Says legal action is not the best first contact with alleged illegal file-sharers, and that it should be “reserved for the most persistent or serious offenders.”
The British Phonographic Industry is speaking out against the mass lawsuit approach of ACS:Law, a UK-based law firm that “specializes in assisting intellectual property rights holders exploit and enforce their rights globally.”
“We don’t favour the approach taken by ACS:Law to tackle illegal file-sharing, which is at odds with the proportionate and graduated response advocated by BPI and proposed in the Digital Economy Bill,” says spokesman Adam Liversage in a statement.
ACS:Law announced an initial plan to target some 15,000 alleged illegal file-sharers across the UK last December as part of a “revolutionary business model that “generates revenue for rights holders and effectively decreases copyright infringement in a measurable and sustainable way” unlike what it says are “costly and ineffective” anti-piracy measures used by other companies. It
After careful review it later decided to drop a number of those cases, limiting their lawsuits only to those it deemed “viable” or “beneficial to its clients.”
Last week we learned they weren’t careful enough after Which?, the largest consumer body in the UK with over 650,000 members, reported it had received letters from more than 150 people claiming to have been wrongly accused, with even more now choosing to come forward after hearing they’re not alone.
“My 78 year old father yesterday received a letter from ACS law demanding £500 for a porn file he is alleged to have downloaded,” reads one letter. “He doesn’t even know what file sharing or bittorrent is so has certainly not done this himself or given anyone else permission to use his computer to do such a thing.”
Liversage added that the BPI doesn’t condone the idea of lass lawsuits and thinks that legal action should be used only in limited cases.
“We uphold the highest standards of evidence, and our view is that legal action is best reserved for the most persistent or serious offenders — rather than widely used as a first response,” he adds.
Perhaps because it’s afraid of permanently angering music fans once and for all, or perhaps because it’s seen how a similar plan by the RIAA failed miserably in the US.
Either way, at least against the ACS:Law approach as well.
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related
- UK Law Firm Drops “Non-Viable, Non-Beneficial” P2P Cases
- Music industry preps more lawsuits
- Music industry extends piracy war
- Lawsuits deter some file-sharers
- Warner Music faces 14 lawsuits over download fees
For an informative video on how farcical using IP as ID can be, search youtube for “IP Mystery ” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSL2LLjUllE
Once you have watched it you wil want to e-mail this link to everyone you know.