File sharing & the UK Law

Anyone who has ever read any of the multiple Forums where users discuss file sharing by programs like BitTorrent or u-Torrent will be aware of file sharers receiving threads of legal action for copywrite infringement.
This was a phenomena confined to the USA but it had appeared to be spreading to the UK as well.
Simply put the Organisation concerned with infringements use various methods to discover the IP address of someone downloading copywrite material. This includes 'entrapment' by uploading film & music to torrent sites & capturing the IP address of anyone downloading it. The service provider is then put under pressure to supply the name & address of the owner of the IP. I understand in the USA this is nearly always given by them.
A letter is then sent to the owner of the IP address. The letter can be anything from a warning to desist from downloading such material (I gather usually done for a first offence) to a fine or to actually undertaking legal proceedings.
This has also started to happen in England as well. I say England because I am unsure if it is happening in Wales or Northern Ireland & do not know if it could happen in Scotland as they have a different legal system.
Anyway a law firm called ACS: Law has sent out thousands of letters on behalf of its client MediaCAT. It is rather different than the USA version in that the letter says is a fine of £500 payable to ACS: Law otherwise they will undertake legal action.
The situation has resulted in 26 of the recipients being brought before the patents courts for a ruling. However it has not gone according to plan at all for ACS: Law.
During the case it was revealed that ACS: Law actually keep 65% of the £500 'fine' & only pass 35% (£175) to their client.
Consumer watchdogs have suggested that in many cases the wrong person has been identified & received the letter.
Legal experts suggest that owning a certain IP address does not identify that person as having downloaded material & thus broken the law.
MediaCAT say they do not want these cases to continue & that letters have already been sent to the defendants informing them that action against them has been dropped,
Now the solicitor (Andrew Crossley) working for ACS: Law has dramatically said that he want the cases dismissed as he no longer wishes to be associated with this type of case anymore.
He suggests that he has received death threats & that has caused him to change his mind.
Mr Crossley is subject to an ongoing investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Although he has denied the charge, detractors of his company suggest that the letters were little more than a confidence trick & that his firm falsely represented MediaCAT as being "copyright protection society" were deliberately misleading. Also that the firm never intended to take anybody to court, they just hoping for a % to pay the 'fine'.
The Judge was not quite so obliging though. He is currently refusing to let matters drop for a number of reasons:
He believes that there is a desire to prevent judicial scrutiny by ACS: Law & MediaCAT.
The copywrite holders were not in court & so could, in theory, continue to pursue cases against the 26.
Another company now appeared to have taken over issuing the letters - GCB Ltd - & one of the defendants had in fact received a letter from them after being told he no longer faced prosecution.
He wanted to know what 'relationship' existed between GCB Ltd & ACS: Law.
Mr Crossley has since said that they were run by people who formerly worked for ACS: Law.

So it will be interesting to see what the judge finally rules, but it is certainly not looking good for ACS: Law & MediaCAT at the moment.

It all rather reminds me of the Thai copywrite police who raid bars on a regular basis demanding a 20,000 baht fine or prosecution. I wonder if Mr. Crossley has ever holidayed in Thailand in the past...

For "shonky coppers" ready "shonky lawyers" it is not that much different jack - except they do not even need to get out of their office to apply the scam...

In another twist to the above tale, it would appear that MediaCAT the firm behind this case has now 'ceased trading'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12366747
With the judgement on the case still a few days away it looks like all the parties on the 1 side of this case can see the way it is going - & it is not in their favour.
I am not sure what this does to the ruling by the judge, or if it will actually still take place. As the 26 individuals involved were talking about seeking damages for harassment it also leaves that as a question 'hanging'...
At the very least this looks like it has put into question the legality of the American inspired 'copyright letter scam' in the UK. It suggest that others wanting to follow this easy scheme to create income will have to put much more thought into it!!

Case dismissed.
Judge pondering on costs against ACS Law for the defendants..
The law that permitted this to occur in the first place is up for Judicial review as well. Hopeful it will be found to be a case of the Government meddling in matters that do not concern it.
The is a typical case of large business interests bringing pressure to bear on Governments.
Civil Law remedies already exist for these companies - but they require damages claimed to be 'reasonable, provable & appropriate' - without any Government interference..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12767714

Sadly the case brought by two of the UK's major service providers against provisions of the Digital Economy Act have failed. Well at least the judge rejected 4 of the 5 legal point that they made that the act was against European Law on commerce & privacy. They did concede a very minor point (in the scheme of things) on how it should be financed.
This Law is a huge infringement of individual rights in the UK. It is a clear indication that big business in the UK can now demand that their rights are more important than the individuals & that any of the parties likely to hold power will support them.
It is a sad day indeed for British justice.
I can only hope (for all its' imperfections) that the European courts will eventually correctly rules that it is illegal.
Yet another nail hammered into the coffin of 'democracy' & proof positive that that with power & money will continue to use it to ride roughshod over the silent majority...