ACS:Law And US Copyright Group Working Together?

from the wouldn't-surprise-anyone... dept

Thu, Jun 3rd 2010 4:30am — Mike Masnick

Lots of folks have noted the similarities between the UK's ACS:Law and the US Copyright Group (or, perhaps, more accurately Dunlap, Weaver and Grubb, the law firm that appears to be behind USCG). We've pointed out multiple times that ACS:Law and its predecessor Davenport Lyons have been referred for disciplinary action and even UK politicians have called the whole thing a scam. Apparently, Andrew Crossley, who runs ACS:Law has also been sanctioned twice by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in the UK.

But now Robin alerts us to the news that ACS:Law and Crossley are claiming that they're teaming up with US Copyright Group. Or, well, at least we think so. In the grammatically challenged blog post, ACS:Law's anonymous blogger calls it United Copyright Group, so we're assuming that it's a typo:

We are also working in cooperation with a newly-formed organisation, the United Copyright Group, that provides an holistic solution to illegal file sharing and provides a comprehensive set of tools designed to deter and prevent illegal file sharing. More will be written about this new phase of tackling illegal file sharing in due course.

Of course, nothing either firm does has anything whatsoever to do with preventing unauthorized file sharing. It's all about sending threatening letters and getting people to pay up. Either way, this "cooperation" may involve ACS:Law targeting folks in the US via US Copyright Group:

A new joint working relationship with US-based attorneys has opened up the North American region to our clients for identification and pursuit of illegal file sharing of their products.

With this and other operations looking to set up shop in the US, it looks like the courts may soon be flooded with questionable copyright lawsuits of this nature, almost none of which will actually go to court -- but which could freak lots of people into paying large sums of money when they probably don't need to do so. It would be nice if politicians did more than just calling this a scam and sanctioning the lawyers involved in such extortion-like practices. This sort of abuse of the court system for revenue generation should be stopped cold.

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: automated, copyright, lawsuits, pre-settlement letters
Companies: acs:law, us copyright group

21 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2010 @ 4:53am

Meet the scum that is Thomas Dunlap:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/30/ashley-biden-cocaine-tape_n_180703.html

http:// jonathanturley.org/2009/03/30/sellers-remorse-lawyer-reportedly-first-tries-to-sell-tape-of-ashley-b iden-allegedly-snorting-cocaine-and-then-withdraws/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2010 @ 3:53pm
  
  Re:
  Wow! Amazingly, he is rated a perfect 10/10 at Avvo.com. See http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/20175-va-thomas-dunlap-695932.html What's wrong with this picture?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 3 Jun 2010 @ 5:24am

Correction
almost none of which will actually go to court

No - exactly none of which will go to court - based on the UK experience.

For detail see http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/resources/The-Speculative-Invoicing-Handbook.pdf

They really don't want the expense of going to court. This is not an exercise in avenging wounded pride like with the RIAA (I'm guessing that the cases actually taken to court by the RIAA would be a net loss - since their victims don't have the resources to cover the legal fees that the RIAA have incurred). This is a money making exercise. It costs a few pence to send out a threatening letter - perhaps a few pounds to retrieve an IP address and lodge the appropriate legal documents to get the subscriber info.

At £500 /time they make good money if even 10% of their victims cough up without question. Actually going to court would totally mess up their bottom line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 3 Jun 2010 @ 5:46am

Double dipping
I am guessing that, representing rights holders in one country, they figure if they are sending threat notices out and people are paying out of fear and misunderstanding of the law, why not see how many people would pay up from a legal threat notice from rights holders in another country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 3 Jun 2010 @ 6:19am

no surprises in the article. i think guessed what these scum were doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas Dumlop, 3 Jun 2010 @ 7:36am

blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah and blah tom@thomasdunlap.com if you don't understand my legal jargon, you know where i can be reached. blah blah blah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 3 Jun 2010 @ 7:49am

Hmmm... I wonder...
So how does one set up a Class Action lawsuit? They merely want to threaten people and with only TWC fighting it may be a little daunting to see the legal mess this all entails soon enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 3 Jun 2010 @ 7:49am

what the hell is "an holistic solution to file sharing"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2010 @ 7:57am

"it looks like the courts may soon be flooded with questionable copyright lawsuits of this nature, almost none of which will actually go to court" - you are drawing a conclusion that isnt known. they could hand cases off to other lawyers, they could move forward in house, etc. knowing that many us isps are not cooperating in providing user information, many of these will end up in court at least filed so that they can obtain information.

it is important too, the volume of lawsuits is only a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of illegal file sharing going on. the more of these lawsuits then end up on a docket somewhere, the more the us government will want to move forward with legislation to make this problem go away. going forward, being a pirate is likely not going to be the better side of the law to be on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Hicks, 3 Jun 2010 @ 8:00am
  
  Re:
  Please see the ACS:BORE BLog, we covered this a month ago or so
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2010 @ 9:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    dont have time for one sided hatchet jobs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2010 @ 1:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How do you not have time for yourself, TAM? That sounds worrisome.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2010 @ 9:38am
  
  Re:
  Go away? Ha!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2010 @ 8:01am

"being a pirate is likely not going to be the better side of the law to be on."

At least this pirate doesn't care. When the law can put cameras inside homes I will get a bit worried but not that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WammerJammer (profile), 3 Jun 2010 @ 8:10am

Who cares?
I'm old, disabled and broke, so screw them. I will take them all the way through court and spend their money madly. It won't cost me a dime because I will get some bleeding-heart group to cover the court costs because I am old, disabled and broke. Then If/When I lose the case I will tell them to go screw themselves again and not pay because I am old, disabled and broke and if they hassle me more I will declare Bankruptcy and tell them to go screw themselves again. What else can they do to me? I already live in a bankrupt country with very few prospects for the future because of it's 13 trillion dollar debt. As far as I'm concerned it's just another bill I can't pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2010 @ 8:17am

"UK politicians have called the whole thing a scam."

Well, then I guess they can just try out U.S. politicians. They tend to be scam artists themselves so I'm sure they will have no problems with such scams, even referring to them as legitimate operations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PAYBACK TIME, 3 Jun 2010 @ 8:32am

if it only costs a few pence
make up some neat sounding class action and start sending them around to musicians and actors on the low end FORCING Hollywood stupid to pay up then declare bankruptcy just as you goto court and of course have 50000 other friends keep doing this until the court sees this kinda STUPID is and should not be tolerated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2010 @ 9:29am

Thank god for lawyers, otherwise there would be no legal way to extort money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2010 @ 9:40am
  
  Re:
  If only shooting healthy lawyers cured sick kids.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Hickster, 3 Jun 2010 @ 10:22am

So hypocritical!
Hi all I am posting this link but am sure I am the "Last to know this one" Hurt Locker producer: criticizing our lawsuits makes you a moron and a thief http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/18/vo ... s-pre.html I actually watched Hurt Locker and was soooo dissapointed that I asked for my ticket money back for "failure to provide the services promised" I know I am in a small minority according to IMBD it was a "Good Film" I could not agree less. When I read this post I felt somewhat vindicated and certainly will not be watching anymore of their crap in the future. As far as I was concerned I was swindled out of the money I paid to watch it and was NOT reimbursed as I would have been for any other service or product that had not lived up to my expectations. Nicolas Chartier was BANNED from the academy awards for lobbying the committee for the "Best Picture" award that is laughingly won. Dont get me wrong I did not think Avatar was as good as it was made out to be either, HOWEVER it was downloaded over 300,000 times and is now the biggest grossing movie of ALL time. Why? I think because people saw it on the small screen thought , DAMN that will be AMAZING at the cinema, and went and watched it, and told their mates to do it to! Nicolas Chartier WANKER of the Week! Avatar BENEFITED From illegal downloads! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye84j0fuKHI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jose, 3 Jun 2010 @ 6:53pm

I'm guessing there are people in high places that aren't impressed with Dunlap's work (Joe Biden). Biden's probably already made a few phone calls and is ready to get back at Dunlap and his pals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]