In the battle between Intel's Foster and AMD's Guinness, only alcohol wins
|
|
|
Federation against software theft wants ACS:Law cases to continue
THE CUDDLY Federation Against Software Theft (FAST) has argued that the legal cases filed by the now defunct ACS:Law should be continued.
FAST said that the 26 ACS:LAW cases against individuals accused of illegal downloading should continue because they will serve as a deterrent to potential downloaders.
That the lawsuits have been dropped serves as a deterrent to any firms looking to raise similar cases seems to have passed right by FAST.
The cases were filed as the results of Internet investigations by ACS:Law and its partner company Mediacat, which sent notices to alleged illicit filesharers demanding they pay or face legal action.
Julian Heathcote-Hobbins, general counsel at FAST, said that lawsuits should not be dissuaded by indignation and urged that the cases be tried.
"The indignation about one or two law firm's antics is a distraction from the real issue. People should know that if they wish to 'lift' a product, it carries a risk and that is of being caught," he said.
"We would never question that due process must be followed and other rights respected, but these reasons are a smoke screen that illegal file sharing should still be tackled. This does not mean that the file sharing in general is wrong, just that if someone does not wish for their product to be shared on a p2p platform, it should not be. It's a choice that should remain as one."
In its statements FAST harked back to earlier comments made by Judge Colin Birss, who was also disappointed that the cases were dropped. Earlier this month he said, "I cannot imagine a system better designed to create disincentives to test the issues in the court" and recommended that they not be dropped just to avoid public scrutiny.
FAST did not want to comment on the actions of the companies involved, ACS:LAW and Mediacat, but did say that taking their cases to court would serve as a reminder than illegal downloading was not a victimless crime, and not one that did not invoke penalties. "Sanctions have to be there," added Heathcote-Hobbins.
"The technical aspects of this case need to be tested... Our argument is that the cases therefore need to be seen to conclusion so that if the judiciary criticises methods, these may be in turn improved meaning the innocent are not accused and those who persist in this activity can be held to account." µ
Share this:
Share
That the the best way for society to do something will most definitely NOT be used. How many awesome technologies have come along with an awesome amount of promise, then been trounced underfoot when an inferior technology with better PR comes along?
Torrents can be used profitably, the fact that the media companies have refused to go that route hasn't changed that fact in the least. Streaming can only get you so far, especially when the connection is sub-optimal. I say adjust the Hulu model to be able to occur offline and they'd have an overnight success.
Maybe they should sue ACS:Law to force it to continue suing.
Good luck with that.
FAST had its opportunity. Its member copyright holders could have made a submission at the hearing before Judge Birss to remove ACS:Law and litigate directly. As it was, the FAST members could not even bring themselves to attest under oath that they held the copyright to the allegedly copied works.
Those same copyright holders should not get a second bite of the cherry. Those alleged to have made unlawful copies have already spent far too much successfully defending themselves from the actions bought on behalf of FAST members.
Actually it's all very simple. Any unauthorized use or distribution of copyright protected materials is a violation of copyright law for which the perps can be prosecuted. The laws aren't going to be changed to allow piracy.
Yes lets fill up our prisons with all these criminals who have ever downloaded a song illegally, but who will pay to build the new prisons needed, the media cartels, don't think so.
I can't recall any media company going to the wall, however many should be put up against the wall for the rubbish they fill the airwaves with
FAST wants all the cases tried to a decision. I suggest that FAST create a legal defense fund, and authorize each and every accused file sharer to hire the attorney of his or her choice to defend the case, to be paid from the fund; alos the accused shall be compensated for time lost from employment, etc. etc. and compensated the amount of damages sought by FAST when the case is inevitably found in favor of the accused (since an IP address is not, and never was nor will be, a person).
If FAST is so Hell-bent on prosecuting thousands of people who've never even HEARD of P2P, it's high time they put their money where their arse is.
Except 90%+ of people online have most likely handled counterfeit media of some description. I guess either copyright laws are dubious or we live in a world where almost everyone is a criminal. Therefore I have to question your cognitive prowess, or lack thereof.
Obviously all pirates should be prosecuted and punished. Piracy is a crime and those who chose to pirate should pay for their crimes.
I can't believe FAST are still at it, it must be 25 years or more now of fruitless harassment.
ACS law must be the most disreputable law firm in the UK, an anagram of their principal's name, Andrew Crossley, is SCORNED LAWYERS!
All "owners" of IP addresses caught in any p2p tracker should be released for termination. That will teach 'm and send the correct message: Give me your money or be terminated.
Authorization for terminations is automatically granted too any and all who hold any valid copyright.
Let us see if we can get the overpopulation a bit down.