ACS:LAW “We can’t prove damages beyond a SINGLE copy”

For all those receiving a letter from ACS:LAW

ACS:LAW in one of their emails show SERIOUS doubts about their ability to prove the amount of damages they are seeking.  This email has already been released by better blogs than this, HOWEVER in light of ACS:LAW sending out BRAND NEW LETTERS OF CLAIM I though it only right to highlight this scandal further.

In an email from Adam Glenn to Andrew Crossley on the 19th August 2010, Glenn expresses his deep reservations regarding the actual proving of an “infringer” making the “Works” available to ANYONE else.

As far as I am aware there areNO academic studies which have evaluated how many people the average participant in aP2P session shares a file with. To empirically establish that it would be necessary to eithermonitor the packet level inbound and outbound transmissions of an infringer (an action whichis against the law) or have permission from the participants to record such information.Without some level of direction on quantification it would be impossible, as Newzbin found,to determine the degree of sharing.

This statement alone should prove encouraging for those innocent people caught up in this scandal.  ACS:LAW has been crowing about its bullet proof system for well over a year now, and yet here less than a month before the devastating release of their emails into the wild by either sheer incompetence or wilful sabotage by one of their employees sickened by their business practices. we have Adam Glenn raising questions about the very foundation upon which ACS:LAW had built it’s House of Cards.

Glenn goes on to dismiss Davenport Lyons infamous “Barwinska” case with a brutal assessment.

The Davenport Lyons model, in my opinion, failed to apply accepted and fundamentalmathematical principals in its calculation, including queuing theory, and would havedifficulty in passing an applied mathematics assessment if submitted in an “A level” statisticspaper.

And then a classic

Barwinska might make nice headline reading but it has, in my opinion, about as much legalforce as a Sun newspaper headline regarding the licentious behaviour of a D list celebrity

Remember ACS:LAW waving the Barwinska case around like a flag at the beginning of their campaign back in May 2009 ? how the Mainstream Media did NO investigating but took Davenport Lyons at its word ?, now ACS:LAW are laid bare, the Emperor really is wearing no clothes, he has no evidence, this is, as we always thought it was,  a barely legal “Shakedown”.

One wonders if Glenn had in mind the “D List Celebrity” as opposed to the Z List clients that ACS:LAW represents.  The pitiful stream of nobodies out to make a quick buck, whose so called “works” are so worthless you wouldn’t even find them in a bargain bin at the local market.

Please DOWNLOAD the email here it is long but worth a read

Or read it online here!

Please see TorrentFreak and Slyck Forums for more info and support

Advertisements

About Hickster

I am one of the many innocent people who have been accused of file sharing by Copyright Trolls, my letter came from the now infamous ACS:LAW, but they have now been emulated by many more using the same system. Their ruse is simple, Send out letters of claim with NO Real evidence beyond an IP address that they claim was captured using a frowned upon hack of Shareaza. My REAL opinion of these companies turned when they started sending out Pornography claims, THAT is what I find most disturbing. People who HAVE to pay up without the option of having their day in Court. THAT is NOT Justice. Why can't they just go to Court? because the Lawyers, pitch the price of paying the "Compensation" at about the same rate as hiring a lawyer to fight it. Things have changed in the last 8 years though. I would advise people to read the "Speculative Invoicing Handbook Part 2", research these people yourselves, and find me at Slyck Forums, or on Twitter. Do NOT Worry, Stand Strong
This entry was posted in ACS LAW Letters, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to ACS:LAW “We can’t prove damages beyond a SINGLE copy”

  1. anon says:

    I’m still amazed that ACS are still in business, reading through some of the emails clearly shows that ACS knew they didn’t have a leg to stand on if they were to go to court (hence the reason that they have never) and really hoped people will be “suckered” into paying.

    The Information Commissioner needs to hurry up their investigation and fine these bottom feeders, politicians need to take note of the several flaws of these kind of accusations and rethink the Digital Economy Act.

    And normal people who are being accused need to educate themselves as quickly as possible and deny all claims, and make no payments.

  2. mullard47 says:

    Just a minute. Who is to say that the single copy was made using that subscribers connection. It could have been made using a different connection, or copied form elsewhere onto the hdd without using the internet at all.

    And if the subscribers connection cannot be implicated in making that copy, then neither can the subscriber – even if that copy was made available via his connection. There is a difference between making the copy available, and making the copy to start with.

    That looks to me as if damages for the single copy can only be claimed from the actual person who made it and no-one else. And if they don’t know who made it, then they don’t know who to sue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s