Ministry of Sound v BT/PlusNet hearing
#1
Ministry of Sound v BT/PlusNet hearing
May be of interest to anyone with either of these ISPs (me included)
Adjourned until 12 Jan for full day argument as BT & PN now resisting disclosure on security grounds.
Adjourned until 12 Jan for full day argument as BT & PN now resisting disclosure on security grounds.
#2
It's a bit disappointing that only a couple of weeks ago some ISP's were quite willing to hand over details and not even resist in court. But suddenly they are the peoples friend now.
Guess they could see their user base shrinking when it becomes more public that they are will to hand over user data to anyone who asks.
Guess they could see their user base shrinking when it becomes more public that they are will to hand over user data to anyone who asks.
#3
I was gobsmacked Plusnet would roll over so easily tbh.
Guardian report of today's hearing..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ata-protection
Guardian report of today's hearing..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ata-protection
#4
Well done BT.
World famous nightclub and independent music label Ministry of Sound have been forced to suspend their planned shakedown of tens of thousands of alleged file-sharers. The company had planned to send 25,000 letters demanding hundreds of pounds in compensation to customers of Internet service provider, BT. However, BT has deleted more than 20,000 of those records which now makes the identification of the account holders impossible.
MinistryThe continuation of a hearing between Ministry of Sound Recordings Ltd (MoS) and ISPs Plusnet / BT went ahead in London’s High Court in last month.
Law firm Gallant Macmillan hoped that the Court would order the ISPs to hand over the identities of tens of thousands of alleged filesharers so that Ministry of Sound can prise cash settlements out of them.
But following the security breach at lawyers ACS:Law, BT and their subsidiary Plusnet refused to cooperate citing data protection concerns. BT’s request for an adjournment of the hearing was granted and was set to resume on January 12th 2011.
However, according to Ministry of Sound, its planned shakedown of file-sharers has been hit with a catastrophic failure. In an announcement today, the label has revealed that BT has deleted most of the records that Ministry of Sound requires for pursuing alleged file-sharers should it have been successful at the January hearing.
In what will be seen as a major and expensive setback for their campaign, the label notes says that it discovered in legal correspondence that BT had failed to preserve over 20,000 of the 25,000 customer records which Ministry of Sound had originally requested.
“Whilst Ministry of Sound were happy to incur substantial legal costs to access 25,000 names it is simply not economic to pursue the 5,000 remaining illegal uploaders,” the company said in a statement.
“It is very disappointing that BT decided not to preserve the identities of the illegal uploaders. Given that less than 20% of the names remain and BT costs have soared from a few thousand pounds to several hundred thousand pounds, it makes no economic sense to continue with this application,” said Ministry of Sound CEO Lohan Presencer.
“We are more determined than ever to go after internet users who illegally upload our copyrighted material. We will be making further applications for information from all ISPs. Every time that a track or album is uploaded to the web it is depriving artists of royalties and reducing the money which we can invest in new British talent,” he added.
Although Ministry of Sound endlessly go on about artists suffering and how piracy hinders the nurturing of talent, there is a little known fact about their claims which makes their strategy very unusual indeed – they aren’t claiming for an infringement on music copyrights at all.
Since Ministry of Sound do not own the copyright for the tracks they appear to be requesting cash settlements for, they have presented their case to the court on the basis that they own the ‘intellectual property’ in the album’s tracklisting. That’s right, MoS are claiming copyright infringement on the order of tracks as they appear in their compilation albums.
Of course, not a word of this is mentioned in the settlement offers they send to alleged infringers, the implication all along is that the claim is for music. You couldn’t make it up – but lawyers can and do.
MinistryThe continuation of a hearing between Ministry of Sound Recordings Ltd (MoS) and ISPs Plusnet / BT went ahead in London’s High Court in last month.
Law firm Gallant Macmillan hoped that the Court would order the ISPs to hand over the identities of tens of thousands of alleged filesharers so that Ministry of Sound can prise cash settlements out of them.
But following the security breach at lawyers ACS:Law, BT and their subsidiary Plusnet refused to cooperate citing data protection concerns. BT’s request for an adjournment of the hearing was granted and was set to resume on January 12th 2011.
However, according to Ministry of Sound, its planned shakedown of file-sharers has been hit with a catastrophic failure. In an announcement today, the label has revealed that BT has deleted most of the records that Ministry of Sound requires for pursuing alleged file-sharers should it have been successful at the January hearing.
In what will be seen as a major and expensive setback for their campaign, the label notes says that it discovered in legal correspondence that BT had failed to preserve over 20,000 of the 25,000 customer records which Ministry of Sound had originally requested.
“Whilst Ministry of Sound were happy to incur substantial legal costs to access 25,000 names it is simply not economic to pursue the 5,000 remaining illegal uploaders,” the company said in a statement.
“It is very disappointing that BT decided not to preserve the identities of the illegal uploaders. Given that less than 20% of the names remain and BT costs have soared from a few thousand pounds to several hundred thousand pounds, it makes no economic sense to continue with this application,” said Ministry of Sound CEO Lohan Presencer.
“We are more determined than ever to go after internet users who illegally upload our copyrighted material. We will be making further applications for information from all ISPs. Every time that a track or album is uploaded to the web it is depriving artists of royalties and reducing the money which we can invest in new British talent,” he added.
Although Ministry of Sound endlessly go on about artists suffering and how piracy hinders the nurturing of talent, there is a little known fact about their claims which makes their strategy very unusual indeed – they aren’t claiming for an infringement on music copyrights at all.
Since Ministry of Sound do not own the copyright for the tracks they appear to be requesting cash settlements for, they have presented their case to the court on the basis that they own the ‘intellectual property’ in the album’s tracklisting. That’s right, MoS are claiming copyright infringement on the order of tracks as they appear in their compilation albums.
Of course, not a word of this is mentioned in the settlement offers they send to alleged infringers, the implication all along is that the claim is for music. You couldn’t make it up – but lawyers can and do.
#7
It's a difficult subject though, focus for the last few years has been on downloaders, but who hasn't lent a DVD from a friend, recorded a TV program/film to hard disk, copied their CDs onto their iPods etc with the only legal loophole in being allowed to record copyrighted television programs to Sky+ boxes et al, but for some reason not a "PC"
And all the while the industry's making more money than ever, with many independent reports stating that internet sharing increases sales.
Our laws surrounding technology are so out of date in this country, it is borderline ridiculous.
And all the while the industry's making more money than ever, with many independent reports stating that internet sharing increases sales.
Our laws surrounding technology are so out of date in this country, it is borderline ridiculous.
Trending Topics
#8
Indeed it is, the record industry has had its head up its *** for so long. I mean, how long did it take for DRM to be removed from legitimate pay services such as iTunes or Napster?
DRM was only harming the people that paid for music, those that downloaded illegally were never hampered by the number of times they could burn the track or which portable device they could play it on
Im sure there is a magic price point low enough to deter the majority of potential illegal downloaders while still making the artist and industry money. Who would pirate a £3 album for instance?
DRM was only harming the people that paid for music, those that downloaded illegally were never hampered by the number of times they could burn the track or which portable device they could play it on
Im sure there is a magic price point low enough to deter the majority of potential illegal downloaders while still making the artist and industry money. Who would pirate a £3 album for instance?
#10
I noticed this article in The Reg yesterday...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11...or_agreements/
Specifically this section
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11...or_agreements/
Specifically this section
"There is a huge Digital Single Market for audiovisual material. The problem is that it is illegal, and it is not monetised," said Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes earlier this year. "We have effectively allowed illegal file-sharing to set up a single market where our usual policy channels have failed."
#12
So hands up who hasn't downloaded a track or movie from the www since it started?
I think napster & a few others were everybody's friend at one time
Funny how home taping was supposedly killing the industry back in the
80's' But here we are almost 30 years later and its still going strong!!
The only change is that the www offers some means of tracking, whereas
2nd gen media sharing was virtually impossible to track.
They've had 30 years to sort something out, so why leave it so late,
then get ar*sy
Mart
I think napster & a few others were everybody's friend at one time
Funny how home taping was supposedly killing the industry back in the
80's' But here we are almost 30 years later and its still going strong!!
The only change is that the www offers some means of tracking, whereas
2nd gen media sharing was virtually impossible to track.
They've had 30 years to sort something out, so why leave it so late,
then get ar*sy
Mart
#13
ACS:Law Quit Chasing File-Sharers.
ACS:Law, the law firm that has terrorized untold thousands of alleged file-sharers in the UK, has quit the anti-piracy business. The company made the announcement in a hearing at the Patents County Court yesterday set to a backdrop of scathing comments by a senior judge who said he found their cases “mind boggling”.
Last week we reported in detail on the 17th January directions hearing ordered by Judge Birss QC at the Patents County Court.
In a hearing punctuated by mounting criticism of both ACS:Law and their client MediaCAT, Judge Birss found himself “astonished” by their conduct as the pair tried to discontinue cases against 26 alleged file-sharers at the 11th hour.
Yesterday all parties were back in court again to find solutions to various problems, including the joining of copyright owners to the action (see previous articles for detail) and the addressing of various procedural failings.
Today we bring you our report with the invaluable help of consumer group BeingThreatened.com, who were present at the hearing and have been supporting victims of ACS:Law’s predatory legal actions since they began.
Perhaps the biggest news is that if ACS:Law is to be taken at its word, the company is now done with trying to extract money from alleged file-sharers.
After beginning with owner Andrew Crossley and a couple of assistants, in order to cope with the huge amount of settlements the company grew out to employ around 16 people. Following the catastrophic email leak, those people have either left or been made redundant by the firm. Rising insurance costs have also taken their toll since the leak, from a low of £15,000 to a crippling high of £120,000.
Crossley did not deliver this welcome news to the court in person. While present in the court during the morning session, in common with last week’s hearing he claimed he needed to help family members who had been involved in a recent accident.
The court carried on with its afternoon session without him, with Judge Birss QC condemning the conduct of ACS:Law and MediaCAT, accusing the pair of “trying to minimise the amount of [judicial] scrutiny” placed on their work, a reference to the failed default judgment attempts earlier this year.
It has long been suspected that ACS:Law and MediaCAT pursued this “speculative invoicing” business purely for profit purposes. Judge Birss QC put it to MediaCAT that their attempt to withdraw the previously mentioned 26 cases was so that the scrutiny of “inconvenient judges” could be avoided which would enable them to go back to sending pay-up-or-else letters.
The ever problematic issue of MediaCAT not being the copyright holder of the works they seek settlement on raised its head again. Judge Birss QC asked MediaCAT’s barrister Tim Ludbrooke if he accepted that his client has no right to bring infringement proceedings without joining together with the copyright holders.
“There was little doubt among those present in the courtroom that MediaCAT was lacking the appropriate rights to proceed — which might include the step of discontinuation — alone,” BeingThreatened’s spokesman James Bench told TorrentFreak.
Judge Birss QC noted that if MediaCAT was allowed to discontinue the outstanding cases, it could simply pick up where it left off and continue sending letters. Then the rather inconvenient specter of GCB Limited raised its head.
As detailed in our earlier article, GCB Limited burst onto the scene a couple of weeks ago claiming to be MediaCAT’s new ‘agent’ in these settlement letters matters. ACS:Law, it was declared by company owner Andrew Crossley, had absolutely nothing to do with them.
GCB’s exit was as quick as their entry. The company controversially aborted their business with MediaCAT within a couple of days. Nevertheless, Judge Birss QC mentioned the company in court and this led to a revelation – Crossley was forced to admit that GCB Limited had been set up by two of his former employees.
“If I had a suspicion before, seeing the GCB letter makes it plain,” said Judge Birss QC.
“Aren’t you flirting with abuse of the court?” he asked MediaCAT, while going on to describe these events as “mind boggling”.
According to James Bench, things then took a turn for the bizarre. In an attempt to distance himself from the “inept” settlement letters, MediaCAT barrister Tim Ludbrook told the court: “I promise that I had no part in writing either of these documents,” a statement which led to laughter in the courtroom. Those present knew who had likely drafted them.
After five long hours, Judge Birss QC announced he would deliver his ruling later this week on whether or not MediaCAT can discontinue the cases without being joined by the copyright holders and whether there has indeed been an abuse of process.
“Solicitor Andrew Crossley’s statement that this work has brought him ‘immense hassle’ should sound alarm bells with others that might have considered similarly exploitative schemes,” said BeingThreatened’s James Bench in a statement last night.
“The problems he has brought upon himself however, pale into insignificance against the distress caused by the campaign of legal threats that he has carried on against innocent broadband account holders for his own personal profit.
“The speculative invoicing of Andrew Crossley and his counterparts which have dropped by the wayside, Davenport Lyons, Tilly Bailey Irvine and Gallant Macmillan, was never about protecting copyright; this was never about piracy. We have heard in court today about the 65% of proceeds that Mr Crossley earned from each letter of claim. This scheme was simply an attempt by Mr Crossley and his conspirators to get-rich-quick in an exploitative scheme where the vulnerable were targeted with unfounded accusations and demands for cash in settlement of claims which had no basis in law.
“In addition to his upcoming appearance at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal, Judge Birss will now also consider if Mr Crossley is guilty of entering into a champertous agreement with rights holders.
“The public, and today the justice system, have demonstrated that they will not tolerate
attempts by the greedy and unprincipled to bully the public for their own personal gain, and under the banner of copyright protection.”
Last week we reported in detail on the 17th January directions hearing ordered by Judge Birss QC at the Patents County Court.
In a hearing punctuated by mounting criticism of both ACS:Law and their client MediaCAT, Judge Birss found himself “astonished” by their conduct as the pair tried to discontinue cases against 26 alleged file-sharers at the 11th hour.
Yesterday all parties were back in court again to find solutions to various problems, including the joining of copyright owners to the action (see previous articles for detail) and the addressing of various procedural failings.
Today we bring you our report with the invaluable help of consumer group BeingThreatened.com, who were present at the hearing and have been supporting victims of ACS:Law’s predatory legal actions since they began.
Perhaps the biggest news is that if ACS:Law is to be taken at its word, the company is now done with trying to extract money from alleged file-sharers.
After beginning with owner Andrew Crossley and a couple of assistants, in order to cope with the huge amount of settlements the company grew out to employ around 16 people. Following the catastrophic email leak, those people have either left or been made redundant by the firm. Rising insurance costs have also taken their toll since the leak, from a low of £15,000 to a crippling high of £120,000.
Crossley did not deliver this welcome news to the court in person. While present in the court during the morning session, in common with last week’s hearing he claimed he needed to help family members who had been involved in a recent accident.
The court carried on with its afternoon session without him, with Judge Birss QC condemning the conduct of ACS:Law and MediaCAT, accusing the pair of “trying to minimise the amount of [judicial] scrutiny” placed on their work, a reference to the failed default judgment attempts earlier this year.
It has long been suspected that ACS:Law and MediaCAT pursued this “speculative invoicing” business purely for profit purposes. Judge Birss QC put it to MediaCAT that their attempt to withdraw the previously mentioned 26 cases was so that the scrutiny of “inconvenient judges” could be avoided which would enable them to go back to sending pay-up-or-else letters.
The ever problematic issue of MediaCAT not being the copyright holder of the works they seek settlement on raised its head again. Judge Birss QC asked MediaCAT’s barrister Tim Ludbrooke if he accepted that his client has no right to bring infringement proceedings without joining together with the copyright holders.
“There was little doubt among those present in the courtroom that MediaCAT was lacking the appropriate rights to proceed — which might include the step of discontinuation — alone,” BeingThreatened’s spokesman James Bench told TorrentFreak.
Judge Birss QC noted that if MediaCAT was allowed to discontinue the outstanding cases, it could simply pick up where it left off and continue sending letters. Then the rather inconvenient specter of GCB Limited raised its head.
As detailed in our earlier article, GCB Limited burst onto the scene a couple of weeks ago claiming to be MediaCAT’s new ‘agent’ in these settlement letters matters. ACS:Law, it was declared by company owner Andrew Crossley, had absolutely nothing to do with them.
GCB’s exit was as quick as their entry. The company controversially aborted their business with MediaCAT within a couple of days. Nevertheless, Judge Birss QC mentioned the company in court and this led to a revelation – Crossley was forced to admit that GCB Limited had been set up by two of his former employees.
“If I had a suspicion before, seeing the GCB letter makes it plain,” said Judge Birss QC.
“Aren’t you flirting with abuse of the court?” he asked MediaCAT, while going on to describe these events as “mind boggling”.
According to James Bench, things then took a turn for the bizarre. In an attempt to distance himself from the “inept” settlement letters, MediaCAT barrister Tim Ludbrook told the court: “I promise that I had no part in writing either of these documents,” a statement which led to laughter in the courtroom. Those present knew who had likely drafted them.
After five long hours, Judge Birss QC announced he would deliver his ruling later this week on whether or not MediaCAT can discontinue the cases without being joined by the copyright holders and whether there has indeed been an abuse of process.
“Solicitor Andrew Crossley’s statement that this work has brought him ‘immense hassle’ should sound alarm bells with others that might have considered similarly exploitative schemes,” said BeingThreatened’s James Bench in a statement last night.
“The problems he has brought upon himself however, pale into insignificance against the distress caused by the campaign of legal threats that he has carried on against innocent broadband account holders for his own personal profit.
“The speculative invoicing of Andrew Crossley and his counterparts which have dropped by the wayside, Davenport Lyons, Tilly Bailey Irvine and Gallant Macmillan, was never about protecting copyright; this was never about piracy. We have heard in court today about the 65% of proceeds that Mr Crossley earned from each letter of claim. This scheme was simply an attempt by Mr Crossley and his conspirators to get-rich-quick in an exploitative scheme where the vulnerable were targeted with unfounded accusations and demands for cash in settlement of claims which had no basis in law.
“In addition to his upcoming appearance at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal, Judge Birss will now also consider if Mr Crossley is guilty of entering into a champertous agreement with rights holders.
“The public, and today the justice system, have demonstrated that they will not tolerate
attempts by the greedy and unprincipled to bully the public for their own personal gain, and under the banner of copyright protection.”
#14
So hands up who hasn't downloaded a track or movie from the www since it started?
I think napster & a few others were everybody's friend at one time
Funny how home taping was supposedly killing the industry back in the
80's' But here we are almost 30 years later and its still going strong!!
The only change is that the www offers some means of tracking, whereas
2nd gen media sharing was virtually impossible to track.
They've had 30 years to sort something out, so why leave it so late,
then get ar*sy
Mart
I think napster & a few others were everybody's friend at one time
Funny how home taping was supposedly killing the industry back in the
80's' But here we are almost 30 years later and its still going strong!!
The only change is that the www offers some means of tracking, whereas
2nd gen media sharing was virtually impossible to track.
They've had 30 years to sort something out, so why leave it so late,
then get ar*sy
Mart
Hand up!
The only music I've ever downloaded has been from iTunes.
Have never downloaded a movie/TV programme either.
#15
illegal downloads of copy righted material is theft, but the general attitude greed and efforts of the music industry to try and sell complete **** makes me hope it costs them big. I can still remember paying £16.99 for CD's 12-13 years ago in HMV and it was a rip off then and is now so ****' em. Let artists sell direct to the public online and record compaines can **** off.
#16
To put this thread to bed.
There is now no company in the UK chasing 'file sharers' people whose business model was based on chasing random IP addresses.
ACS and MediaCat are gone for good, Acs is going to be bummed to bankruptcy this Tuesday, well, Andrew Crossley is, due to the utter stupidity of his business setup.
Anyone that has ever received a letter from them, raise a claim for wasted costs.
There is now no company in the UK chasing 'file sharers' people whose business model was based on chasing random IP addresses.
ACS and MediaCat are gone for good, Acs is going to be bummed to bankruptcy this Tuesday, well, Andrew Crossley is, due to the utter stupidity of his business setup.
Anyone that has ever received a letter from them, raise a claim for wasted costs.
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: RIP Tam.
Posts: 5,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to braoch that statement again over time do all albums not really become £3 jobbies and to someone who has not heard it they may just download it.
#20
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Every time that a track or album is uploaded to the web it is depriving artists of royalties and reducing the money which we can invest in new British talent,” he added."
And exactly how much of money from an album sale does the artist receive then Mos?!?
They don't even own the copyright for the music, all they do is create compilations of tracks made by other people!
The music industry has revolved around organised and legitimate theft off of artists for ages - e.g. bands getting royalties of 10p for albums that retail for a tenner!
Artists will survive the digital revolution and with a bit of thought can be much better off than they were under the thumb of record companies. It's the leeches like record companies that are in danger of having their gravy train hitting the buffers and are therefore the ones causing all the fuss!
And exactly how much of money from an album sale does the artist receive then Mos?!?
They don't even own the copyright for the music, all they do is create compilations of tracks made by other people!
The music industry has revolved around organised and legitimate theft off of artists for ages - e.g. bands getting royalties of 10p for albums that retail for a tenner!
Artists will survive the digital revolution and with a bit of thought can be much better off than they were under the thumb of record companies. It's the leeches like record companies that are in danger of having their gravy train hitting the buffers and are therefore the ones causing all the fuss!
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 30 January 2012 at 10:23 AM.
#21
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
Although I did view the leaked lists of people pursued by ACS law and noted many of the illegal music downloaders were actually downloading Cascada!
I mean come on! you have all the music in the world to rip off and what do you do?....Rip off Cascada's Evacuate the dance floor? These people need removing from our gene pool ASAP....as do the music execs that gave Cascada a recording contract
Whilst this is a roundabout indirect triumph for the consumer, the illegal downloader doesn't half download some shyte
Other interested contents ACL law was pursuing on behalf of its clients was downloaders of pirated granny ****! Again, you have all the **** in the world to rip off and this is what they download?
Last edited by ALi-B; 30 January 2012 at 12:14 PM.
#22
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
"Every time that a track or album is uploaded to the web it is depriving artists of royalties and reducing the money which we can invest in new British talent,” he added."
And exactly how much of money from an album sale does the artist receive then Mos?!?
They don't even own the copyright for the music, all they do is create compilations of tracks made by other people!
The music industry has revolved around organised and legitimate theft off of artists for ages - e.g. bands getting royalties of 10p for albums that retail for a tenner!
Artists will survive the digital revolution and with a bit of thought can be much better off than they were under the thumb of record companies. It's the leeches like record companies that are in danger of having their gravy train hitting the buffers and are therefore the ones causing all the fuss!
And exactly how much of money from an album sale does the artist receive then Mos?!?
They don't even own the copyright for the music, all they do is create compilations of tracks made by other people!
The music industry has revolved around organised and legitimate theft off of artists for ages - e.g. bands getting royalties of 10p for albums that retail for a tenner!
Artists will survive the digital revolution and with a bit of thought can be much better off than they were under the thumb of record companies. It's the leeches like record companies that are in danger of having their gravy train hitting the buffers and are therefore the ones causing all the fuss!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post