26 January 2010 - Steve Lawson - © Hellmail Postal News

Not everything that arrives in the post is good news - including a fresh batch of cash demands by solicitors ACS:LAW related to accusations of file-sharing. As I have pointed out at Hellmail on a few occasions now, this has far more to do with keeping ACS:LAW in business than compensating rights holders since the bulk of any money gleaned from those who pay up, appears to go to ACS:LAW themselves.

It is still unclear just how much ACS:LAW is linked to Davenport Lyons who originally began sending out threats of court action in 2008 but the moment they threw in the towel (allegedly due to so much negative publicity), ACS:LAW appeared on the scene, headed by Andrew Crossley.

Like Davenport Lyons, ACS:LAW don't actually seem keen to take anyone who challenges these letter to court either, preferring instead to bombard recipents with threats of court action in the hope that a few of those accused will pay up.

Personally I see this approach as not too far removed from legalised blackmail, particularly when one considers that as yet, an IP address has not been established as categorical proof that an individual has in fact shared copyrighted files. However the mere threat of legal proceedings does seem to scare some into parting with their money and whilst that reality remains, ACS:LAW will continue to churn out further letters designed to encourage recipents to cough up, and based allegedly on a point-scoring system to decide who are more likely to cave in to the demands.

Michael Coyle, a Solicitor Advocate with Lawdit is also critical of the methods being employed by ACS:LAW:

"In our experience, many recipients of these letters do not have the financial means or the legal knowledge to defend these claims and often end up paying the sums claimed."

Which? Technology Editor Matt Bath also sees the letters as a worrying trend:

"Innocent consumers are being threatened with legal action for copyright infringements they not only haven’t committed, but wouldn’t know how to commit. Which? is concerned that many people will be frightened into paying up rather than facing the stress of a court battle.

"Over 150 people have turned to Which? for help already. We’d like to see an end to these letters being sent to innocent people and encourage copyright owners to focus their attention on those who are continually breaking the law."

Although ACS:LAW said it had no fear of taking file-sharers to court, it would be fair to say that it is more cost-effective and less risky (particularly if an accusation was challenged to the max) to simply continue writing and at least receive a few cheques in the post. Clearly a profitable business model then and one way at least to weather a downturn in the economy for minimal effort - but highway robbery wasn't a bad line either at one time.

The advice from online forums, consumer groups and other solicitors is not to ignore the letters but that if you have been wrongly accused, don't pay. Doing so would be an admission of guilt and you could well leave yourself wide open to subsequent demands. Conveniently, several template letters of denial are already out there in the public domain.

Click here for a print-friendly version of this article

Information on advertising opportunities can be found here