France acts against net pirates

6 October 2011 Last updated at 11:43 France is trying to tackle those who pirate pop by throwing them offline Sixty French net users could have their connection turned off for a month after ignoring letters telling them to stop infringing copyright.

They are the first to reach the end of the controversial process France operates as a way of tackling pirates.

About 650,000 people have received one warning and a further 44,000 are on their second warning.

The statistics were revealed in the annual report from the French agency that runs the scheme.

Deterrent effect

A government advisor is set to visit the 60 people who have ignored warnings to find out more about their circumstances.

The information gathered during the interviews will determine whether a case file is passed to prosecutors. Those who are prosecuted and found guilty could have to pay a fine of 1,500 euros (£1,295) or have their net link disconnected for up to a month.

The tough anti-piracy laws are overseen by an agency called Hadopi (Haute Autorite pour la Diffusion des Oeuvres et la Protection des Droits sur Internet) which was set up in January 2010 but only began sending out letters to suspected infringers in October of that year.

The three-strikes law gives people several chances to mend their ways when found to be infringing copyright by swapping music, movies and games via peer-to-peer networks.

Speaking to French broadcaster TF1, Hadopi boss Marie-Françoise Marais said research it had done suggested the letters it was sending out were acting as a deterrent. However, she added, the results had to be taken with "caution".

Ms Marais said Hadopi was looking into reports that some file-sharers had turned to different technologies to avoid detection and keep on infringing. So far, she said, the agency could not pursue those people because the law only requires it to monitor peer-to-peer services.

The French approach is seen as one of the toughest crackdowns on net piracy.

In the UK, the government plans a letter-writing campaign to people who are persistently downloading movies and music without paying for it.

The letters are intended to educate users rather than punish them, the government has said.

No letters have yet been sent because the Digital Economy Act, which deals with illegal file-sharing, is on hold while the government waits for the European parliament to approve changes to it.

Firm stops pursuing net pirates

4 February 2011 Last updated at 16:59 The withdrawal of MediaCAT and ACS: Law follows a highly unusual court case MediaCAT, a firm which has sent thousands of letters to alleged illegal file-sharers in the UK, has ceased trading, according to its law firm.

It follows the resignation of Andrew Crossley, who heads the law firm that pursued alleged file-sharers on its behalf.

Mr Crossley resigned during a court hearing, brought against 27 alleged illegal file-sharers.

He confirmed that MediaCAT had "ceased trading".

It comes days before a judgement is due on the case in a hearing at London's patent court.

During the case, Judge Birss criticised the methods used by Mr Crossley and the law firm he heads - ACS: Law.

MediaCAT had signed a number of contracts with copyright owners, allowing it to pursue alleged illegal file-sharers on their behalf.

Together with ACS: Law, it sent letters to people identified as downloading content without paying for it, asking them to pay a one-off fine or face being taken to court.

Consumer watchdog Which? highlighted a number of cases where people claimed they had been wrongfully accused.

The 27 people who chose to take their cases to court have found themselves caught up in a series of high-profile and dramatic court hearings.

During the court case it emerged that ACS: Law received 65% of any recouped revenue, while the copyright owners received a 30% share.

Almost as soon as the cases were brought, MediaCAT decided it wanted to drop them. But Judge Birss said granting permission to discontinue the cases was not a simple matter, due largely to the fact that the actual copyright holders were not in court.

This meant that, in theory, these copyright holders could continue to pursue cases against the 26 defendants.

"Why should they be vexed a second time?" he asked.

Judge Birss also questioned why MediaCAT wanted to drop the cases.

"I want to tell you that I am not happy. I am getting the impression with every twist and turn since I started looking at these cases that there is a desire to avoid any judicial scrutiny," he said at the time.

During the second hearing, a statement was read from Mr Crossley, saying he no longer wanted to deal with the cases because it was causing him too much "hassle".

Judge Birss will deliver his ruling on Tuesday. ACS: Law could be liable for legal costs, thinks Deborah Prince, head of legal affairs at Which?

"Whilst MediaCAT is the plaintiff, there were rumblings in the court to suggest that ACS: Law was so closely involved in receiving money, that the judge may be made to make a cost order against ACS: Law," she said.

The solicitor of some of the defendants has warned they may sue Mr Crossley for harassment.

View the original article here