• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "File Sharing and Crooked Solicitors"

Collapse

  • xoggoth
    replied
    Probably the only answer you'll get but I collect stuff like this. In any small media/software company infringement is a major concern. Have recently had some twat trying to claim trademark infringement against my company.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    started a topic File Sharing and Crooked Solicitors

    File Sharing and Crooked Solicitors

    File Sharing and Crooked Solicitors

    Well worth reading the whole article and comments.

    http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sol...y-wasted-costs

    A London solicitor at the centre of a dispute over alleged illegal file sharing could face a huge costs bill after a judge ruled that he had breached the code of conduct and ‘brought the legal profession into disrepute’.

    Judge Birss, sitting in the Patent County Court, allowed the first stage of an application for wasted costs against Andrew Crossley and his firm ACS:Law last week.

    Crossley sent thousands of letters on behalf of client Media CAT, a company that pursues alleged copyright infringers.

    The correspondence demanded around £500 in compensation from people whom Media CAT claimed had illegally shared pornographic films via the internet.

    Crossley brought court proceedings against 27 defendants, but attempted to discontinue the actions. Last month Birss formally struck out the proceedings, prompting some of the defendants to pursue Crossley for costs.

    Birss ruled that Crossley had breached the Solicitors Code of Conduct by entering a prima facie ‘improper and champertous’ agreement with Media CAT, under which he would receive 65% of any damages collected from the alleged file sharers.

Working...
X