Students Overwhelmingly Don't Like Kindle As A Textbook Replacement Option
Stephen Conroy Continues To Attack Google; Claims WiFi Data Collection Was Done On Purpose

ACS:Law Asks Those Who Deny Infringing To Incriminate Themselves

Copyright

from the well,-that's-one-strategy dept

Wed, May 26th 2010 10:11pm — Mike Masnick
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...
Hide this

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

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 10:23pm

    its a nice story, but it is the same old saw: can you show how many people have refused to pay, and what their legal standing is now? without showing what is happening on the other side, there is no simple way to just dismiss this as anything other than the first steps in a legal action. it might not be the most popular way to do things, but it is within the law.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 10:26pm

      Re:

      Perhaps you can ask the lawyers who brought all zero cases to court.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 10:29pm

        Re: Re:

        but are there good examples of people who have declined payment? what is their legal status as a result? i cant seem to find anyone talking about it. is the payment rate 100% or something?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 10:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Why do you insist on asking irrelevant questions?

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 10:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, the payment rate is 100%. That must be why ACS:Law sent letters to those who refused to pay. Oh, wait.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 10:35pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If these people didn't make money from the process they wouldn't spend money and time (time is worth money) sending out tons of letters to everyone. Clearly, enough people are paying to warrant sending out these bogus letters.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 10:51pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          >but are there good examples of people who have declined payment?

          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 ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 11:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            considering the story on torrent freak is even more biased than the typical pap mikey spoon feeds you guys, i would say that there isnt much here other than the typical half truths and misdirections. i wait for a slightly more mainstream media source to give this a run through.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 11:48pm

      Re:

      Necessitating rightsholders to file thousands of DMCA letters at their expense might not be the most popular way to do things, but it is within the law.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 4:43am

        Re: Re:

        Once again the ridiculous canard. Look - if you own a 400,000 acre estate - then the fences around it are your responsibility even if they are 200 miles long.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          abc gum, 27 May 2010 @ 5:31am

          Re: Re: Re:

          But mending my own fences is too much work ... the government and private business should do it for me. /s

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        TtfnJohn (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 7:32am

        Re: Re:

        Unless I completely misread the post Mike put up the events being discussed and the bullshit letters are all occurring in the the United Kingdom, not the United States. Last time I checked, in spite of your fantasy to the contrary, the DMCA applies only within the territory of the United States of America and it's territories and possessions and not, repeat, not, extraterritoriality to the United Kingdom, Canada, Mexico, Monaco or anywhere else.

        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 ]

        • icon
          Karl (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 9:58am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Other law firms are starting this up here (see the link to Masnick's other post), so it at least possibly relevant.

          I don't actually know what sort of "safe harbors" provisions (if any) exist under UK law.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 6:38pm

      Re:

      Yes, the story is incomplete. It fails to report on whether the questionnaires were sent by mail or via carrier pigeon!

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 10:50pm

    If anyone ever receives a letter such as these they would be well advised to at the very least meet with a lawyer who actually knows and has practiced copyright law full time for a number of years and ask what he/she recommends. Initial consultations are usually without charge (or at least a modest one).

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 11:28pm

    They need brains, not trains.

    Did someone say something about someone needing brains?

    http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=QIGiwMkMpLM

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    NotTAGHuer, 27 May 2010 @ 2:03am

    ACS Law SCAMMERS

    I'm sorry but i cant believe you dont know how this is progressing in the UK this whole scheme has been labled a scam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s-Y_q-IFNI
    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 ]

  • icon
    dunncha (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 2:11am

    Who's fighting? the CAG are always fighting for fair play

    The Consumer Action Group (CAG) make a habit of fighting things like this.... so if you want to know who is fighting and how they are getting on check out their forums.

    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 ]

  • identicon
    abc gum, 27 May 2010 @ 5:38am

    Threat Letters = Incentive to Create?

    Without the benefits of sending out millions of threat letters, how would anyone be able to create new works of art? I'm sure that ACS Law is busy writing new music and novels whilst painting awe inspiring works. /s

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 7:34am

      Re: Threat Letters = Incentive to Create?

      One or more of their staff, maybe even a lawyer or two in their pay, seem to come here a lot and post fantasies under the Anonymous Coward label.
      Does that qualify? ;-)

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    crade (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 7:47am

    "I'm sure that's exactly what the folks who created copyright law in the first place were thinking"
    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 ]

  • identicon
    joe, 30 Sep 2010 @ 3:38pm

    simple solution: VOTE PIRATE PARTY - protection against persecution

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]


Students Overwhelmingly Don't Like Kindle As A Textbook Replacement Option
Stephen Conroy Continues To Attack Google; Claims WiFi Data Collection Was Done On Purpose
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.