ACS:Law reuinion tour

ACS:Law is back! Shockingly, their website is back online and people are reporting new letters. It seems like a strange choice by our favourite solicitor to stay quiet for several weeks then try to assert a comeback. Without a fresh source of names and addresses they are on borrowed time and disappearing for weeks hardly seems like the best way through it.

ACSBore has a scan of a new letter demanding £1200, previously I thought they only went up to £500. Is this a price increase as a response to their increasingly dire situation? If so, the price seems to have nothing to do with reclaiming actual damages incurred as a result of the recipient’s alleged copyright infringement and everything to do with propping up Andrew Crossley’s business (if you can call it that). Also £1200 is just silly. You might have been on to something with £500, but £1200 is not realistic from the start. People aren’t going to say “well I wasn’t going to pay the £500 but now he’s bumped it up to £1200 I’m quite tempted”. Duh. Plus the old blackmail route isn’t quite so effective anymore … it doesn’t work when you’ve already publicly released all the details.

Here’s a good post from on an apparent contradiction between Crossley’s official statement to the judge when asking for a court order and Crossley’s subsequent statement to the BBC regarding what the data he requests mean. I haven’t read the email mentioned [can’t find it, the mail client I am using does not make it easy to search], but let’s assume it exists and is quoted accurately:

The impression given, even if incorrect, is that:

(a) If it is presented to the Chief Master of the Chancery Division of the High Court, then it is likely that the subscriber is the person that has copied the work and is uploading it from their computer through the connection in question, and the Chief Master finds that there is a prima facie case against the subscriber for the purposes of a NPO application, but

(b) if the information somehow leaks onto the internet where the same witness is potentially facing huge claims or financial penalties for which he might be personally liable, then the information is suddenly demoted in status to amounting to no claim at all that the subscriber has done anything.

In short, Crossley got the court order [to disclose names and addresses] by claiming that the data he was requesting identified users who are likely guilty of copyright infringement. Then he told the BBC that he doesn’t claim the users identified were likely guilty of copyright infringement, so he got the data under false pretences. As I said, I can’t find this email, but it seems implicit that he must have said something along these lines anyway, else he shouldn’t have got the court order. Does perjury extend to civil cases?

It’s ridiculous that this firm is still going.


I like blogging

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized
4 comments on “ACS:Law reuinion tour
  1. Informer says:

    The place to look is in the terence folder. There are a number of emails from D Blake which contain both the witness statement and the court order. They range in size between 2mb and 4Mb. The BBC page in the Slyck post linked to is still there.

  2. Hey, writing something about W A E p l us for the Guardian — could you drop me an email? mikederismith @ gmail

  3. Just trying once more to get in contact with you — writing an article about WAE for the Guardian that mentions your analysis of the company, wanted to see if you have any further comment. cheers –

  4. me says:

    Dear Mike,

    I’ll leave your comment hidden for privacy.

    I assume you’re referring to

    Unfortunately enough of the reviews have been taken down that the links don’t speak for themselves, anymore. And as it’s from June, it’s entirely possible all their recent reviews are legitimate.

    I will observe out that TrustPilot’s current page [1] for them shows a large proportion of 5 star reviews. Compare and contrast to ReviewCentre [2], Qype [3], and ResellerRatings [4], which show a very long list of 1 and occasionally 2 star reviews. It’s intriguing that people with positive opinions are attracted to one review site and entirely avoid others.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: