ACS Law : GCB Limited

[cirian75]

I think that there's an answer to both of your points Endeavour65 - hiding behind Ltd company status and where's Lee Bowden.

 

He's a director of recently formed:

Company Name: 100 MILE MEDIA LIMITED

Registration Number: 07503354

Registered Office: 2 ND FLOOR, 43 WHITFIELD STREET, LONDON, W1T 4HD

Date of Incorporation: 24 Jan 2011

 

Now there's no actual time of day when this was set up but I would imagine on the 24th it would have been just after Judge Birss wanted to know more about what GCB was all about - and probably about the time Crossley decided to cut and run.

 

 

A totally new business, or the next speculative invoicing firm after GCB ?

[ENDEAVOUR65]

He seems to be very busy in the background and is letting Crossley take a great deal of the attention and flack. Im sure he never thought for a moment that this would develop into this monster and not the sure fire cash cow that he thought he was setting up.

 

 

Interesting character this Bowden, seems to lead 2 lives. one extorting money from people and the other mixing with legit businessman like Mr. Barry Houlihan Exec at Mobile Interactive Group. Take a look at the site Bloomberg Business Week and look at the recent merger between MIG and Bowdens other company PIRIltd. Even though there isnt a hint of wrong doing by PIRI im not too sure if Mr. Houlihan will be very pleased having his name by the side of Bowdens after all this crap is published everywhere. Especially as MIGs clients include the likes of Marks and Spencer and ITV. This sort of association can never do a squeaky clean image such as MIGs any good.

Mr. Houlihan if your reading this please can you teach your new colleague how to run a morally acceptable company for all our sakes.

Lets hope Bowdens latest company is to be used for an entirely different type of business?

[unclebulgaria67]

I think you would probably be surprised that some would see those involved with copyright breach enforcement, as being helpful to business, rather than something they would not wish to be associated with. The methods of enforcement may be questionable as they are not really enforcement, just demands/threats, but then most businesses probably operate in a way, that not everyone would think are fair or proper. Just read the threads in the debt collection folder, about how some companies operate.

 

I think the way companies operate to avoid liability and taxes is something that should be looked into. I keep reading of companies being set up, then causing loads of hassle to consumers with dubious business practices, only for them to be closed down and a new company started. I don't make this point in regard to any companies mentioned in this thread, but the point is that it is far too easy for companies to be set up, seemingly without any control being exercised by any government body.

[ENDEAVOUR65]

I totally agree with all your points. The fact remains that if these guys had set up and operated this business in a totally transparent way there would have never been an issue regards its reputation. We now see changes in company names, re issue of letters of demands from new companies and a central character that being Crossley with a dubious past concerning the RSA, not someone you would have used as "the face" of this type of company. there is most definately a legitemate industry with regards to copyright theft, entertainment material is an expensive enterprise to undertake and therefore royalties have to be payed.

That being said the "no show" at court of certain individuals doesnt show them in a better light, surely if they feel they are correct in their business activities they will have nothing to be ashamed of and be more than prepared to face the public as business men operating in a difficult and complicated field.

My reference to MIG is purely highlighting the fact that companies can be run in a morally acceptable fashion and Mr. Houlihan can offer Bowden a great deal of leadership in this area.

[JKDE2008]

I totally agree with all your points. The fact remains that if these guys had set up and operated this business in a totally transparent way there would have never been an issue regards its reputation. We now see changes in company names, re issue of letters of demands from new companies and a central character that being Crossley with a dubious past concerning the RSA, not someone you would have used as "the face" of this type of company. there is most definately a legitemate industry with regards to copyright theft, entertainment material is an expensive enterprise to undertake and therefore royalties have to be payed.

That being said the "no show" at court of certain individuals doesnt show them in a better light, surely if they feel they are correct in their business activities they will have nothing to be ashamed of and be more than prepared to face the public as business men operating in a difficult and complicated field.

My reference to MIG is purely highlighting the fact that companies can be run in a morally acceptable fashion and Mr. Houlihan can offer Bowden a great deal of leadership in this area.

 

I wonder. The only barrister's opinion that they had did not support what they were doing.

 

Had they set this up and operated in a proper way, it would have got as far as that opinion, and that is as far as it would have got.

[zoomboy]

Booyakasha!!!

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

GCB LIMITED 05687574

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your objection to the striking off and dissolution of the above company.

 

Please note that the above action has been suspended until 03/05/2011.

 

If you wish to maintain the objection after that date, you would need to apply again in writing enclosing documentary evidence of what action you are taking against the company. This evidence should be received at least 2 weeks before the objection expires.

 

If no evidence is received the striking off action will continue and this may result in the company being dissolved from the register of limited companies.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

 

 

Elizabeth Malpas

Dissolution Case Officer

Registration Customer Support

 

Oh, you don't get away that easily!

[kurvaface]

Nice one.

[andydd]

Case is now online..

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/6.html

 

It throws up so many problems that most people were not even aware of, quite clearly this case was bound to fail even before ACS and Media CAT tried to discontinue and before they (attaempted) to disolve themselves.

 

Fascinating reading as the judge tries to unravel Davenport Lyons/ACS/Crossley/Media CAT/GCB, etc.

 

Andy

Edited February 8, 2011 by andydd

[Chumly]

And from the judgement on Bailii, from the judge particularly about GCB:

 

58. The actions of Media CAT via GCB Ltd sheds light on Mr Crossley's first statement dated 21st January 2011. At paragraph 7 he addressed the point about whether cases subject to the notices of discontinuance will be reissued. He stated that some cases had settled and would not be reissued and that how the claimant is going to deal with the other cases will be a matter for further consideration by it. One might think a claimant (and their legal adviser) who was giving their claim serious further consideration before perhaps starting it afresh in a different form or dropping it altogether, would certainly not assert the very same claim against other people not (yet) before the court. The GCB episode shows that Mr Crossley's client had every intention of doing precisely that and that ACS:Law were perfectly well aware of it. It is very difficult not to draw the inference that this was nothing more than a last ditch attempt to make some money from the letter writing exercise.

 

102. The GCB episode is damning in my judgment. This shows that Media CAT is a party who, while coming to court to discontinue, is at the very same time trying to ram home claims formulated on exactly the same basis away from the gaze of the court. That will not do. I find that these notices of discontinuance are indeed an abuse of the court's process. The advantage of discontinuing as opposed to applying to amend is unwarranted in that it avoids judicial scrutiny of the underlying basis for wider campaign orchestrated by Media CAT and ACS:Law to generate revenue under the various agreements such as the Sheptonhurst agreement.

[andydd]

And from the judgement on Bailii, from the judge particularly about GCB:

 

The GCB stuff was only mentioned as they screwed up and sent one of the defendant's a notice to discontinue and then a letter from GCB asking for money, the whole episode is error prone and I bet Mt Crossley wishes he had never got involved.

 

Andy

[scouserat]

Sorry if this is slightly off-topic or if it has been mentioned elsewhere, but are ACS et al actually contravening the RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) and possibly the Computer Misuse Act?

 

From what I understand, there is an outfit (probably a guy in his bedroom, because it's not that hard to do - quite a few P2P programs actually display the national flag of the country of the IP) somewhere in Europe that sits there and scans for UK IP addresses sharing the material that their clients (ACS, etc) are interested in. When they find one they make a note of the IP address and send it to the client and, well you know the rest.

 

As far as I understand it, downloading a file over P2P with another P2P user who has the file you're after is fine. By downloading/uploading and having the file on your PC and knowingly allowing it to be uploaded to other people who may want the file is a conscious decision. A person searches for file on the tracker, requests file and then your machine joins the swarm and gives parts of it (each file is split into blocks and several users will usually send certain blocks to the person) to the person until the person has all the file. Someone searching for the file purely so their client can launch a civil investigation must breach that, as it could be classed as covert surveillance.

 

I suspect that a company doing something like that based in Europe would be pretty much immune to prosecution under RIPA, but would their clients in the UK actually be able to request a court order using information gained using such methods? Also, are they not guilty of it due to them requesting the company to do this without proper authority?

 

As well as that, asides from IP spoofing, it is also possible for two completely different files to have the same hash value (for example a Linux ISO image my have the same hash value as a video called "AC and The Thai Ladyboys' Adventure") so it is possible - although unlikely - that a person could be accused of downloading a copyrighted file when in actual reality they're downloading something completely different.

 

Does anyone know whether the respondents have raised these issues in their defences (especially the RIPA one if applicable)?

[andydd]

Sorry if this is slightly off-topic or if it has been mentioned elsewhere, but are ACS et al actually contravening the RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) and possibly the Computer Misuse Act?

 

From what I understand, there is an outfit (probably a guy in his bedroom, because it's not that hard to do - quite a few P2P programs actually display the national flag of the country of the IP) somewhere in Europe that sits there and scans for UK IP addresses sharing the material that their clients (ACS, etc) are interested in. When they find one they make a note of the IP address and send it to the client and, well you know the rest.

 

As far as I understand it, downloading a file over P2P with another P2P user who has the file you're after is fine. By downloading/uploading and having the file on your PC and knowingly allowing it to be uploaded to other people who may want the file is a conscious decision. A person searches for file on the tracker, requests file and then your machine joins the swarm and gives parts of it (each file is split into blocks and several users will usually send certain blocks to the person) to the person until the person has all the file. Someone searching for the file purely so their client can launch a civil investigation must breach that, as it could be classed as covert surveillance.

 

I suspect that a company doing something like that based in Europe would be pretty much immune to prosecution under RIPA, but would their clients in the UK actually be able to request a court order using information gained using such methods? Also, are they not guilty of it due to them requesting the company to do this without proper authority?

 

As well as that, asides from IP spoofing, it is also possible for two completely different files to have the same hash value (for example a Linux ISO image my have the same hash value as a video called "AC and The Thai Ladyboys' Adventure") so it is possible - although unlikely - that a person could be accused of downloading a copyrighted file when in actual reality they're downloading something completely different.

 

Does anyone know whether the respondents have raised these issues in their defences (especially the RIPA one if applicable)?

 

Well..so far the defendants havnt had to raise any defence 'coz ACS and Media CAT have asked for the cases to be discontinued, actually if you read the above court case, youll see the the judge doesnt believe that Media CAT have the authority to start a claim anyway.

 

ACS and Media CAT have now been disolved (or at least applied to), the case will apparently be concluded in March but there is now no risk of the defendant paying anything, in fact, the reverse is true, the defendants solicitor's is asking for money for wasted costs.

 

The judge hasnt needed to go anywhere near the various technical issues.

 

Andy

[LynseyinLondon]

Does anyone have an email address for GCB Ltd. I think it prudent to send them copy of the letter I sent to ACS-Law in September after their amazing false allegation. (Yes, I also have one now from GCB demanding money.)

I am appalled to learn on this forum that Sky sell our IP addresses to companies like this. I am with Sky but on this count I will be looking for a new internet service provider from tomorrow.

[unclebulgaria67]

Does anyone have an email address for GCB Ltd. I think it prudent to send them copy of the letter I sent to ACS-Law in September after their amazing false allegation. (Yes, I also have one now from GCB demanding money.)

I am appalled to learn on this forum that Sky sell our IP addresses to companies like this. I am with Sky but on this count I will be looking for a new internet service provider from tomorrow.

 

I would not bother. GCB Ltd were a dormant company that were somehow used to generate these letters without allegedly the full knowledge of the companies directors. Once they were made aware of how the companies name was being used, it was all stopped. It came out in the recent court case, that 2 former employees of ACS were behind GCB and they have stopped doing anything. I understand from posts to forums that there was an answerphone message set up telling people to ignore letters from GCB, but I doubt you will ever get a letter.

 

My instincts on this having read various forums, is that you will hear nothing ever again on this. But this is subject to the next court hearing, as the actual copyright owners have been asked whether they want to join ACS/MediaCat as claimants in the cases. I suppose if they joined the action and somehow they managed to prove their case, some company might pick this up again. But I can't see this happening.

[bob92101]

[cut]

 

I am appalled to learn on this forum that Sky sell our IP addresses to companies like this. I am with Sky but on this count I will be looking for a new internet service provider from tomorrow.

I believe that from day one, Talk-Talk refused to go along with ACS:Law's demand for details of people associated with specific IP addresses. O2, BT and Virgin Media are no better than Spy so should be avoided as well.

[count orlok]

Didn't Virgin also refuse?

[unclebulgaria67]

Didn't Virgin also refuse?

 

From what I understand, ACS did not bother with Virgin as they considered it too much hassle. Presumably what they meant by this was that Virgin indicated that they would challenge any NPO request.

[Chumly]

Well it looks like all those letters from GCB Ltd were a complete figment of our imagination - they didn't really exist. GCB Ltd have just filed accounts at Companies House stating that for the period up to 31 January 2011 they were dormant - i.e. they were not trading. So if they were not trading they couldn't have sent out any letters (as there is no expenditure shown in the accounts), couldn't have set up a bank account, or rented office premises at Holborn Gate.

 

Alan - I assume that you are still reading this forum and advising your client - did you advise David Fisher to sign the dormant accounts? How did letters go out in the name of GCB Ltd with the then registered office address of McLean Reid. As this was supposedly done without your client's knowledge I assume that David Fisher is instigating legal action about the misuse of the company name and as a Director signed the accounts he is confident that GCB Ltd were not trading in the period up to 31 January 2011!

[unclebulgaria67]

No expert on company/accounting laws, but I suspect the argument is that the company directors had not sanctioned the issuing of these letters or any expenditure connected with the activity. Because they did not collect any monies following the issuing of these letters and they did not incur any expenses, the company was not trading. This is just my reading of it from the forums on this subject. I doubt that companies house are that bothered, because they don't appear bothered with the number of companies that get set up, time and time again, where there had been dubious trading activity before.

 

More interesting would be the invoices for the rent of offices at Holborn Gate, the staff they employed, the expenses they incurred etc. Were these paid for by the 'former' employees of ACS ? It can't have been cheap ! Serves them right for trying to continue their dubious activities, while there were ongoing court proceedings. These 'former' ACS employees must be very unpopular with their former employers and their clients, particularly when one of the defendants in the patents court hearings had received a letter from GCB Ltd. It is just a shame that Judge Birrs does not request the various invoices for the activities at Holborn Gate, to find out who was behind sending the letters under GCB Ltd. But I suppose this is not for the Judge to do and it would questionable as to whether it was relevant anyway to the current cases.

[kurvaface]

This is just my reading of it from the forums on this subject. I doubt that companies house are that bothered, because they don't appear bothered with the number of companies that get set up, time and time again, where there had been dubious trading activity before.

 

 

The difference in this case is that it has been reported, as will the accountant's activities. A staight forward strike-off without any comebacks is is looking less likely.

[Mr XMan]

Has there been a outcome to this case, or is it still on going?

[ukaviator]

Controversial law firm ACS Law returned to court on Wednesday as the cases it brought against alleged file-sharers were officially closed. Andrew Crossley, the solicitor at the heart of the controversy, was absent from court but could still face heavy fines. Judge Birss is considering whether ACS Law should pay the defendants' costs. Ralli, the law firm which represents five of the accused, is seeking £90,000. It is unusual for a judge to impose so-called wasted costs and only happens when legal representatives are considered to have acted improperly. ACS Law was heavily criticised by Judge Birss in an earlier judgement on the case. The normal procedures for apportioning costs may not apply, he warned at Wednesday's hearing. "If ever there was a case with conduct out of the norm it was this one," he said.

 

Speculative invoicing

 

Mr Crossley has faced a barrage of media scrutiny since he began sending letters to alleged file-sharers in June 2009. At least 10,000 people are believed to have been contacted by his law firm. Consumer watchdog Which? highlighted several cases where people claimed to have been wrongly accused. Critics increasingly accused Mr Crossley of pursuing a letter-writing campaign against alleged net pirates as a way of making money - so-called speculative invoicing - with no intention of ever bringing them to court. People receiving letters were offered the chance to pay a fine of around £500 per infringement. This view was given validity when Mr Crossley brought 27 cases to court but sought to discontinue them at the last minute.

 

A frustrated Judge Birss refused to allow the cases to be dropped and instead put the methods of ACS Law under the spotlight. He accused the firm of seeking "to avoid judicial scrutiny". At a hearing in January, Mr Crossley dramatically withdrew from the cases, saying he no longer wanted to pursue illegal file-sharers because of the "immense hassle" it was causing him and his family.

 

Bleak House

 

His barrister Paul Parker argued in Wednesday's court hearing that he should not be liable for costs. He said that Mr Crossley's file-sharing case load had operated at a loss, with Mr Crossley claiming to have spent £750,000 on pursuing net pirates while making £300,000 from people paying fines. Guy Tritton, barrister for Ralli, countered that the way ACS Law had conducted the cases amounted to "an abuse of process" and drew parallels with Charles Dickens's famous courtroom drama Bleak House. "Dickens's view that the one great business of British law is to make money for itself is apposite in this case. The primary purpose of the letters was to make money for ACS Law," he said. As well as proving to be a fascinating courtroom drama, the case has wider implications as governments around the world grapple with how to deal with the issue of copyright infringement. The cases have brought into question whether an IP address - the numerical code which identifies an individual computer - can be used as evidence in court. The UK's Digital Economy Act, set up in part to deal with illegal downloading, is facing its own judicial review next week, with ISPs BT and TalkTalk claiming that the measures introduced to chase illegal file-sharers "simply won't work". A group of MPs will hear evidence next week as it takes its own look at the Act.

 

Meanwhile Mr Crossley is under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Information Commissioner is also considering whether ACS Law should be fined for a data breach, which saw the details of the people who had received letters and the pornographic films they are accused of downloading exposed online.

Law firm Ralli is considering pursuing a group action for harassment against ACS Law.

 

Link here:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12767714

[PGH7447]

now is the time for all those who fell for his tricks to send in a letter for re-embursment, and if he doesnt pay up go to the small claims court

[bob92101]

now is the time for all those who fell for his tricks to send in a letter for re-embursment, and if he doesnt pay up go to the small claims court

What of those of us who did not fall for Crossley's tricks?

 

How do we ensure that Crossley, Bowden and their cronies are punished in sufficiently public and humiliating a way as to ensure that no one else attempts the same tricks in the future?

 

It seems clear that the SRA & ICO will now do Sweet FA and will allow the dust to settle before retreating into their apathetic slumbers. I doubt that the courts are going to limit the scope of Norwich Pharmacal Orders and ISPs will doubtless continue to feel compelled unquestioningly to comply with them.

 

It seems that the only good guys in this case are Judge Birss & the people at Ralli, CAG, Slyck and Which - all credit to them

[silverfox1961]

Update

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/10.html