Fast says file-sharing legal action must continue
Despite ACS Law dropping out of proceedings, the courts are facing pressure to see the MediaCAT case through to its end
The Federation Against Software Theft (Fast) has backed the UK courts decision to press ahead with 26 illegal file sharing cases, following the uproar caused by notorious law firm ACS Law pulling out of proceedings.
Last month, ACS Law declared it would no longer represent its partner company and copyright protection company MediaCAT in challenging the 26 people who refused to pay after it was alleged that they had been illegally sharing pornographic movies.
ACS Law initiated the case but after the head of the solicitors' firm, Andrew Crossley, received death threats he told Judge Colin Birss that he no longer wanted to be involved.
"Much press coverage is being given over to the problems, politics and methods employed to catch infringers, but what has been forgotten is that the appreciation of value in digital IP is so low, many think nothing of sharing paid-for product with friends and the world at large for free," said Julian Heathcote-Hobbins, general counsel, Fast.
Judge Birss has himself said: "I cannot imagine a system better designed to create disincentives to test the issues in the court." He also explained that he did not want to drop the case simply to "avoid public scrutiny".
Heathcote-Hobbins went on to say that if someone does not want their product to be shared on a peer-to-peer platform, it should not be.
"Fast is simply not going to comment on the actions of the two companies involved. However in all the speculation, one fact has been overlooked and there is a need to pursue infringers from time to time. If there is no consequence, the behaviour is unlikely to change.
"Research conducted by media law firm Wiggin has found that over two-thirds of those who illegally download content from file-sharing sites would stop if asked by letter to do so. Sanctions have to be there.
"Our argument is that the cases therefore need to be seen to conclusion so that if the judiciary criticises the way in which this law is enforced it could be improved, meaning the innocent are not accused and those who persist in this activity can be held to account."