Today saw the disgraced, discredited bully Andrew Crossley up before the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal on 7 charges relating to ACS:Law’s (his former company, since shut down) harassment of alleged file-sharers. ISPreview’s commentary on proceedings is worth reading, particularly the section dealing with how, even though declared bankrupt, Crossley still lives the high life. Crossley has also still to pay the fine levied on him by the ICO.
TorrentFreak reports some very good news if, like me, you believe that the so-called speculative invoicing (aka bullying innocent people) trade is unethical and wrong.
According to a document seen by TorrentFreak, both ACS:Law and their copyright troll client MediaCAT have just completely shut down their businesses.
The hearings at the Patent Court under Judge Birss have been most interesting for followers of the filesharer harassment story. If you’re not familiar with this story this commentary will help before the story continues.
In that post I wrote:
Even the courts were getting tired of the demands of companies like ACS:Law, as Chief Master Winegarten warned. Now we have the Judicial Review into this Act. This was coming; it’s a pity the ISPs didn’t put up more of a battle earlier or this may have come a lot earlier.
Now Chief Master Winegarten’s warning has come to pass with disastrous results for Andrew Crossley and ACS:Law, all thanks to Judge Birss QC.
Last December, Judge Birss QC sat in the England and Wales Patents County Court (PCC) and dismissed a bid by ACS:Law to get default judgements against eight people for alleged copyright infringement. Judge Birss then decided to convene one sitting of the PCC to consider twenty seven cases brought by ACS:Law in what he described as “an unusual step” in an unusual case.
At that sitting Judge Birss rejected an application by ACS:Law to have the cases dropped and adjourned the hearing until yesterday. It was at the reconvened hearing yesterday that things went even more pear shaped for Andrew Crossley and ACS:Law.
The recent report by The Guardian about the Judicial Review into the Digital Economy Act seems to be little more than a whining board for those proponents of the legislation who are annoyed by the prospect of the review. The comments after the article say as much. This is my brief (ish) summary of how the DEA came into being & how supporters of the legislation are behaving. I don’t know if The Guardian has forgotten to mention some of the other salient facts or just missed them out for a word limit so here they are.