Is Falsely Being Accused Of File Sharing With An Automated Pre-Settlement Letter A Form Of Harassment?

from the we-may-find-out dept

Thu, Sep 2nd 2010 3:52am — Mike Masnick

With law operations like ACS:Law in the UK and US Copyright Group in the US sending out thousands upon thousands of "pre-settlement" (i.e., "pay us or we'll sue you") letters for those it accuses of copyright infringement, based on extremely flimsy evidence, it's inevitable that plenty of innocent people will get swept up in the legal threats. At least one law firm in the UK is looking for those who were falsely accused to file a harassment charge on their behalf. This seems like a stretch. Even if it does seem like harassment, my guess is that no court would likely find that such legal threats were harassment, as the lawyers bringing the suits would make the case that it was just an "honest mistake." Of course, if you tried to use that in response to a threat letter for sharing a file online, I doubt these law firms would simply let you walk away...

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: copyright, harassment

15 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Richard (profile), 2 Sep 2010 @ 4:24am

It has worked before
One victim did get a £250 judgement against Davenport - Lyons in the past
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2010 @ 4:28am

Extortion?
What about calling it what it really is: an extortion attempt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 2 Sep 2010 @ 5:31am
  
  Re: Extortion?
  They should be disbarred just for the carpet bombing alone and thrown in jail for the extortion. But don't hold your breath, it's not like that is going to happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2010 @ 5:34am
  
  Re: Extortion?
  Mike still calls the ACTA meetings "negotiations". It's all about not driving away traffic with overly-polarizing word choice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2010 @ 5:44am
    
    Re: Re: Extortion?
    What would you call it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2010 @ 8:57am
  
  Re: Extortion?
  I agree, sounds like extortion to me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haywood (profile), 2 Sep 2010 @ 5:28am

Class action the cure for corporate indifference
I'd say it would make a good counter attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2010 @ 5:48am

U.K. law is different so there may be a possibility, also libel laws are in favor of people there.

Those law firms have no respect for the rule of law and are using the justice system to make a buck not to redress grievances, they want to turn the courts into "justice incorporated".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 2 Sep 2010 @ 5:59am

Corportasim Running Amok
We seemingly are becoming a society were the common citizen can be "assaulted" with impunity and without due process.

Content can be taken down without notice based on questionable justification.

Devices can be bricked if a company does not like the way you use the device.

Privacy is the sole responsibility of the unfortunate recipient never the sender (offender).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 2 Sep 2010 @ 9:53am
  
  Re: Corportasim Running Amok
  Due process is like free speech.
  
  Money = free speech. More money = more free speech.
  
  Money = due process. More money = more due process.
  
  It's not the fault of the law firm that you don't have enough money to pay for your right to due process...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS ONE, 2 Sep 2010 @ 6:12am

definately slander and defamation of character
thats right pay back time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 2 Sep 2010 @ 6:58am

"as the lawyers bringing the suits would make the case that it was just an "honest mistake."

But wait...

Could a spammer use that defense? Why not?

What's the difference? It's pretty much a 'spam' tactic they use with these lawsuits.

Either way - if this happens, they may really get drug into court, which is the last thing they want in any of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 2 Sep 2010 @ 7:36am

Harassment
Harassment? Oh yeah, in a big way! The correct action is file class action against whoever is sending the BS-ograms!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2010 @ 9:55am

How do you know you're not being scammed altogether?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/scammers-using-fake-copyright-infring ement-notices-for-profit.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 4 Sep 2010 @ 10:50pm

Harrassment in legal threats
Hopefully you will get responses from people who litigate, rather than prosecute IP as I do.
However, when I was a civil attorney, years ago, there was a clear and important distinction between a few people ("I was mistaken") and a large number of people ("I may be mistaken, but I don't care"), especially if you can show the errors were pointed out to the firm, but the firm continued.
One example is simple error, the other is intent or "reckless disregard" for the truth (which is legal intent).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]