Read more.Quote:
Controversial firm in courtroom fail.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Controversial firm in courtroom fail.
sounds to me that this case was thrown out more because it was badly brought and presented, rather than because the case has no merit. Reading this article it seems that the judge hasn't made any statement regarding the merit or lack there of, so we will have to see what happens next.... I suspect that there will be a load more cases brought that will be thrown out on such technicalities before the actual issue even gets discussed.
Honestly I think the horse has already bolted and the various industries (music, tv, movies, games e.t.c.) would be better served by looking at the technology that is out there and seeing how they can best make money off it, rather than trying to close and bolt the door that the horse has already left way behind it.
Not quite - he dismissed the request/application for judgment in default (of a reply from the Defendant). That's a summary procedure to allow quick judgment when the Defendant doesn't even bother to respond to the Claim. The Claimant/ACS law can still pursue the alleged filesharers using the normal court process ending in a full trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by HEXUS
Mainly these were technical procedural points that the claim for judgment was rejected on, or issues that could easily be remedied the next time ACS law try bringing a claim (e.g. not expressly stating something that presumably ACS can say in the documentation next time).
The interesting comments in the judgment relate to the issue of unsecured wifi connections. ACS are arguing that the Defendant should be liable even if if wasn't actually the Defendant that committed the (alleged) copyright theft/infringement. The Judge pointed out that allowing someone to commit copyright theft through an unsecured wifi network is not the same as authorising copyright theft/infringement. It's the latter which is the terminology used in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. The judge expressly did not make a ruling on that issue - he was merely making the point that there is no decided cases either way in English law that he knows of.
The full judgment is here for anyway bored enough :mrgreen:: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2010/17.html