8 scaremongering copyright infringement cases are taken to court, but immediately dismissed.

[input]

ACS:Law, the much-criticised scaremongering law firm, is famous for firing out thousands of threatening letters to alleged file sharers. The firm has previously tried to squeeze settlements out of accused people rather than going to trial. But this week it did actually try to take eight cases to court – but all were dismissed by the judge.

But a judge in the Patent County Court this week threw all eight cases out of court.

In three cases a defence had been filed so there was no way a default judgement would be granted.

In three other cases there was no evidence that the claim had been served on the defendant.

In the two remaining cases, ACS:Law had failed to make a formal application – which the judge believed was necessary to get a default judgement.

Judge Birss also expressed strong doubts about ACS:Law's claims.

Firstly, he questioned whether the law firm could even really represent the owners of copyright – only the owner or a licensee has the right to pursue such a case.

Secondly, he said it was uncertain that the owner of an unsecured Wi-Fi connection could be held responsible for any copyright infringement that might take place over that connection.

Thirdly, he questioned the accusation that possessing such an insecure internet connection was the same as "allowing" copyright infringement. The term used in the act is "authorising".

I bolded that last one, cos I think it's really quite important...

I find it interesting that a law firm, so sure that the things they are doing are proper and simply up-holding the law (like some here) can't even win a single case out of 8, where not a single defendant was present or represented!

the judgement can be found here: bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2010/17.html

[cjhmdm]

Sounds like they half assed it to me, thinking that none of the defendants would respond to the charges, and that it would be an easy win... Guess they were wrong...

[Nautilus]

They'll do it better next time.

[DamianJ]

They'll do it better next time.

They've been doing to for 5 or 6 years (before as Davenport Lyons), not a single case has ever gone to court.

And now the two blackmailing cunts behind it all are facing a hearing in March where they will be banned from practising law again.

I'm sure it won't take the American legal system too long before they respond in a similar way.

It's that whole pesky complete lack of evidence thing! Gets them every time.

[gideongallery]

They'll do it better next time.

he questioned the accusation that possessing such an insecure internet connection was the same as "allowing" copyright infringement. The term used in the act is "authorising".

this is the big one, as i have been pointing out to all the people who keep using the speeding ticket example to justify applying the you don't secure your internet therefore your liable for copyright infringement.

actionable infringement must have a wilful or authorising component. Now a judge has explictly said that no court case, in the entire cannon of law, nor no direct quote from the law justify that stretch.

that a huge hurdle to jump over in these types of cases.