ACS:Law Apparently Gives Up For Real
from the will-it-last? dept
This was suggested in our recent post about the "fake company" used by ACS:Law's Andrew Crossley suddenly telling people to forget the letters demanding payments, but Andrea See lets us know that Crossley has announced he's "ceased" his work on shaking down alleged file sharers. Of course, he can't resist playing the victim in doing so:"I have ceased my work...I have been subject to criminal attack. My e-mails have been hacked. I have had death threats and bomb threats," he said in the statement, read to the court by MediaCAT's barrister Tim Ludbrook.If it's true that he's had death threats and bomb threats, that's really unfortunate, and hopefully those who were involved in such activities also get tracked down. No matter how ridiculous one is abusing the legal system for profit, that's simply no excuse for death threats. That said, Crossley has waged a years-long campaign shaking people down for money, threatening them with massive legal fines if they don't pay up, frequently accusing people with little or illegitimate evidence. And after multiple setbacks and questions about his activities (including an investigation from the regulatory body that oversees lawyers), that he's only now realizing it's best to get out of the business seems like he stuck at it way beyond what most folks would consider reasonable. It's also why I wonder if he'll really stay away for that long. I imagine this is not the last we'll hear of Andrew Crossley.
"It has caused immense hassle to me and my family," he added.
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, shakedowns, uk
Companies: acs:law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"It has caused immense hassle to me and my family"
What about the hassle he caused so many other families? I am not surprised ppl felt like taking his life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't advocate violence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"hacks"
Yes, ACS Law's site was taken down by DDoS attacks. It was ACS Law's decision to upload their emails onto that server, which made them all visible to the world.
Being stupid != being hacked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "hacks"
"Today the Metropolitan Police told The Telegraph it had no knowledge of any bomb threat against Mr Crossley or ACS:Law."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8280714/Hacked-law-firm-abandons-filesharer- pursuit-amid-bomb-threat-claims.html
Crossley is just a lying, extortionist scumbag well deserving of everything coming his way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hear, hear...
Very, VERY important that this be stated. The problem is that this guy was threatening people's livelihood in a very real and substantial way. That said, it's still a shame that people were so proactive (allegedly) in trying to threaten violence....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hear, hear...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hear, hear...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hear, hear...
Agree with this. And I don't want to trivialize threats of violence. (you knew this was coming) But...
Crossley has a history of making claims that are not backed up by evidence (or is knowingly representing those that do) in an effort to generate profit. This makes the question on whether these threats actually occurred up for scrutiny.
If there are threats made against him or his family, they need to be investigated. Evidence needs to be presented. If there is evidence, the suspects still have a right to defend themselves, dispute that evidence in a court of law, and so on.
This is exactly what should have been done in every single case where someone is being accused of copyright infringement. It is not a perfect system, but its the best we have.
I'm pretty sure no judge or jury would sentence the person paying the bill for an ISP connection to jail if the only 'evidence' is a witness testimony that a bomb threat was received from IP address x.x.x.x.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hear, hear...
All the more reason why the people who promote legal file sharing should distance themselves from the unlawful extremists in your midst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hear, hear...
But why stop there?
A different discussion we have is about how far the Constitution allows copyright law (and patent law) to go.
Yet another argument is in whether copyright law (or patent law) helps society and artists, especially in today's Internet Age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What this man did was extortion (he even claims he knew so in one of his email leaks) and i have no simpathy for him and hope that just by playing the victim and claiming to have given up the fight doesnt mean the proper authorities go any easier on him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dun - Dun- DUNNNNN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To my knowledge, the poor dear has never had a computer at her home, and her only regular company is her care assistant. Imagine what she must have felt getting such a letter....
Andrew Crossley should be dis-barred and never allowed to practice law again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So talking about death threats is a way to declare that he too has suffered and should be left in peace from here on out. [waiving the white flag but trying to avoid further "punishment"]
Although another possible reason to mention being attacked could be to try and sell the idea that copyright claims should be made much easier on those seeking redress (ie, suing others).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They made their bed, they picked their side (profit using fear), now they learn a little fear too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what he's doing is...
It could even lead to legal challenges to the current copyright regime......
This guy needs to be pursued, and even if he "voluntarily" gives up his right to practice law, should STILL be formally struck off anyway to prevent him returning like a bad case of the screaming squirts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
law
Wrong, law is a wide stick to adorn people with the helmet of perceived morality and self-control and that if channels exist, than we should use them to combat what the law has allowed to happen to us in the first place. Living in the city is hard enough for most people because of the schools of ignorance we allow shoved onto our children and selves. They come out of the mortared building but never out of the mindset that is School of and for the USA.
A threat is a threat I am not here to judge lest you be judged in what could be your darkest hour. I don't see what some of you are trying to prove saying you don't condone death threats, everyone had their day. Up your noes with a rubber hose Andrew Crossley.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WWHHAAAAAAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No difference
No, copyleft exists by those that want to enable sharing but want to prevent exploitation, as allowed by current law, of their generosity by those much less generous who exploit what they can get but won't share back.
It's a practical attept to create a level playing field legally. Copyleft is a way to get lots of bang for buck by those that want to remain legal but fight copyright extremism.
Copyleft doesn't say pay me and don't share. It says, don't use the works if you intend to stop others from sharing.
As a deterrent and to cover court costs, copyleft lawsuits will ask the courts to rule for money, but it's rather easy to avoid such a suit.
Copyleft lawsuits are avoided by staying away from the material in question (so just pretend ordinary copyright applies) or else by following the terms which are very generous and certainly allow sharing.
Plus, copying and freely sharing a file for the sake of learning is probably fair use (read 17 usc 107).
Now, I have to ask why copyleft bothers you. If you don't believe in extremism and so don't very much want to respect copyright law in the first place, then you should not worry about copyleft licenses since you likely aren't going to want to place limits on how others can use anything you publish or republish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The MET Says no Bomb threat was received
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8280714/Hacked-law-firm-abandons-filesharer- pursuit-amid-bomb-threat-claims.html
This is just another example of his contempt for British Justice when he thought that he could say whatever he wanted to in his Witness statement and have it accepted as fact.
I am glad that at least one Daily Newpaper in the UK decided that it demanded further investigation.
So again for the hard of hearing
"Today the Metropolitan Police told The Telegraph it had no knowledge of any bomb threat against Mr Crossley or ACS:Law."
Until i hear different i will beleive the Police (in this case) over the words of a corrupt lawyer (my personal opinion)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The MET Says no Bomb threat was received
The Daily telegraph did a little digging into what Crossley said in his witness statement (A legally binding statement of Truth) that he had received Bomb Threats. the outcome is what we have all thought all along, a spokesman for the MET (Londons Police force) said that there is no record of any bomb threats being made to Crossley
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8280714/Hacked-law-firm-abandons-filesharer-pur suit-amid-bomb-threat-claims.html
This is just another example of his contempt for British Justice when he thought that he could say whatever he wanted to in his Witness statement and have it accepted as fact.
I am glad that at least one Daily Newpaper in the UK decided that it demanded further investigation.
So again for the hard of hearing
"Today the Metropolitan Police told The Telegraph it had no knowledge of any bomb threat against Mr Crossley or ACS:Law."
Until i hear different i will beleive the Police (in this case) over the words of a corrupt lawyer (my personal opinion)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're right, but I still have a hard time accepting that. What that guy and his ilk are doing is simply foul, and legal recourses don't seem to work. So it comes down to a form of mob justice, and I have a hard time condemning it in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]