Legal blackmail: Inside an anti-p2p lawfirm

[General Zod]

4 page article, I won't post the whole thing.

UK pornographer Jasper Feversham was fed up. The Internets were sharing his films, quality work like Catch Her in the Eye, Skin City, and MILF Magic 3. He wanted revenge—or at least a cut. So Feversham signed on to a relatively new scheme: track down BitTorrent infringers, convert their IP addresses into real names, and blast out warning letters threatening litigation if they didn't cough up a few hundred quid.

"Much looking forward to sending letters to these f—ers," he wrote in an email earlier this year.

The law firm he ended up with was ACS Law, run by middle-aged lawyer Andrew Crossley. ACS Law had, after a process of attrition, become one of the only UK firms to engage in such work. Unfortunately for Crossley, mainstream film studios had decided that suing file-sharers brought little apart from negative publicity, and so Crossley was left defending a heap of pornography, some video games, and a few musical tracks.

Crossley parleyed the porn into national celebrity—or perhaps "infamy" would be a better word. Earlier this year, Crossley was excoriated in the House of Lords by Lord Lucas of Crudwell and Dingwall—yes, I know—for what "amounts to blackmail... The cost of defending one of these things is reckoned to be £10,000. You can get away with asking for £500 or £1,000 and be paid on most occasions without any effort having to be made to really establish guilt. It is straightforward legal blackmail."

Lord Lucas went on to offer an amendment to the (now-passed) Digital Economy Bill, titled "Remedy for groundless threats of copyright infringement proceedings."

But the Lords were just getting started. Lord Young of Norwood Green likened firms such as ACS Law to "rogue wheel-clampers, if I can use that analogy," while the Earl of Erroll railed against the way that "ACS Law and others threaten people with huge costs in court unless they roll over and give lots of money up front, so that people end up settling out of court. The problem is the cost of justice, which is a huge block. We have to remember that."

Lord Clement-Jones also called out Crossley's work. "Like many noble Lords, I have had an enormous postbag about the activities of this law firm. It is easy to say 'of certain law firms,' but this is the only one that I have been written to about... ACS seems to specialize in picking up bogus copyright claims and then harassing innocent householders and demanding £500, £650, or whatever—a round sum, in any event—in order to settle."

That was only the start of Crossley's problems. In the last 12 months, Crossley has been targeted by the Blackpool municipal government, dogged by journalists, hounded by a major consumer group, and hauled up before the Solicitors Regulation Authority for disciplinary proceedings. Baffled, angry people write his office daily, denying any knowledge of his charges. He has blacklisted his own ex-wife in his e-mail client, demanding that she cut off all contact with him forever. Clients press him to pay up. His own data suppliers are, he fears, out to screw him, and Crossley harbors the suspicion that he could make far more money in America, where fat statutory damage awards mean he could demand even more cash from his targets.

And, just to put a ridiculous cherry atop his plate of problems, the streets department in Westminster, London—where Crossley keeps his office—went after ACS Law because some of their office waste mysteriously "ended up in the public highway."

"We are a tightly resourced small firm," Crossley complained as he wheedled the fine in half.

But not that tightly resourced. Crossley bragged over e-mail earlier this year that he "spent much of the weekend looking for a new car. Finances are much better so can put £20-30k down. May go for a Lambo or Ferrari. I am so predictable!" He began looking at new homes, including a gated property with "five double bedrooms, three bathrooms, modern kitchen and four reception rooms."

Keeping track of all the details might not be Crossley's strong suit. As he wrote (one assumes in jest) when a dispute about financial issues came up, "I am not an accountant, true. But I am a genius and everything I do is brilliant. You must understand that!"

He's also dogged. With all the hate, a lesser man might have buckled—as did other law firms like Tilly Bailey & Irvine, which dropped its own "settlement letter" business in April 2010 after "adverse publicity." Instead, Crossley plows ahead, defending work like To the Manner Porn and Weapons of Mass Satisfaction; indeed, he seems rather philosophical about his lot in life.

"Sorry to bombard you with more things to deal with," he wrote recently to a colleague, "but this business seems to have its share of complications." Indeed it does—and the complications get even more complicated when you anger the anonymous masses at 4chan, who promptly crash your website, expose your private e-mail, and in doing so shed a powerful and unflattering light on the real practice of P2P lawyering. Drawing on thousands of personal e-mails, Ars takes you inside the world of ACS Law, reveal its connections to the US Copyright Group, and discovers just what Andrew Crossley thinks of Godfather 3.

Spoiler: "Godfather 3 is not quite as bad as I remember."
Operation Payback

"This will be a calm, coordinated display of blood," said the initial call to action. "We will not be merciful. We will not be newfags."

Users of the free-wheeling (to put it mildly) Internet community 4chan last week implemented "Operation Payback," a distributed denial of service attack against various anti-piracy groups the chanologists didn't like. The RIAA was hit. The MPAA was hit. But after some big targets, Operation Payback moved on to smaller firms, including ACS Law.

After the group's data flood knocked the ACS Law website offline for a few hours, UK tech site The Register called up Andrew Crossley to ask him about the attack. The site was "only down for a few hours," Crossley said. "I have far more concern over the fact of my train turning up 10 minutes late or having to queue for a coffee than them wasting my time with this sort of rubbish."

He has something to be concerned about now. After these comments, Operation Payback hit ACS Law a second time, knocking out the site. In the process of bringing it back up, someone exposed the server's directory structure through the Web instead of showing the website itself. Those conducting Operation Payback immediately moved in and grabbed a 350MB archive of ACS Law e-mails, then threw the entire mass up on sites like The Pirate Bay.

This is more than a matter of mere embarrassment. The UK has tougher data protection laws than the US, and the country's Information Commissioner has already made it clear that ACS Law could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of pounds. That's because, in addition to his iTunes receipts ("Hooray for iPads. I love mine," Crossley says at one point) and Amazon purchase orders, the e-mails include numerous attachments filled with all manner of private information: names, addresses, payment details, passwords, revenue splits, business deals.

All of which is horrible, terrible, awful news—unless you want to know how a firm like ACS Law actually works.

Meet the accused

After reading through many hundreds of e-mails, one thing becomes clear: ACS Law operates a rather boring business. That is, there's no juvenile gloating, no sinister cackling, no profanity-laced tirades (OK, there are a few tirades). The dominant picture is of a sober operation that spends most of its time in mind-numbing scanning and database work. They even reply personally to letters. Sure, all this work is in the service of dreck like Granny F—, but this is just a business, and Crossley is just a middle-aged solicitor trying to run an efficient operation.

But the effects of this operation on those accused of infringement are remarkable. The e-mail trove is stuffed with anguished pleas like this:

I was in total shock after receiving the letter I received from you today as explained in the telephone conversation. I will say that I was not the person responsible for this infringement. The only person who it could have been would be my son who is [name redacted]. I would never entertain the idea of downloading such a thing—in fact I do not even know how to download any type of software. I only use the internet for Ebay and emails. I also go on dating sites and facebook. This is where my knowledge of computers stops. I do not understand what P2P is....

At the time of the download, to my knowledge my son was visiting my home. I have no idea what he was looking at on my computer. I must add that I do not tolerate any such pornographic material. This letter has upset me greatly and I have spoken to my ex husband who also called yourself with regard to this matter.

Most of the notices seem to have gone to parents, as one would expect from a program targeting ISP account holders. But many of the parents seem baffled:

I have today received a legal notification from you that a pornographic film was downloaded from my internet connection in October 2009.I immediately phoned your contact number and was told to put my comments in writing. I am obviously shocked both at this alleged illegal activity and the fact that the title appears to be of an offensive nature. I can confirm that i have no knowledge of this download being carried out at my home address. I have checked my computer and my sons computer for any reference to this file (using windows search function) and have found no trace.I have spoken to my two sons about downloads (They are 8 and 12) but obviously not about the nature of this file and to be honest they know even less than me. My oldest child has used i tunes and downloaded games from a site called friv.com but these claim to be free. Is this true? or will it also result in copyright issues ?

Others are offended at the titles they are accused of sharing:

I am no prude and can see what type of material something entitled Granny F— is. I am the father of 5 children, 3 of these under the age of 7, and to suggest i would have such material on a computer is what i find offensive. May i also add that i am very anti pornography, having been abused as a child by someone who would use porn films before abusing me .this is why i am totally anti porn.

Then come the "innocent infringers," though some of these explanations can feel a bit... strained.

on the date 16-11-2009 at 16.35 i was browsing the internet namely bt junkie ,without going into a long story i accidentely pressed the download button for the copyright protected file british granny f— 5@6 which then opened my bittorrent client on my pc which the torrent is sent to with the forementioned file is attached. It normally takes a few minutes for the file to start downloading and before it did i realised what i had done and canceled the file preventing any copyright infringement from taking place. just by starting the download process would have been enough to leave my ip address listed. I hereby appologise for any inconvienience i have caused yourself or your client and can swear at no time was any part of the forementioned copyright protected file downloaded onto my pc or shared with anyone else.

(I mean, haven't we all, at one time or another, accidentally been browsing BitTorrent sites and accidentally clicked on a film called Granny F—?)

Others took responsibility for their actions:

I am writing in response to the recent letter my father [name redacted] received on the 13.04.2010 based on the subject of infringement of copyright. I would firstly like to state that I am solely responsible for this and I [name redacted] take full responsibility. I have read through all the information that you have supplied and I understand how serious the matter is—since last year 2009 I have not downloaded any material as I understood how it was a bad thing to do and how it is killing out industry.

I do take responsibility for this issue and I would very much like to ask if the required payment of £495 could somehow possibly be reduced. The reason i am asking this is because I am currently a student and money is a big factor and getting by generally is a hard thing to do.

Indeed, many of the guilty appear to be kids. Some parents figured it out:

"I would also like to also say that it was not my sons intention to fileshare this music and was unaware of how file sharing works as am I—I appreciate that this is no excuse but ask you to bear this in mind. As mentioned in previous correspondence from myself I am writing to again explain that my financial circumstances make it impossible for me to pay £400 in one go or even at £40 per month I am in extreme financial hardship with mounting debts and do not have any spare money - if you were to take this to court I would be unable to even pay the basic utility bills or even the necessary food bills.

If there's one great theme running through these letters, it's the poverty of the respondents. One is a "a single mum living of state benefits who cannot afford to pay any kind of money my daughter is very sorry for any problems caused," while another lives "in the hold of my bank overdraft my money is never my own. We at present find it very hard to make ends meet, at the moment I am trying to amass funds to pay our utility bills for this month and can not see any change in the near future." Students plead hardship due to school fees; many people claim to be unemployed.

But perhaps most creative are the letters that make no attempt at argument. These are sheer vitriol. One stands out among the rest:

Go f— your mum you stupid pakistani black jew. You zimbabwean immigrant.

So listen up fat f—, don't send me another letter. If you do send me another f—ing letter, I will rape your mum against the wall and I will blow up your house and kill you all in a terrorist attack.

In addition, I want a £3500 cheque written to me for the inconvinience [sic] you have caused me.

*If you do not reply to this email with a confirmation that you will pay me, I will hunt you down and stab you in the back and blow your d— up.*

Creative, in an unhinged way. If you had thoughts about going into P2P litigation, consider the sheer migraine-inducingness of getting such messages on a daily basis. Indeed, after reading the correspondence, it's not hard to see why one paralegal who worked at ACS Law during the summer of 2010 told a friend there was "no chance in hell" she would go back.

More on the site but an interesting read all the same. Especially how the UK courts actually disapprove of these tactics and rightly call them what they are. Legal blackmail with no real attempt to determine guilt in front of a court.

[TC27]

IMO this kind of legal blackmail is as bad as those 401 scams and various other types of con tricks....the concept is ridicolous but weak and vunerable will probaly pay up which makes it worhwhile.

I have had a series of letters from a solicitors firm threatening me with all kinds of legal action unless I made an instant payment to them after my insurance refused to pay out following a car accident in which I was not at fault, Fortunately I knew enough as not to be intimidated but I can well imagine the effect these kind of letters have on people who dont know better!

[Solauren]

A few years ago someone tried a stunt like that on my parents. It was a bill for a undergarment of a interpersonal nature.

My parents went to their lawyer (free thanks to Dad's union), and his response was: "Prove it".

Fortunately, some people are not so lucky.

[Phantasee]

I don't understand the idea of an interpersonal garment. Unless it's one of those two-person horse costumes?

[Xenophobe3691]

I don't understand the idea of an interpersonal garment. Unless it's one of those two-person horse costumes?

Crotchless panties or something?

[Solauren]

I don't understand the idea of an interpersonal garment. Unless it's one of those two-person horse costumes?

The words 'lace' and 'teddy' are involved.

I generally try to avoid posting words or combinations of words that set off the Web-Filter system at work

[Molyneux]

Something I've never really understood - what happens, in, say, US courts, if someone chooses to simply say "prove it"? Do you lose by default if you say "I can't afford the cost of a defense, but this case is a steaming load"?

[General Zod]

Something I've never really understood - what happens, in, say, US courts, if someone chooses to simply say "prove it"? Do you lose by default if you say "I can't afford the cost of a defense, but this case is a steaming load"?

You get buried under litigation. Going to court can still be incredibly expensive and wind up costing you more than a settlement, even if you're innocent.

[Molyneux]

Something I've never really understood - what happens, in, say, US courts, if someone chooses to simply say "prove it"? Do you lose by default if you say "I can't afford the cost of a defense, but this case is a steaming load"?

You get buried under litigation. Going to court can still be incredibly expensive and wind up costing you more than a settlement, even if you're innocent.

Yes, and what I'm wondering is where the heck the "incredibly expensive" comes from. Is it from hiring a lawyer? What?

[Pelranius]

Something I've never really understood - what happens, in, say, US courts, if someone chooses to simply say "prove it"? Do you lose by default if you say "I can't afford the cost of a defense, but this case is a steaming load"?

You get buried under litigation. Going to court can still be incredibly expensive and wind up costing you more than a settlement, even if you're innocent.

Yes, and what I'm wondering is where the heck the "incredibly expensive" comes from. Is it from hiring a lawyer? What?

Lawyers, as I understand it. Now I don't know about Britain but hear in America, you'd probably be very lucky to find a lawyer who charged $30 an hour. Given that filing paperwork and arguing a court takes up a tremendous amount of time (oh, and that's not even counting how much the paralegals cost if your lawyer uses them, which is more than likely), forty to fifty hours for the case to be resolved is a bit optimistic. So that sets you back at least $1,200 to 1,500, which most Americans can't really afford to do in this day and time.

[Ryan Thunder]

Something I've never really understood - what happens, in, say, US courts, if someone chooses to simply say "prove it"? Do you lose by default if you say "I can't afford the cost of a defense, but this case is a steaming load"?

You get buried under litigation. Going to court can still be incredibly expensive and wind up costing you more than a settlement, even if you're innocent.

How's this for an idea; all court costs are waived--without interest--until judgment is passed and the case is resolved, including appeals. So if you're wrongly accused but can't afford the court costs in the short term, well, all the judge has to do is order the accuser to pay the defendant's court costs and *bam*, fuck you rich assholes.

[General Zod]

Yes, and what I'm wondering is where the heck the "incredibly expensive" comes from. Is it from hiring a lawyer? What?

Since most people don't have the knowledge to defend themselves, the lawyer's a large part of it. In the chance it actually gets to a jury you could get fined for hundreds of thousands more than the settlement if the charges are legit.

[Molyneux]

Lawyers, as I understand it. Now I don't know about Britain but hear in America, you'd probably be very lucky to find a lawyer who charged $30 an hour. Given that filing paperwork and arguing a court takes up a tremendous amount of time (oh, and that's not even counting how much the paralegals cost if your lawyer uses them, which is more than likely), forty to fifty hours for the case to be resolved is a bit optimistic. So that sets you back at least $1,200 to 1,500, which most Americans can't really afford to do in this day and time.

What I was really curious about was what would happen if someone were to say something along the lines of "I'm innocent, let them try to prove it, I'm not paying a red cent. Representing myself, etc."

And...I am in America.

Since most people don't have the knowledge to defend themselves, the lawyer's a large part of it. In the chance it actually gets to a jury you could get fined for hundreds of thousands more than the settlement if the charges are legit.

Yes, but what if the charges aren't legit? I know that what I'm talking about is probably highly infeasible, but I'm curious as to what would happen if someone actually tried it - said "I'm not going to settle, I'm innocent, but there's no way in hell I can afford to pay for a defense."

[Pelranius]

Lawyers, as I understand it. Now I don't know about Britain but hear in America, you'd probably be very lucky to find a lawyer who charged $30 an hour. Given that filing paperwork and arguing a court takes up a tremendous amount of time (oh, and that's not even counting how much the paralegals cost if your lawyer uses them, which is more than likely), forty to fifty hours for the case to be resolved is a bit optimistic. So that sets you back at least $1,200 to 1,500, which most Americans can't really afford to do in this day and time.

What I was really curious about was what would happen if someone were to say something along the lines of "I'm innocent, let them try to prove it, I'm not paying a red cent. Representing myself, etc."

And...I am in America.

Since most people don't have the knowledge to defend themselves, the lawyer's a large part of it. In the chance it actually gets to a jury you could get fined for hundreds of thousands more than the settlement if the charges are legit.

Yes, but what if the charges aren't legit? I know that what I'm talking about is probably highly infeasible, but I'm curious as to what would happen if someone actually tried it - said "I'm not going to settle, I'm innocent, but there's no way in hell I can afford to pay for a defense."

Considering the vast amount of paperwork involved in these lawsuits, all the time you'd miss from work might end up costing you even more money than hiring a cheap lawyer. Then there's all that complicated procedure and such one has to go through.

[Molyneux]

Considering the vast amount of paperwork involved in these lawsuits, all the time you'd miss from work might end up costing you even more money than hiring a cheap lawyer. Then there's all that complicated procedure and such one has to go through.

Do you know what happens if you just don't fill out any paperwork?

[General Zod]

Yes, but what if the charges aren't legit? I know that what I'm talking about is probably highly infeasible, but I'm curious as to what would happen if someone actually tried it - said "I'm not going to settle, I'm innocent, but there's no way in hell I can afford to pay for a defense."

That probably depends on the court in question and what kind of evidence the plaintiff has. If it's an IP address tacked onto a physical address and an illegal file that might be enough for the judge to say "tough luck".

[Kanastrous]

Most likely you'll wind up on the wrong end of a default judgment: the court will grant the plaintiff the settlement for which they are asking, or some fraction thereof, and they will probably hand that off to a collection agency, take their 85%-90% in pocket, and let you deal with collection calls for the next several years.

...and I have never before heard of British Granny F---, but judging by the traffic it's getting it must be a remarkable production which I will have to check out.

Legally, of course.

[Rogue 9]

Something I've never really understood - what happens, in, say, US courts, if someone chooses to simply say "prove it"? Do you lose by default if you say "I can't afford the cost of a defense, but this case is a steaming load"?

Speaking as someone who did exactly that (in a civil case regarding a completely different issue, but still), you get buried under paperwork, jerked around by fucking lawyers who try to abuse the legal system every way they can to make you suffer, get "settlement" offers that consist of "give up and give us everything we ask for," and generally roundly fail to get justice out of the justice system. You don't suffer immediate default judgment, though; as long as you respond and at least try to represent yourself, you don't just "automatically" lose, though the odds are highly against you.

Lawyers, as I understand it. Now I don't know about Britain but hear in America, you'd probably be very lucky to find a lawyer who charged $30 an hour. Given that filing paperwork and arguing a court takes up a tremendous amount of time (oh, and that's not even counting how much the paralegals cost if your lawyer uses them, which is more than likely), forty to fifty hours for the case to be resolved is a bit optimistic. So that sets you back at least $1,200 to 1,500, which most Americans can't really afford to do in this day and time.

$30? Try $125 per hour, bare fucking minimum.

[General Zod]

You can get a public pretender for $30 but I don't think they do civil cases. If you want anyone competent you'll have to fork over at least $200 an hour and up.

[CaiusWickersham]

Yeah, public defenders don't do civil cases, though there are legal aid societies in many places that do handle those sort of cases for low-income people.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Civil law is $100 an hour for a shitty lawyer. Good ones cost a lot more.

[Enigma]

Civil law is $100 an hour for a shitty lawyer. Good ones cost a lot more.

Ours is $400 an hour and is charged by the minute rounded up.

[Pelranius]

I humbly stand corrected.

Though I was just thinking of the money that actually went into the lawyer's pocket, as opposed to things like paralegals and such.

[General Zod]

I humbly stand corrected.

Though I was just thinking of the money that actually went into the lawyer's pocket, as opposed to things like paralegals and such.

Look up billable hours sometime. In fact, here you go.