Anti-Piracy Lawyers Caught Pirating Each Other 131
An anonymous reader writes "We would like to think that the lawyers that are prosecuting alleged copyright infringers are practicing what they preach, but it looks like one of the most high profile firms involved in such cases are just as guilty of stealing others' work as those who are downloading illegal media."
Article has problems with facts (Score:5, Informative)
The article presents the situation as Andrew Crossley being in conflict with ACS:Law over the use of templates. The problem with that is that Andrew Crossley is in fact the proprietor ("principal?" Don't know the correct term) of ACS:Law, so it would be difficult for ACS:Law to steal his work. To quote WikiP: "The main partner of the company, and its only registered solicitor is Andrew Crossley."
Re:They probably don't care. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, as officers of the court, their job also includes dissuading their client from suing if they don't have good cause (rather than wasting court resources and everyone's time and money). When the client DOES have good cause their job becomes vigorous representation (either as plaintiff or defendant).
The FA is a joke! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Article has problems with facts (Score:3, Informative)
It's all just a big misunderstanding. The person with the issue here is another (completely unrelated) man named Andrew, who crossly told them they were stealing from him.
Re:They probably don't care. (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, they are maintaining that the act of copying without permission rises to a level where the defendant should be smacked down in court for their wrongdoing. Certainly they make that claim while in court as the plaintiff. That is their official position. They then go on to do exactly what they just got finished claiming to be anything but innocent.
That's what hypocrisy IS, maintaining that others should behave in a particular way (with a claim of sincerity) and then behaving differently yourself. I add the qualifier only because an actor playing a role is not hypocritical if they are not the same as their character.
A More Factually Correct Article (Score:5, Informative)
Why is anyone surprised? (Score:1, Informative)
Sometimes it's the defendant, sometimes its their own client, sometimes it's just JimBob-Taxpayer-via-the-government.
I'm not saying that lawyers/soliciters/etc do not understand the meaning of hings like honesty, integrity, common decency and justice - but all they *care about* is how to use those terms to their own benefit.
"Lawyering" as a business is the practice of justice-for-hire. He who has the deepest pockets wins (almost always).
Re:They probably don't care. (Score:2, Informative)
Except lawyers, as officers of the court, are supposed to look at a client's case and make a first-look decision whether or not they should even bother bringing the case to court. Its not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the law, its a matter of "hundreds of these cases are either lost or simply settled out of court. Unless you have some rock-solid, smoking-gun evidence, I have to dissuade you from bringing this to court."
Re:A More Factually Correct Article (Score:3, Informative)
Except the law is not on their side. This is from an article about this on Wired.com, though, so you're welcome to take it from whence it comes.
the basic gist of this is that in the UK, where these guys have been practicing, there is no statutory claim to damages, and the lawyers in the UK system in a case like this would usually be able to claim only as much as the retail price of one item in damages. That would mean 75p in the case of a single downloaded music track.
The law firms are sending letters of demand for much more than this, and sending them to people in financial difficulty - who cannot afford to get legal representation, and who often pay up to make it go away. Hearing about massive damages awarded in cases similar to this in the States probably is a factor.
The lawyers typically don't go after people who haven't paid, and bring them to court. But one of them is considering moving from the UK to the US just because of the statuary damages angle that RIAA have managed to make law.
The wired article is here -http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/10/the-legal-blackmail-business/ [wired.com] - so everyone can ignore that one, as well, and write whatever comments they feel.