All these guys [AMD] have done is steal our ideas and copy us - Intel senior VP
|
|
|
ACS:Law's Andrew Crossley could face fines
UK LAW FIRM ACS:Law might have to pay costs to the defendants it went after over alleged filesharing and its solicitor Andrew Crossley may be fined.
The lawsuits that the firm filed against a number of suspected filesharers have been dismissed but now the judge overseeing those cases is considering assessing legal costs and fines against the company.
Rival law firm Ralli, which represented five of the defendants, wants £90,000 in damages. Judge Birss could agree to this request, as professional misconduct by legal representatives allows for additional 'wasted costs' to be applied, according to the BBC.
Andrew Crossley, the solicitor at ACS:Law who brought the cases, was absent from the final day in court. There is the possibility that he might face significant fines. Birss said that his conduct in the case was "out of the norm".
Crossley has been accused of "speculative invoicing" after he sent out some 10,000 letters to alleged illegal filesharers telling them to either pay £500 per infringement or be hailed into court. Crossley brought 27 cases to court but then asked that they be dismissed at the last minute.
Birss initially refused to dismiss the cases and wanted to highlight the practices of ACS:Law and Crossley in particular. Crossley's barrister wants the possible sanctions against his client dropped. He says Crossley has suffered financial losses in the filesharing debacle. Crossley is also being investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. µ
Tags: Internet
Share this:
Share
So let me get this straight: Crossley's lawyer argues that he should not be held accountable for the costs involved in defending against his frivolous attempts at extortion-by-lawsuit because it was an unprofitable venture?
It seems to me that the same argument might be used to defend against copyright infringement charges, then: "Your Honour, I should not have to pay fines for copyright infringement because I did not make a profit from downloading porn."
Why do I suspect that would not stand the chance of a snowball in Hell as a defence?
please excuse me while I wipe away this HUUUGE tear
What this man did was no different to blackmail, in my opinion. He sent out these revolting demands for money, combined with threats, to people who in many cases weren't even guilty of the heinous crime of listening to music they hadn't paid for. Let's hope an example can be made of him so that others won't follow in his path.
Good! The baastard got his comeuppance, now pay pay pay and hopefully go bankrupt you slimy snake.
Good news of the Day! hehe
One or two stupendous idiots have been saying that file sharers are thieves. For the intellectual pygmies out there, it's never theft, and at worst only copyright infringement. That being said, copyright laws are dubious and decreed by dubious people. Case in point, the actual crooks are in the legal professions and this story bears that out. It's amazing that there's enough integrity in the courts to throw ACS:Law (and hopefully their ilk) out.