Anti-Piracy law firm faces bankruptcy; win for the net?

Remember the leaked emails (check the thread for background info) which revealed the deceptive tactics of the anti piracy law firm ACS: Law? Well apparently those leaks, in combination with an online payback movement from 4chan (who have successfully launched many DDoS attacks against the ACS:Law website and have brought to worldwide attention the conman-like behaviour of the firm) is really hurting the firm and their infamous owner/operator Andrew Crossley. Hurting him enough that it might in fact bring down ACS:Law all together and push him to bankruptcy.

A new TorrentFreak release states:

After disgruntled letter recipients mailed off a barrage of complaints to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority against ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley, he told his advisor that not only did he “feel defeated” but that in his long-term interests it might be better if he “shut up shop”. Doing so, he explained, would bankrupt him.
ACS: Law Boss: I feel defeated and could go bankrupt

Crossley further state:


“I am worried about the latest developments. Apparently there are presently over 500 complaints against me thanks to the internet campaign and Which,” Crossley wrote to his advisor just over a month ago.

“Each complaint is essentially the same and they are borne out of a determination by some to stop legitimate steps being taken to curtail illegal file sharing. However, I do not know how I can avoid being found guilty of something, with 500 complaints to choose from,” he continued.


The internet campaign he is referring to is OPERATION PAYBACK who are now moving onto other targets and anti-copyright infringement heavyweights like AFACT and as of this post, the Ministry of Sound.

If you looked at the leaks from a couple of weeks ago you would have seen emails like this one:

“You seem to have ignored my previous e-mail, I am not happy and want some revenue in account,”... “Everyone is getting their bit and I am owed £17k ffs.”

There are more like this, Crossley owes money and this has hit him and his cronies hard. This comes as a victory for the online activists especially following comments from Crossley following the first DDoS attacks where he stated that they were insignificant and that he cared more if his train was late in the morning.

Cases like this are much more important for freedom on the internet than many care to think. Illegal downloader or not, there is a war being waged over copyright/downloading, with legislation like ACTA being just one example which may impact upon those who infringe and don't infringe just the same.

Stay tuned.

I could say its a Victory for the net and
Now if the manga publishers could only see this, if the people demand it free, let it be free.
Star and flag OP

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
I could say its a Victory for the net and
Now if the manga publishers could only see this, if the people demand it free, let it be free.
Star and flag OP

I don't think that would fund the artist of such comics?

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
I could say its a Victory for the net and
Now if the manga publishers could only see this, if the people demand it free, let it be free.
Star and flag OP

I don't think that would fund the artist of such comics?

Shutting down sites like onemanga and other free viewing sites, wont boost there sales of manags as they wished it would, today i was at one chapter book store and guess what mangas are still standing there in the dust, people aren't buying them.
Second people in Europe dont even know what mangas are and have rarely access to them people cant make 4 trips each year just to buy mangas at there book stores.

The timing of release of mangas is a huge issue.

As for the funding for the artist, he or she can make money different ways using there mangas but it seems the Japanese manga artists are stuck in the 90s.

I can see why having sites with manga on it might be a good thing in some ways ... but I'd prefer these things to be on kindle or something like that. At least have the artists actively decide to give their work out for free.

Removing from the equation doesn't seem fair. Anyway, we're probably getting a bit off topic.

One method that I feel can reduce the impact of lost revenue due to piracy is to get those pirate sites into agreement of small subscription fee (eg. $2/mth) for each subscriber .. loyal subscribers get free T-shirt and mug. Allow the pirate sites small commission and bulk goes to copyright owners. That way everyone feels happy.

The problem is that artists and their companies are not willing to negotiate because they're comfortable with their fatso salaries and lifestyles.

reply to post by wisdomnotemotion


OR.

Media should start utilizing existing technologies such as P2P instead of shunning it as if it were the spawn of the devil. Why not establish a system, even release a P2P based product which would download 'official' torrents of your favorite TV shows (for example) automatically once they're released. Of course it would come at a cost. But to be quite honest I would subscribe if the prices were decent.

99c per episode.

Perhaps $15 for a season of your favorite show to be downloaded to your box. Which is a fair price when you consider that most seasons go for 20-25 episodes and can last upto 9 months.

Anyone could devise a price plan, the point being is that the favored tech. isn't being utilized and its hurting everyone.

The amusing thing is that these emails were he's worried about the financial future of his company are from a month before the attacks took place.

So if he was worried then you can guarantee that he's in ball deep now.

Seems that BT and their child company Plusnet have grown a temporary pair and said no to Gallant MacMillan's request for details of alleged Ministry of Sound copyright infringement.

"We want to ensure broadband subscribers are adequately protected so that rights holders can pursue their claims for copyright infringement without causing unnecessary worry to innocent people. We have not simply consented to these orders in the past, we have asked for stricter terms as public concern has risen. Read more: www.techeye.net...

So BT'll still do you over but it wants to make sure that it does it without losing more face.

-m0r

Apparently many users are still being sent infringement letters from ACS Law... many UK ISP's are resisting giving away user information and are actually going to court over the dispute. I pulled this response letter from an accused infringer off of a new Guardian blog:

static.guim.co.uk...

From blog: www.guardian.co.uk...

Looks like not everyone is accepting the letters and just paying up.

Screw the RIAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Paybacks a bitch.

I've always felt that the whole music industry is trying to keep its business model any way it can. Instead of adapting to new technology coming out. They try to make it illegal.
Which is not a good business model and is doomed to failure.

The music and motion picture industries are doomed to fail eventually. We will win. It's just a matter of time.

reply to post by grey580


I actually think that things may start changing soon… surely they can’t rely on this outdated business model for much longer? Look at how much money is being spent on supposedly fighting piracy, when money could actually be made by switching over to a different market mechanism.

Adapt or die.

I don’t think they plan on dying, and I don’t want the music or film industry to die. Just adapt and make it work, that is all.

reply to post by grey580


I actually think that things may start changing soon… surely they can’t rely on this outdated business model for much longer? Look at how much money is being spent on supposedly fighting piracy, when money could actually be made by switching over to a different market mechanism.

Adapt or die.

I don’t think they plan on dying, and I don’t want the music or film industry to die. Just adapt and make it work, that is all.

Trent Reznor and Nine Inch Nails seem to have worked out a good strategy.
The last album and his latest EP has been given away for free, with paid for versions having additional extras, and interesting packaging etc...
AND they seem to be making a pretty decent living out of it too.
It seems they're just not GREEDY, and out to squeeze their fan base of every penny they can get.

Having said that, people are still ripping him off, even though he is offering his latest album for a very reasonable $5 as a download.

It's sometimes difficult to know where to stand on this one.

I think this post will explain why we hear the companies in the industry complain much louder than the artists regarding piracy...

The trickle down nature of the free market business model does not pay the artist very much for their toil. Never has. IF the artist has a proven track record of selling massive amounts of albums, cd's dvd's, downloads, then the artist can obtain a lucrative contract with royalties based on a per piece or per thousand type payment scale. But this rarely happens before the artist has sold at least two or more platunum or multi-platinum selling records. Traditionally, the artist stands to maximize their profit potential through concert ticket sales and merchandizing. KISS was a superb example of successfully merchandizing the bands brand, logo, and images. Another way for the band to maximize profit is to own itself, to own the copyrights, publishing rights, all of the rights to is own brand, music, everything. Then the artist (band) can sell distribution rights to the highest bidder. Of course this usually can only work out in the bands favor if there already is a demand for their material.

Back in the day, quality recording equipment was very expensive and access to it was just as costly. A record company would sign artists to a recording contract, pay for the studio rental for recording, pay for the reproduction of the record, pay for the packaging, distribution, payola to have the singles played on the airwaves, finance the tour, maybe finance the merchandizing. Then the record company would use the fact that they paid for everything to restrict the artists share of the profits. The artist wouldn't even earn any profits untill the record companies investments were recouped. Very disadvantageous for the artist.

Today, a capable PC or Mac, and a program that sells for less than $500 makes for a very nice multi-track digital recording studio. Independent artists record their own material, copyright it, and distribute all by themselves. If demand for the album exceeds the supply, a more capable distributor can be found easily. But still, digital copies of anything are easily distributed without DRM, of which I think there are none any longer.

So, the ones taking it in the pants are mainly the record companies, and the established artists with the massive sales. P2P sharing is a lot like the old underground tape trading that used to go on everywhere back in the 80's and 90's. That tape trading helped a LOT of bands attain recognition and popularity. That entire mentality never seemed to bother any artists until Metallica got some notion that there were missing out on tens of millions of dollars from sales that were not taking place because of P2P file sharing and download services such as the villified Napster. But it has been proven that a certain percentage of P2P file sharers are not going to buy the CD in any case, and some will buy it after they find out if they like the product or not. Some people buy the product simply to have the packaging(artwork, lyrics and information). Some buy it to feel honest about owning the product. Some buy it to support the artist, but they are really supporting the record company.

If you really want to support the recording artist, go see them live in concert and buy theyr merchandise, tee-shirts, banners, and CD's but at the show at the artists table!

Thanx for reading...

This is a short term win for the net.

Long term loss for the users.

This will end up going 1 of 2 ways.

Newer, stronger anti-piracy.

Or, less people producing due to lowered profits.

And yes yes, piracy can increase my market exposure, blah, blah, blah. Sure, in America, unfortunately it is the same organizations that watch for piracy from overseas. And that is a far bigger concern. Do you think any software or entertainment companies will be selling products when 1 million illegal copies start arriving from China / day?

People tend to forget that in certain countries, piracy IS an acceptable form of business.

Shutting down sites like onemanga and other free viewing sites, wont boost there sales of manags as they wished it would. I think they need perfect advertising to boost upm their sales.

I actually conceive that things may commence dynamical soon… certainly they can't rely on this outdated line sit for more somebody? Look at how overmuch money is state spent on supposedly unpeaceful piracy, when money could actually be prefabricated by shift over to a opposite activity performance.

Accommodate or die.

I don't consider they direction on last, and I don't poorness the music or pic industry to die. Retributive alter and egest it output, that is all.
=======================================
law society find a solicitor

Originally posted by anderio04
I actually conceive that things may commence dynamical soon… certainly they can't rely on this outdated line sit for more somebody? Look at how overmuch money is state spent on supposedly unpeaceful piracy, when money could actually be prefabricated by shift over to a opposite activity performance.

Accommodate or die.

I don't consider they direction on last, and I don't poorness the music or pic industry to die. Retributive alter and egest it output, that is all.
=======================================
law society find a solicitor

edit on 18-10-2010 by anderio04 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-10-2010 by anderio04 because: (no reason given)