ACS:Law Asks Those Who Deny Infringing To Incriminate Themselves
from the well,-that's-one-strategy dept
ACS:Law, the UK-based copyright threat letter operation that has been called a "scam" by UK politicians and condemned by ISPs alike, is apparently using a new tactic. The operation, which is apparently being investigated for potential disciplinary action (like Davenport Lyons, whose lawyers have been disciplined for initiating the "pre-settlement" mass letter campaign, and which has some sort of connection with ACS:Law), seems to know that the "evidence" it has isn't enough to actually take anyone to court, so if you reply and deny the infringement, ACS:Law sends you a questionnaire effectively asking you to incriminate yourself.Of course, there's no legal obligation to reply, just as there's no legal obligation to pay, based on such a "pay up or we'll sue" letter. TorrentFreak notes that, despite all of this, people are still paying, even though not a single case has gone to court. No wonder we have multiple copycat operations showing up in the US. Extortion-like processes are apparently quite profitable. I'm sure that's exactly what the folks who created copyright law in the first place were thinking of in their creation: a system to send out thousands of threat letters demanding payment to avoid a lawsuit. It's all about promoting the "progress" of a few copyright lawyers, you see...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: extortion, pre-settlement, self-incriminate
Companies: acs:law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can't seem to find good examples of people who have agreed to pay, either; not that it makes the query any more relevant.
>it might not be the most popular way to do things, but it is within the law.
When you find the bit of law that states it's legal to forcibly demand someone to incriminate themselves, and others, for crimes you have little to no evidence committed, please let us know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/
Please read this site and stop making uninformed and irrelevant comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Which" Magazine" mainstream enough for you?
http://www.which.co.uk/news/2010/05/acs-law-uses-questionnaire-to-chase-pirates-215346
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Bullying tactics from file-sharing firms"
damn, you mean the bit torrent people are being bullies now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By "file-sharing firms," they mean the lawyers for the ACS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No wonder you're signing off as AC cause it appears your knowledge of the law is poor at best and internationally non-existent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't actually know what sort of "safe harbors" provisions (if any) exist under UK law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They need brains, not trains.
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=QIGiwMkMpLM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACS Law SCAMMERS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORBfs3QCvTY in the house of Lords during the debate on the Digital Economy bill. to date ACS Law have made over £1million and have sent out thousands of letters. they have taken ZERO people to court I say again ZERO people. Respected UK Publication "Which" has published an article condemming ACS Law, but still it goes on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's fighting? the CAG are always fighting for fair play
Its free advice and very well supported (from the shadows by an army of solicitors)
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/acs-law/198192-acs-law.html
I have used them several times (not for this) but the appearance of one of their template letters usually ends all unpleasantness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Threat Letters = Incentive to Create?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Threat Letters = Incentive to Create?
Does that qualify? ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Threat Letters = Incentive to Create?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so sure about the original creators, but I'm sure it's what those who created the current incarnation had in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]