reasons. It has long been suspected that far from it being a contested case, Miss Barwinska never turned up to defend herself and we now know for sure that she didn’t. Contested case? Not at all Mr Harris, whoever you are. There was absolutely zero defense.
Nevertheless, in common with Davenport Lyons before them, ACS:Law used the Barwinska ‘precedent’ in their ‘marketing’ to show what happens to people who choose not to settle for a few hundred pounds and cases end up in court.
But far from being a perfect illustration of a successfully litigated case, according to an advisor to ACS:Law’s Andrew Crossley the entire process was built on perilously weak foundations that only stood up because there was no defense. How do we know? From the emails that ACS:Law accidentally published on their website last week, of course.
In an email dated 19th August 2010, Adam Glen, who advises Andrew Crossley at ACS:Law, explained to him in no uncertain terms how weak the Barwinska case was.
He began with a statement that we have known to be true for a long time – it is almost impossible to prove damages to a copyright holder beyond an infringer making a single copy of a work on his hard drive. Under UK law, this is a big deal as damages awarded must reflect a proven loss.
“Unfortunately, except for Barwinska, there have been no cases involving P2P based infringement, except for those involving statutory damages, which provide some direction as to the method of calculation,” wrote Glen to Crossley.
“I have always been [of] the view that Barwinska is a difficult judgement and should not be relied upon for a number of reasons.”
The Barwinska case has always been completely shrouded in mystery, but Glen clearly knows it inside out. The reasons he gives for not relying on it are listed below and make quite remarkable reading:
a. The claim was not defended so there was no challenge to the submissions by Davenport Lyons
b. The court accepted the Davenport Lyons quantum calculation without challenge
c. The model submitted by Davenport Lyons was based upon, in my opinion, an extremely poor understanding of the underlying technology of P2P interaction
d. The Davenport Lyons model, in my opinion, failed to apply accepted and fundamental mathematical principals in its calculation, including queuing theory, and would have difficulty in passing an applied mathematics assessment if submitted in an “A level” statistics paper.
e. There are a number of factors in any model for calculation of the quantum of damage resulting from a making available via P2P which it is impossible for the monitoring software to establish and the model relies upon unsubstantiated, and in some cases erroneous logic, assumptions.
f. There are a number of factors in any model for calculation of the quantum of damage resulting from a making available via P2P which, for technical and commercial reasons, that the monitoring software fails to record and the model relies upon unsubstantiated, and in some cases erroneous logic, assumptions.
g. There are a number of factors in any model for calculation of the quantum of damage resulting from a making available via P2P which, for commercial reasons, means that legal disclosure has not been requested that could substantiate the multipliers and the model relies upon unsubstantiated assumptions based upon seriously flawed logic, to complete other assumptions necessary for predictive analytics and the quantum is predicated on the results of all these assumptions.
h. The Davenport Lyons model was developed by a person with no academic qualifications or experience, of a technical or mathematical nature, that would be accepted by the courts as being of a standard sufficient to be classified as “Expert”.
And Glen’s damning assessment goes even further.
“I believe that Barwinska should not be used as a reference to justify a quantum of damages as, it is my opinion that, a first year undergraduate learning applied statistics could easily challenge the model to a level which would create sufficient doubt in the court’s mind that the court would ignore or substantially discount the Davenport Lyons model. This may also risk the courts view of other evidence,” he told Crossley, adding:
“Barwinska might make nice headline reading but it has, in my opinion, about as much legal force as a Sun newspaper headline regarding the licentious behaviour of a D list celebrity.”
Glen then goes on to explain in detail that it is hugely problematic to prove any damages to rightsholders other than the single copy an infringer has on their machine and being made available on BitTorrent.
“Even this is problematic as the monitoring software was the agent of the rightsholder and therefore no damage can be established,” he notes.
“Because of all of these factors I believe that it would be extremely difficult to establish with any accuracy that there has been sharing except with the monitoring system which is an action by the infringer for which no damages can be accrued.”
Just in case you missed that – “no damages can be accrued.”
“Therefore, it is my belief that the rights holder can only rely on the damage resulting from making a single copy of the work in infringement of the rights granted to the rightsholder under s16(a) of the CDPA 1988.”
So, while Andrew Crossley talks of people making available his clients’ copyright works to “potentially thousands” of other people, according to his advisor he can’t even prove a single filesharing-related infringement which results in a loss.
Furthermore, while he also endlessly speaks of taking cases to court (but never does), we now know why. It’s just too damn risky, costly and for what best result?
Recovering the price of a single DVD or music track.
Previously: Leaked Emails Reveal Profits of Anti-Piracy Cash Scheme
Next: Top 10 Most Pirated Movies on BitTorrent
117 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Operation payback website:
http://3.ly/8hra/
Destroy these freaks of nature called lawyers!Countersue an put them out of business the sooner the better.oh wait lol!!I think that was accomplished life is grand:P
And another uppercut….! Great work TF and Slyck.com
ARGHH
Good stuff. let’s all keep it coming.
Remember though. take the moral high ground. It may be fun to mock Crossley and his current situation but we should not see this as a means to destroy the man but as a step on the road to having this particularly distasteful means of obtaining monies by menaces and speculative invoicing eventually brought to an end.
I feel that this will be achieved by maintaining the pressure on ACS so that the SRA are forced to act. If Crossley is prevented from practising ( his staff have been so concerned about the SRA that they are leaving in droves lest this destroy their fledgling careers) and his staff struck off then it can only serve as a deterrent to others thinking this is the next ‘no win no fee’ money-go-round.
Lawyers & and their tricks… Don’t be fooled, they are ALL the same.
Yes, I hate lawyers, if you don’t, you are probably one, or, you are planning to be one.
Only thing worse then a lawyer, is a lawyer gone politic. Those, are the scum of this world. How many do you know of those?
Bah…
This was a very illuminating email. There have been a lot of questions over the Barwinska case, with one of the main barriers being that the judgment to the case (i.e. the details) was only made available to the solicitors involved – and as it seems the case wasn’t contested that meant only Davenport Lyons and anyone they decided to share the information with.
Now we see that they obviously have shared the information with others (including this supervisor) but have obviously restricted it as this information is very damaging to their business model.
On the other hand, it is nice to see that even ACS people agree that the level of damages in these cases should be the “lost profits” for one sharing, if that. Something that we have suspected for a while now.
about time… ffs
Here is a countdown to the next three attacks. The site also contains a news archive and details on how to set up DoS client and LOIC.
http://leetbaka.com/tpb
@5 fook that, burying that asshat is a mere by-product of what they have coming to them.
J.
cannon cocked and ready to fire…..
So based upon the above article, where there are serious doubts as to the likelyhood of a victory in a court of law of any of ACS’s cases and their reluctance to actually prosecute in court, does that bring this back into play legally? (from 8of9′s post on slyck.com)
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=44092&start=9750
Malicious Communications Act 1988
Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
(1)Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—
(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii)a threat; or
(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
(2)A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows—
(a)that the threat was used to reinforce a demand made by him on reasonable grounds; and
(b)that he believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
This is great to finally nail the Barwinska myth. We all knew it was bullshit and now we have solid proof. Plus, this pretty much makes Andrew Crossley a liar.
I just can’t fucking believe that the major news org’s here in the uk haven’t picked up on this yet. I guess there is no easy way to make a fancy, attention grabbing headline that neatly sums up what has happened to Andrew Crossley’s little money making scam.
Hundreds and even thousands of years ago there were laws like “chop the hand of the thief” or “cut off the head of the architect, who built a house that collapsed and killed the owner(s)”. I do believe that if these laws start gaining popularity once more, the first guys for the chop should be those fat greedy pigs. :)
Prank Calls,
http://soundcloud.com/kan3
eNjOy!
shitstorm is on, oh yeah
Lying is part of lawyer training.
Only brings to my mind that awesome quote from Doc Brown in Back to the Future part 2:
“Justice moves a lot faster in the future. Now that they’ve abolished Lawyers.”
So why are ACS:Law demanding £495 for an offense that they know is worth like £4.95?
I read that email prior but it is great to see expert response.
‘Temporarily redacted target due to technical difficulties with the IRC. We are also being DDoS’d simultaneously, the moment the DDoS on afact started. Good news is, though, we did take afact down…for about a minute. Please hold fire until technical difficulties are resolved and a target is reissued. Thank you for your patience. -09/26/2010 4:18 PM EST.’
The Buggers be shooting back!
@16 A good lawyer never lies.
Layers are taught how to get people to infer a lie without actually saying anything that is untrue.
Andrew J Crossley is available to discuss your concerns about his legitimate struggle to beat piracy and ensure the artists get what they deserve.
For a confidential chat anytime, please call 01403 753 759
Press are more than welcome.
If he is not available or busy then a representative will help you.
If you prefer to write a letter instead then the address is
Mr. Andrew J Crossley
5 Oak Way
Ifold, Loxwood
BILLINGSHURST
West Sussex
RH14 0RU
United Kingdom
Our website is very popular therefore unavailable at this time so we would urge you to please call or write as per above.
Please do not send template letters as they are annoying and we have seen thousands of them already.
@19 (yes my own!)
The scum are using ‘illegal’ methods to counteract – this means they are equally guilty of the crime!
Lovin’ it!
Contact numbers for Mr Andrew J. Crossley of ACS:LAW
Direct line at work 0203 178 6806
Home phone number out of hours 01403 753 759
Cellphone 07816 990073
@12, by The Doctor
OMG! I hadn’t thought of that. That’s an arrestable criminal offence. They might – just – be able to weasel out of an actual prosecution, but there’s no question that if anonymous – or, better yet, someone brave enough to give their name – reports them to the authorities, the police will have to – at the very least – detain and question Crossley and his staff.
On the the basis of the leaked information in this one blog-entry alone, it must surely be the case that it will be years before he can practise law again, if ever.
He really has destroyed himself.
Information!!!!
** Contact numbers for Mr Andrew J. Crossley of ACS:LAW **
Direct line at work 0203 178 6806
Home phone number out of hours 01403 753 759
Cellphone 07816 990073
TF? can we have a sticky on the Operation Payback Status or a Permalink to check?
curious now as to whether Miss Barwinska is entitled to appeal or if she would even want to? if there is a chance that she could get a reasonable amount back from Davenport Lyons, even if it meant paying solicitors fees, may be worth a go. at least she would have the satisfaction of knowing she tried and is armed with better info than before. perhaps there is a (hmmm) honest solicitor that would actually take the case on under ‘no win, no fee’ or better still, completely free, just to try to put some public faith back into the profession?
@13, by Ned
The big news companies have no loyalty whatsoever to ACS: Law and are probably waiting for the green light from their own lawyers (who are most likely not at work on weekends) before publishing a single word.
To get that green light, they need:
(a) to be reasonably confident that the information was actually leaked by ACS: Law’s own incompetence in dealing with the DDoS, not by any hackers, which is Crossley’s only remotely viable line of defense;
(b) reasonably sure they won’t accrue liability for publicising the leak of so many private individuals’ most-confidential data;
(c) won’t get sued for breach of copyright by the long list of big, dangerous companies who’s confidential information has been leaked along with everything else and;
(d) won’t prejudice the criminal investigation that seems quite likely to occur.
We may see something tomorrow or never, depending on the lawyers’ conclusions. If they do publish, it’s likely to be very, very carefully written.
@ comment 28 by dg100
You will be correct and this will be why no main news service has picked this up yet. It is the weekend after all. It has started to trickle onto Australian IT news sites.
Their lawyers and journo’s and a host of others are likely picking through the information to see what they can say. Some may be finding it legally a bomb shell.
Additionally to my last post, I should also mention that news outlets like TF are relatively small, low-payout targets for legal action – not worth the bother in the eyes of big sharks like News International, et al, because they’re unlikely to even be able to recover their costs.
The big news outlets, by contrast, are capable of being taken for a lot more if they get it wrong.
They are also more likely to be running much-reduced staff numbers at the weekends – so it’s possible they haven’t even finished reading all the leaked info yet, much less written it up.
I am available to speak most of the day tomorrow (Wednesday 02 June). You can contact me on 0151 932 0767 or 07710 614 189 (Mobile). My mobile is usually on silent so the land line is more appropriate.
Regards,
Adam Glen
@27
.. and get ACS Law to represent you!
:D
@5 What moral high ground does Crossley use in his practice? He destroys the lives of other families for financial gain and is a foe to all file sharers. I have no doubt that he will be used as an example to all of you who are against file sharing.
In case anyone missed that earlier, there’s a nice version of these mails floating on TPB : http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5854078
All ready to read.
@27 Miss Barwinska is unlikely to be able to appeal due as they tend to have time limits. The limit for appeals has almost certainly passed now.
In terms of getting money back – again there is little information available on the case – my understanding is that the woman was never located, never responded and never turned up to court. As such, I doubt whether Topware actually got any money off her at all.
Certainly she has never come forward and given an interview, despite the wide publicity over her case and the subsequent ones.
Finally and again additionally to my last two posts, there’s the fact that this leak involves information from BSkyB customers.
For those who don’t know, BSkyB is owned by News International, which is owned by reactionary right-wing loony Rupert Murdoch.
Through his companies, he owns the lion’s share of all the media companies in the English-speaking world, notably including film company 20th Century Fox, Fox News (the single biggest TV news station in the US), the worldwide Sky Television network and many of the biggest newspapers in the UK and USA.
Even if his lawyers weren’t made out of God, any journalist or editor wanting to continue in his or her chosen career will tend to think very, very carefully indeed before pissing him off.
@10 and 33
I think you misunderstand me.
My point is that this is not some childish attempt by a few kids to ruin the reputation of one man. It’s much bigger than that and focus should be on ensuring that the ICO and SRA do their work to finish ACS as a company.
This will then have precedent and ensure that anyone else thinking of going in to this in the future, and there will be many, thinks again.
I’m suggesting that people think a little more maturely about it and much bigger. Crossley will hang himself. Intercepting his faxes ( extremely illegal in the UK under the interception of communications act) and abusing him by phone and mail ( also illegal under UK harassment law ) will not actually serve any purpose other than giving a few kids a laugh and could be damaging in the long run for the case against speculative invoicing.
They may also be allowing the people compromised suitable time to safeguard their accounts.
News on “here you can see a batch of valid CC details” is not the best statement.
“but we should not see this as a means to destroy the man.”
Fuck that. He deserves everything coming his way. He might have not destroyed families the way the RIAA vultures did, but thousands of those letters and the great little distress that people went through because of them are enough to earn him a life of misery. Losing his company is not enough. He’d just go on to open another, equally scummy business.
Eye for an eye, bitch.
Can someone please clarify the content at the following link that “Anonymous” has been posting in many of the recent stories (http://leetbaka.com/tpb)?
The page describes upcoming targets for DoS attacks as well as links to the programs to do so. My concern is that the Piratebay logo at the top of the page appears to suggest that they are behind the attacks, while I know this is not the case.
Has anyone considered the possibility that these recent “illegal” DoS attacks by 4chan will somehow be used against our community, and as a precedent to shut down sites like the Piratebay?
It could even be possible that those coordinating the 4Chan attacks are double-agents. I am worried about the possible repercussions… maybe I am just being paranoid?
@36 – dg100, actually BSkyB is not owned by newcorp, not fully yet anyway, although they do own shares, and he is one of the bidders for the remaing, “Ofcom ‘to review’ News Corp bid for BSkyB”
please see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11320324
While i agree that this could slightly affect publishing in thesun for atleast a little while, it will undoubtably be published by The Guardian who have published other similar documets if you remember leaked documents about bankers expenses…. same with that case it will hit tv ect soon, these leaked emails are very damaging and involve many big companies, and some of the emails once and for all should stop these scheme in its tracks, in many countries.
@ 39 I’m certain that Google and all eight of the other trackers monitoring this site will be able sort it out
I would prefer the links weren’t posted on TF tbh.
She has a Polish name and probably went straight back to Poland washing her hands of the UK forever.
Ar. Shiver me timbers. Weekly download count just keeps getting bigger. Har har!
http://sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=soft&words=LOIC
watch ya backs Torrent Freak…Thee shit will hit thee the fan…
Not meant as a threat…dont wanna see you go down..
People need to complain to the Office of Fair Trading.
As the emails show, Crossley and other solicitors can only pursue their “credit activities” because the Law Society is a “consumer credit group licence holder”. That means that all solicitors who are members of the Law Society can engage in credit activity. Group licenses are supposedly only issued to “professional bodies with established disciplinary arrangements, who engage in limited, low risk, credit activity, as an adjunct to their primary business activity”.
The Law Society license has expired in 2008, and the OFT has raised concerns amongst others about “whether firms that undertake debt collection as part of their core business should be covered by the group licence”. They have been negotiating a new license for the past two years. In its guidance the OFT states that:
“It is our view that if a group’s primary function is providing credit and/or engaging in ancillary credit activity2 and its members’ activities have a strong commercial motive, it is more difficult in such circumstances for us to be satisfied that the public interest test would be met. However, any application for a group licence will be considered on its own merits and on a case by case basis.”
“It is clear that the more the credit activity forms part of, or relates to, the primary activity of the individuals within the group, the greater the potential risk that consequential consumer detriment may result from the credit activity identified. Group licensing is most suitable therefore for any group whose members only engage in occasional, low risk, credit activities as an adjunct to their primary business activities.”
So ACS law and co should definitely not be covered by the group license.
Complaints should go to:
OFT
Consumer Credit Licensing
PO Box 62691
London
EC4P 4UW
Or emailed to ccl@oft.gsi.gov.uk
OFT Group Licenses info:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/credit-licensing/credit-licence/group-licences
Law Society Group License:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/credit_licences/LawSocietyEnglandWales.pdf
Law Society / SRA on group license:
http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/news/sra-update/issue-6-consumer-credit-group-licence.page
No target tonight…
fags can’t tell the time.
Must do better.
Ha Ha!
Somewhere, Reasoned Mind/neostyles is weeping to himself.
/b/, ebaumsworld, anonymous botnets, whoever was really responsible….thank you. Just, thank you. This one shot may bring the whole corrupt structure to the fracking ground as the case law gets worked out, i’mma make some popcorn and enjoy the best show on earth.
like i’ve just said…BIG ANTIPIRACY JUST PROPAGANDA … nothing true
Why I’m not surprised?
This ACS leak is bringing interesting facts to public knowledge. It was well said up there. The material should be used to pave the road for evolution and to reveal all the rotten things acting behind copyright laws.
He should be punished yes, by the law. Not destroyed personally.
This is getting pretty interesting.
Wow this is getting good.. keep going anonymous, keep up the great reporting TF!
Hey Andrew,
Looks like my client wants to go to court. Would you be kind enough to let =
me have a copy of your standard letter of claim as we discussed.
Also I have spoken to Heather about the US, she would like to speak about i=
t, she is going to let me know in the next few days if she is coming to the=
UK in the next month.
It was good to see you the other day glad things are moving forward for you=
.
Speak soon.
Best TERRY.
Terry Marsh
RAFTERMARSH UK
Suite 404
Albany House
324-326 Regent Street
London. W1B 3HH
Practice Office. 20 Apple Avenue
Newark. NG24 3US
Tel. UK. +44 20 3371 7662
USA. + 1 310 734 6012
Mobile. + 44 787292 7518
Fax. + 44 20 3031 1086
e-mail terry@raftermarsh.com
RAFTERMARSH UK IS REGULATED BY THE SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY. SRA Num=
ber 490580.
Sole Principal. Terence S Marsh.
Hmmmm would his client have got a decent defense?
“Only thing worse then a lawyer, is a lawyer gone politic.”
Unfortunately our governments are full of these filthy crap!
What’s new? These corporates parasites and their lawyers are a bunch of liars who do no hesitate to lie even under oath.
Eradicate! Eradicate!
“He should be punished yes, by the law. Not destroyed personally.”
Why not?
This parasite destroy “Personally” so many people just to make few buck.
Eradicate!
I am sure most people would just be happy to see Andrew Crossley cease handling copyright cases. Punishment would fall second.
Still it is correct that much more important is to get the practice banned. He is not the only person looking to use copyright infringement to bully the public with the aim of maximum profit.
To be fair then one of the emails to him did mention Andrew’s dislike of accepting payment if they denied responsibility. That though seems to have been handled weakly. He also has no forgiveness or understanding if a second case then occurs no matter who they are.
Quite brutal in all.
Lambo, Ferrari….wow, for someone that couldn’t manage his expenses and looking through the emails was a complete *&*^%$% joking about buying a penis extension was funny….
Wonder if he would have bought a custom pink one?
Haha, Mr Donkey Crossley : get yourself a goof lawyer, you might need one. rofl !
Let’s settle this the old fashion way without using law. File sharers in a brawl against anti p2p goons. File sharers will kick their asses!
Excellent work, TorrentFreak. I’m enjoying reading these articles. Keep it coming.
Seems to me this release is proving to be a godsend. I imagine there are probably quite a few embarrassed entities out there right now looking in on this (media/government/law). It’s all a bit too revealing, I’d say.
What now? Let me tell you what now. I’ma call a coupla hard, pipe-hittin’ niggers, who’ll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talkin’, hillbilly boy? I ain’t through with you by a damn sight. I’ma get medieval on your ass.
I remember reading at the time that Miss Barwinska’s address in London was a rented room and she had left about 4 months before the case to return to Poland and couldn’t be traced. So a hollow victory.
@ #48 laila
Solid comments laila, thanks for the useful info & addresses.
@destroying live of Andrew
Normally i would disagree with destroying anyone personal. However in times where the rich extort people, make laws for their benefit (instead of paying staff or artists), using falsified data, accounting tricks to simulate losses, illegal business practices and basically destroying lives without any morals or feeling at all and getting away with it, i changed my mind some time ago.
Just look at bankers, Microsoft (illegal business practices), Intel, MAFIAA, corrupt judges or even just local politicians changing something in a city to their advantage at the expense of all.
It seems there is now an “internet justice system” which is replacing the broken “justice” system where it fails and it is growing as the failures are increasing. Wikileaks, 4chan (great job) and other leaks and actions are just the beginning. When people realise its potential it might break corporate power (It can be seen as lynching but what other options are left when money rules the justice system and those with money are allowed to be unfair)
(Americans can make a nice abbrevation and name for “internet justice system” as they usually like todo with… just about anything :-) )
tweakers.net (techsite) in the Netherlands has the story (not the main news though):
http://tweakers.net/nieuws/69871/maildatabase-van-berucht-brits-advocatenkantoor-ligt-op-straat.html
Say again: Dream Pinball 3D?!
WUT?!
over on Slyck
“We just issued our press release:
http://tinyurl.com/3x3nd3k
Alexander Hanff
Privacy International.”
Couple of other interesting points:
1) First they note that you should never said to the person they are trying to get money off that because they own the connection, they are responsible – their internal legal advice is that this would get tossed in court, you need to link it to a specific machine.
2) They pass 16000 details of sky customers to a third party and note that they are not sure what he is doing with the data.
Dear Andrew.
The law is coming. Try not to loose any sleep over it!
Sorry if anyone already raised this point and sorry for the long post, but is it not illegal to attempt to establish a deterrent or precedent in a civil case? I always thought a civil case was purely to sort out a disagreement between different parties, with issues that weren’t covered by criminal law? Attempting to establish a deterrent or precedent in a civil cases would lead to the accused, being subjected to an unfair punishment over and beyond what would be required to resolve the original civil disagreement.
So logically the Barwinska case/precedent should not stand, as we can now see it was an attempt to establish a deterrent and/or precedent in a civil case, by people that didn’t have the proper expertise or understanding to assess the case.
Its now on the Register.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/27/anti_piracy_lawyer_email_leak/
Your rating for this article: well i gave it full marks
I think that this is the fault of the journalists for not investigating the story enough, for whatever reason it was that they didn’t.
“Your rating for this article: well i gave it full marks”
How? They obviously don’t understand the difference between a DDOS and a hack. Looks like incompetent journalism though it’s good they’ve made it known for the privacy issues.
Also from Slyck:
I have spoken on the phone to lawdit this morning regarding my case, and one thing that was made very clear is the fact that his website was hacked (DDOS )and the emails leaked ACS Law will get a lot of sympathy with regard to this and basically will not change anything. Yes he may be fined for the serious breach of the DPA due to not encrypting his files etc, but he will be able to continue to operate as normal until the outcome of the SDT. Sorry to burst the bubble so to speak!
check out the e mails to his ex wife
andrew.crossley@acs-law.co.uk
louise@pukka-j.net
You are fucking joke. Happy? You? With Kevin the drug addled hermit who has nothing to do with you or his family. You are the saddest person I have ever met.
Now get the fuck away from me forever you complete washed up drug addict loser.
Your email has been marked as blocked sender. No further emails from you will be received by me. Do not ever attempt any form of contact with me again as long as you live.
Fuck off and keep out of my life.
Andrew your ex husband of 14 years.
Other news websites should take note how to go about reporting news.
TF is great.
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US !!
No “Big whoop” from Andy today!
http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/news/2270466/privacy-international-launching
ACS Law’s Andrew Crossley said that he was not prepared to comment for legal reasons.
BBC Tech is looking for info, it seems:
http://twitter.com/ruskin147/status/25671377626
ZDNet UK – Privacy group takes on ACS:Law over porn data breach
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-threats/2010/09/27/privacy-group-takes-on-acslaw-over-porn-data-breach-40090288/
@77
So what about all the people whos infrmation was leaked along with it, like email addresses, account numbers, passwords. It looks like he will be getting a few letters himself. Plus all the damage to him and his ways of dealing with criminal law it has caused. People are going to stay well clear of him.
This won’t be the end of it.
I recommend that people cross reference the names on the SKY evidenzia list with those in the phone book and start ringing people up to tell them that their info has been leaked! I has spoke to a woman already in Glasgow who said it nearly tore her family apart. She is now going to a solicitor and watchdog over her info being leaked.
Har har!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/27/anti_piracy_lawyer_email_leak/
BBC – Adult video-sharing list leaked from law firm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11418962
About time!
:D
its made The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/sep/27/email-leak-data-online-activists
quote from Crossley on the Beeb’s link a few posts up
“All our evidence does is identify an internet connection that has been utilised to share copyright work,” he told BBC News when pressed about the BSkyB database.
“In relation to the individual names, these are just the names and addresses of the account owner and we make no claims that they themselves were sharing the files,” he added.
Mr Crossley said he had no further comment when asked why the Excel document was unencrypted.
Ha ha, they are basically the mailing lists.
Someone give me a link to that game. Let’s distribute it worldwide even of we don’t want it. Let’s piss them off, seriously.
Gimme link!!!!
I find a lot of people here who keep repeating that lawyers are the scum of the earth.
I’m a lawyer, and I am pro filesharing.
Only a tiny tiny amount of lawyers are involved in copyright infringement lawsuits against individuals.
You are judging an entire profession consisting of hundreds of thousands of individuals based on a vocal few.
I hope you realize how unreasonable this is, and think twice.
Has actually annoyed me the stupidity of these reporters, since when was a (D)DoS attack a hack?
@ Anonymous Lawyer not all of us think you guys are scum afterall we need good lawyers to fight our case
@91 Some news reports are getting the terminology right – it seems both the BBC and Guardian are not directly calling it hacking. A few of the mid-level sites are.
The Guardian article points out that if it was “hacking” the legal issues become more complicated. The BBC does refer to “hackers”, but in the context of the original attacks.
Anyone familiar with P2P and ratios would know that few people share more than one copy of any download. Further, many users struggle to share even one copy (ratio of 1). If damages were limited to the number of copies shared (i.e. price * ratio), it would immediately cease to be a money grab and would not be worth the resources to seek out alleged damages.
“In relation to the individual names, these are just the names and addresses of the account owner and we make NO CLAIMS that they themselves were sharing the files,”
Is he basically saying they’re off the hook ? It certainly makes his case weaker (he did mean something else ofcourse in lawyer language). If anyone from that lists gets a threat, they could return a letter back with his own comment and a bill for the trouble of making him aware of it including a cash demand for at least 500 pounds for making name and address available on the internet. Maybe the pirate lawyer can shed some light on it ?
Will this kill the company ? Well, if all clients and victims know about it, everyone sues ACS (individualy) for the data security breach and the site will not come up for some time, it might.
@94 Duke
The BBC seems to search for sources mostly inside the industry while they could have called TF. They still say hackers did it (but it is a better story than the register). Its something which might stick with the police,SRA and so on, in the end it may end up in some report clearing ACSlaw some of the blame.
Additionally, why does this “ICO” need to contact ACS Law for facts, they can just download the facts from usenet, from ACS they only get lies.
If we are to make changes then our first legal goal should be October 4.
This is the date Chief Master Winegarten may issue the latest NPO releasing thousands more names & addresses of broadband users to these problem companies.
ISPs should have their lawyers in court this time seeing that CMW may hand out fines for violating the last court order in terms of encrypted media.
I will also add we need our own lawyer there seeing these ISPs have not been protecting their subscribers. Someone needs to represent the subscribers being legally attacked.
The goal should be to delay this NPO until…
1. Compliance with the Data Protection Act is proved. We have proof of major lapses.
2. Until the data linking IP address to subscribers is at least 99.9% accurate. Again we have tons of proof of multiple errors causing innocent people great distress.
Any lawyer want that job?
I would also recommend ISPs start to get behind this one and stop this bully invoicing scam for good.
I found this email quote attributed to crossley posted as a comment on one of the reg items.
from Andrew Crossley:
“Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:42:21 +0100
Guys in the office. Do not let this happen again. Make CLEAR notes and ensure that the database has everything uploaded correctly before submitting for supervisor approval. If you do not follw the strict process the system breaks down. Get it right!”
@91,
What they mean, ofc, is that “copyright lawyers representing the current arch nemesis of freedom (copyright holders) are the scum of the earth”.
I have friends that are lawyers. My uncle is a lawyer. Yet, none of them agree with the slimy methods being used in these copyright cases. “Disbarment and criminal investigation is required if there is any justice left in the system” seems to be the catch phrase of the day when I point a non-copyright lawyer to articles like this.
Besides, from up on his high horse, it’s easy for Andy to call foul on filesharers. The irony sets in when you read the admissions from the emails that he and his staff are filesharers too. I suspect they are closet rum drinkers and own pet parrots as well.
They have only one purpose and there is nothing they will not do to accomplish this, no matter how vile or loathsome it might be. These abominations mean to destroy everything proud and noble, everything we hold dear and have fought so long to achieve.
From what I have read the latest NPO application and court appearance on Oct 4 is now not going ahead.
Seems they decided to back off meaning that thousands more people have been spared for now.
BBC – ACS:Law could face £500,000 fine for porn list leak
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11418970
Payback is a… Bitch!
Dear All
Firstly thank you to all of you for standing up against the intimidation and bullying ways of , and for helping others such as me do the same. I had not heard of ACS Law until a week ago, when a letter arrived at my door. I was terrified and scared, but from all of you, I learnt that I was not alone and that I need not feel so intimidated. Thank you all !
I would like to share some thoughts. At the moment, the mainstream media is covering the data protection breech only from one angle: the sky subscribers list.
Now that we have their attention, we should draw the media’s attention to a second angle: the harassment, intimidation, and bullying – proof of which is also in those leaked emails. We must now turn the media and public’s attention to this.
I know some of you have shared some of the stories you found in those emails: the pleading of old age pensioners, people being bullied into depression and stress, some even to the point of suicidal thoughts. One particularly poignant story mentioned was of a mother with disabilities who was required to provide medical proof that her son could not have been the downloader.
I feel outrage at reading these stories, and I believe you do too. I believe once the mainstream public see these stories, they too will share our outrage.
What I would request is this: Those of you that have seen the emails, and come across stories of the agony and harassment people faced on ACS’s hands, and which ACS knew about, please forward these (anonymised to protect the victims’ identities) to all the media outlets. Make the media aware that there is a second, human interest story that has come out of this breech. So that in the days ahead, the attention turns to the evils perpetrated, and the suffering of the victims, rather than the story fading away.
If these could be counterpoised with emails of ACS’s gloating, bullying, profiteering ways, so much the better.
Can you imagine the headlines:
Victims plead for mercy while monster gloats of riches
Pornographers and lawyers in cahoots extort through fear
etc etc.
The public have a right to know.
It would be great if Mr Winegarten’s Sunday newspapers tell him about the culture of intimidation and the lives ruined by ACS, so when he comes into work on Monday, October 4, he knows what ACS’s latest request is all about….
Really well written (and researched) piece. Puts acs:law and their ilk in their place. Hats off to you!
The one thing I find really interesting is Sky News failing to cover the story. Sky – there is an elephant in the room and it’s behind you.
Sky – First for breaking news (unless it’s about us)
All UK citizens are encouraged to contact their ISPs and demand they release an official statement ensuring they will NEVER give up any details to the ACS:Law scammers and Andrew Johnothan Crossley.
Download and share the full leak: http://acslaw.blogspot.com/2010/09/breaking-news-andrew-crossleys.html
Don’t let those around you get bullied by this scam law firm.
It is also past time to check if the rather aptly named Mr Winegarten was not quite likely bribed with a few dozen cases of cheap plonk each Christmas by Crossley in order to keep turning a blind eye to this obvious scam being worked out under his purple nose.
The public have a right to know exactly how high this corruption runs.
Here’s a no-brainer:
The judge and the defendant were both paid off, as you can probably read the official transcript and bet your boots that the entire case was prepared with the assumption of her not being present. This would establish a scenario under which if they paid off the defendant then you can safely bet that the judge took a bribe and justified his actions politically because he sides with the notion of issuing justice to those pesky pirates.
I’m willing to bet this is how it works in every country that passes laws like this easily, and for the rest of us, this is how it will quietly work as they pick us all off piece by piece.
Yet another example as to why your wrath should come down on the pathetic politicians who are busy bartering for the day they eventually sell you all out to this scam. The governments of the world have collectively decided to give into fascism. This is their democracy they spread nowadays. I would prefer to live in a place where I have some real choice, this most definitely is not it (and I’d gladly move but it’s looking like there’s nothing much left that won’t be changing to this new cult of globalist monoculture).
I would have more faith in Chief Master Winegarten myself.
If any of these lawyers dares to set foot in his courtroom again then I am sure they would soon regret it.
He cannot be blind to what is going on and he has already expressed large doubts about issuing this latest NPO.
In my view he only needs to say one thing which is… Since countless thousands of private broadband user details have been released to date and none of those have received following court summons then no further NPOs will be issued.
He can also do a whole lot more concerning fraud and lies which were used to obtain past NPOs.
NPOs are being misused so sit back and enjoy the show.
“Sky Broadband today issued a press release on the matter, identifying significant privacy concerns. Sky is one of several ISPs who have given up their data to ACS:Law – with little noticeable resistance. It appears that 4,000+ Sky customers may have been affected by ACS:Law’s lack of security measures.”
http://www.slyck.com/story2064_ISP_Sky_Broadband_Cuts_off_ACSLaw
I should not copy past late night sniplets…
I meant to paste this summary from the slashdot article linking to the slyck article:
“”British ISP Sky Broadband cuts off ACS:Law and refuse to cooperate after at least 4,000 of their customers’ information was carelessly leaked. According to Sky Broadband, ‘We have suspended all co-operation with ACS:Law with immediate effect. This suspension will remain in place until ACS:Law demonstrates adequate measures to protect the security of personal information.’ Sky Broadband had been providing customer information to ACS:Law as part of their anti-piracy operation.”
http://www.slyck.com/story2064_ISP_Sky_Broadband_Cuts_off_ACSLaw
now at ars technica. it is global :)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/amounts-to-blackmail-inside-a-p2p-settlement-letter-factory.ars
Latest from BBC news as BT becomes involved. Second most popular story on BBC news site right now!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11434809
“Not at all Mr Harris, whoever you are…”
FGI Mr.Harris is a Brighton based
“English intellectual property IT and e-commerce barrister” who writes a non existent blog named Briefblog, the holding page of which contains his phone number, should you wish to ask him anything.
At the time of his rent-a-quote re Barwinska he claims to have been, as now, “Director” of the Open Rights Group (who came out yesterday in opposition to any more NPO’s being released).
ORG don’t seem to list him in any capacity on their site.
Good old Google.
Andew Crossley lives very near me, should I pop in for a cup of tea?
Proof that ACS:Law DID NOT and CAN NOT stop sharing, employing these firms is futile
http://acslaw.blogspot.com/2010/10/filewatch-proof-that-acslaw-did-not-and_06.html
14 references to this post
Add your response