Posts by Seareach

Mr Crossley's brave new world

According to Mr Crossley’s website: "I am accused of demanding payment in my initial letters of claim. This is not true. The recipient of the letter of claim is afforded the opportunity if they wish to close the matter off and avoid the issue continuing by entering into a compromise agreement to bring the matter to an end. They are under no compulsion or obligation to do this and the compromise agreement is an entirely voluntary process".

Hmmm.... A subtle distinction - to subtle for me but then I ain’t a lawyer. It is obviously a successful ploy though (ie scaring the be***** out of OAPS etc): "We are pleased with the results on the initial batches of issued claims, as we have found that 80% of all defendants opt for settlements outside of court, for amounts more than originally claimed."

He admits he can't wait for someone to fight back: "It is disappointing that these settlements mean that a fully contested case has yet to reached the courts..... Exciting times ahead!"

Crossley subscribes to the ridiculous theory that an average file share-ee would have paid for a legit copy if he hadn’t been able to download one (“our client's have been successful in recovering monies lost to piracy”).

He’s delighted that some poor innocent pub owner has taken the rap for downloading by a customer: “Reports have surfaced this week that a pub owner in the UK has been ordered to pay £8,000 to a copyright owner as a customer used the pub’s Wi-fi connection to illegally download a copyrighted work.... This is in direct line with the five point plan from ACS Law*, who have called on the government to go further to protect the rights of copyright holders, who are finding their industries ebbing away from their control. ACS Law called for strict liability to be enforced against internet account holders....”

Maybe he should extend the concept to the coin op photocopier in your local Post Office?

Welcome to Mr Crossley’s brave new world - I wonder whether public access internet could survive it at all....

*The big plan

Introduce fixed fines of £750.00 minimum

Introduce statutory damages of £750.00 as a minimum for each act of copyright infringement (such provision exists presently in the United States);

ISPs to provide names of internet account holders

Make all Internet Service Providers produce, on request of a copyright owner or licensee, the identities of the account holders of the internet connection used for illegal file sharing of their copyrighted material. The cost of producing such information would be met by the copyright owner requesting it;

Strict liability for internet account holders

Make the account holder of the internet connection strictly liable for infringements where their connection was used for illegal file sharing

Simplify the court process

Streamline, simplify and speed up the court process of a copyright owner applying for the identities of the account holders from ISPs (this is presently a complex and time-consuming procedure); and

Standardise letters of claim and court documents

Secure approval and consensus for standard-form letters, documents and claims making the process of notification and prosecution of an identified infringement clear and easy to understand, with the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

bois 2 men

Speaking as a 60 yr old fan man, I don't mind keeping the fanboi tag for people who defend apple mindlessly or sleep in the cold outside apple centres to be first with the latest toy.

But applied to mac users at large - i e the elect - it is getting old indeed

i

Fan boy getting the creeps

I've been a self confessed Mac fanboy since I proudly lugged home my brand new SE/30 over 20 years ago.

They're starting to creep me out now though, especially the smarmy robotic droids in the Apple Stores.

It's high time they had some competition .... somebody? ... Anybody? (Not you tho Gates, we are talking realistic here!)