Jump to content

Talk:ACS:Law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The notability question

[edit]

Given the rising profile of this law firm due to their past actions and future plans perhaps they do warrant an article somewhere on Wikipedia. I know we don't add articles based on the idea that something might become important, so would it be better to move the content over to a news related article instead (perhaps something related to the Digital Economy Bill), or into the law section alongside the article on Davenport Lyons?

P.S - This is my first talk page, if I've missed something please let me know.

(Furtled! (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well, let's have a look at the references in this article. I see a single BBC link, which is a reliable primary source but the rest doesn't confirm any particular notability - simply because only two other references, torrentfreak and beingthreatened, mention this particular firm. These two are blogs though and I won't consider them as primary sources. All other references deal with legal aspects of file sharing or with Davenport Lyons instead of ACS. So to sum it up, one BBC news appearance is not sufficient to speak of notability. De728631 (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've been doing further investigation. I'm going to make some edits to include additional links from Which? who I would have thought counted as a primary source (let me know if I've got that wrong), don't the blogging links count as secondary given the subject matter? - it's a web issue so the majority of the information is going to be on blogs. There's also the issue of ACS: Law being linked with Davenport Lyons with the same people being targeted and the same staff being involved, although that hasn't been mentioned on the BBC so I'm not sure that counts as anything more than here say right now. (Furtled! (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Here's a bunch of references beyond the BBC article. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I think that they're all Internet based "tabloids" except for T3 which also has a print edition. Some of those sites have blogs, but these references were written by staff writers. So not much yet, but it's a step up from blogs.--Farry (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Farry. I've done a bit of a clean-up, moved the article to the right section, and taken out anything that I couldn't find any back-up for as well as adding information on their one other 'newsworthy' case, I'll go through the links you found and make more changes once I have a more stable connection. Not sure about the section on Assertions in claims, will do more digging to see what backs the information there up. Furtled! (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again making headlines

[edit]

Piracy letter campaign 'nets innocents' 26 January 2010 @ BBC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.77.174.74 (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the other allegations?

[edit]

1. The Named owner of the acs-law domain is the same person Terence tsang who registered the domain moorganstanley.com (in bad faith) and used it to redirect finance related traffic away from the complainant(morgan stanley)'s own site. http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/896636.htm

Also Crossley the sole principle at ACSlaw has not been disaplined by the SRA once but twice (the previous disaplinary action is listed in ref 4. The first time was in 2002 and resulted in a fine and suspension. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.30.140 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Homepage down

[edit]

The homepage is down, please adjust the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.248.28 (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Client List

[edit]

What corporations\companies does ACS LAW represent? They send out generic letters accusing people of piracy and offering people an opportunity to 'settle' for +£500 but who are they collecting this for specifically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.236.129 (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the question, the answer to which is conspicuous by its absence. This BBC report notes:
"ACS:Law has made a business out of sending thousands of letters to alleged net pirates, asking them to pay compensation of about £500 per infringement or face court. A BBC investigation in August found a number of people who said they were wrongly accused by ACS:Law of illegal file-sharing. The firm is under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) over its role in sending letters to alleged pirates."
There's no indication of exactly which rights holders ACS:L are working for, if indeed they are! Nick Cooper (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The leaked emails contain extensive details of how the company operated, all rights holders involved will be known soon if not already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.31.27 (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they can only be added once a reliable source mentions them, rather than looking at the emails, which would be original research. Smartse (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you're saying these sources aren't 'reliable'? In case you haven't checked the headers of all the emails: All the ACS emails online and ready to read: http://ueof.co.uk/acslaw and a nice collective for verifiable data: http://piratepad.net/5ruk4gezrd 146.50.227.64 (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are widespread WP:DOB issues in the sources cited here. The article could not point people at this type of material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and yes 146, they are not reliable in the sense of sources that we can use. Smartse (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sourcing

[edit]

The section in the criticism section, titled "Pressure groups against ACS:Law" and "Attempts to silence Slyck.com" should be removed, since they are poorly sourced and are basically based on forum discussions which are obviously not reliable sources. Are there any policy-based reasons for these to stay? Smartse (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate action is to improve the section. It is well reported in the media, not just 'basically based on forum discussions'. The wish to remove specific information rather than enhance the article is a curious way to address the article quality. One might expect such a request from someone with an interest in ACS:Law itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.175.59 (talk • contribs)
But has there been coverage of this in reliable sources? Just because it has happened, does not mean we should cover it in the article. Smartse (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/538117.php ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.137.8 (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added ref. Keristrasza (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Smartse (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massive data leak

[edit]

The latest episode in this saga is the massive leak of confidential information by ACS:Law, including personal information of individuals whom the company alleges, or potentially intends to allege, breached laws, but also the company's internal records and emails that make it plain that a primary goal is to obtain money by threat of legal action. This has been widely reported in th UK press and on the BBC. E.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/sep/28/bskyb-acslaw-filesharing and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11425789.

The UK Information Commissioner is taking a strong interest. From the BBC source, above: "The UK's Information Commissioner said ACS:Law could be fined up to half a million pounds for the breaches."

Also, Privacy International is planning egal action against ACS:Law - http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/09/27/privacy-international-plans-legal-action-against-acs-law-uk-over-data-breach.html.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.175.59 (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym

[edit]

Any idea about what the ACS stands for? It might be useful for the article. --86.163.127.51 (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only a guess but Andrew Crossley Solicitor(s)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.183.126 (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACS:Law website

[edit]

Although media reports say that the Anonymous attack took down the website for a few hours, it has not returned fully since the DDoS incident.[7] However, http://www.acs-law.org.uk/ is still the official website of ACS:Law, and it should stay in the infobox until further information emerges.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the site content accessible to the reader? No
  • Is the link functional and likely to remain functional? No
This is a deadlink. When–and if– ACS:Law set up another website, add a functioning link. Keristrasza (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the site could go back up again in the next hour, and Wikipedia is not news. It may be worth noting in the article that the firm's website is currently down, but Wikipedia articles should avoid questions best left to http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is WP a crystal ball regarding the future intent of some firm's tech guy. However, it isn't an issue worth getting into an edit war over, so I'm happy to compromise with your addition of the disclaimer in the infobox. Enjoy your weekend =) Keristrasza (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To keep everyone happy, I will remove the link to the website if it is still down in a few days' time. There is no rush on this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Keristrasza (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit. The ACS:Law website has not returned since the data leak storm broke in late September 2010, but it would need a reliable source to say that it will not return. It may be that ACS:Law has decided to give the website a miss in order to prevent future controversies or hacking attempts, but that is a guess only.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like ACS:Law could face disciplinary action in the near future.

[edit]

[8] The SRA referred their case to the SDT (Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal). This could get really interesting. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 14:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GCB Ltd

[edit]

Can someone who knows about these things (not I) please write a paragraph or two about GCB Ltd which seems to be "ACS:Law the sequel". 213.122.34.239 (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is early days on this. There have been claims that GCB is "Son of ACS:Law", but there is not enough reliably sourced material for the article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACS:Law closed down?

[edit]

According to this story, ACS:Law has decided to close down for good. The sourcing looks a bit too speculative for the article at the moment, so it is best to wait and see what happens in court.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not taken by Techwatch? How about the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12366747 or the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/feb/04/acs-law-mediacat-close-filesharing there are other articles out there too. The reason I've not looked to incorporate these new facts is because whilst I believe the journalists have written articles that themselves are properly sourced, I'm not at all convinced that the source tells the truth (ACS:Law itself) Jasonfward (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are reliable so they are suitable for the article. The next step is what happens in court on Tuesday afternoon.[9]
Re this edit. Nothing with ACS:Law is ever quite as simple as it first appears, so it might be best to see what happens in court first.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing on the 16th of March

[edit]

Here's the BBC coverage of the hearing on the 16th of March. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PC Pro

[edit]

[10] I'm not disputing the accuracy of the photograph, but the accompanying text is tabloid-style soapboxing. Crossley denied owning the "gleaming Bentley Arnage – a vehicle popular with Premiership footballers", while the £700,000 price tag for the house is also speculative. This is non-NPOV material, and is not really suitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SDT decision

[edit]

SDT suspends ACS:Law founder for two years. I've updated the article to reflect that a decision has now come out of the SDT against Crossley. Sorry if I missed anything. Connolly15 (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On definite court judgments

[edit]

Actually, the whole statement "The only records of successful court cases brought by ACS:Law in relation to copyright infringement through peer-to-peer file sharing were won by default when the defendants failed to appear." is very questionable. There were 2 sources provided - one is TorrentFreak link which doesn't mention ACS at all - and it is not possible to support statement about "the only records" without explicit reference - obviously, if we're not able to find proof that other records don't exist, stating that they don't exist is invalid WP:OR/WP:SYN. Second source supporting the statement is no longer accessible, not even via web archive; I'm afraid that unless new reference is provided, it will violate WP:V, making this reference inadmissible either. Therefore, I'd prefer to remove this claim altogether. Ipsign (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ACS website did indeed provide this information, and yes it is now gone (although why not in the Internet Archive I don't know), but it was a verifable source, much as are many quoted website news stories that are no longer available online, but they continue to be used as a source, I don't see why this is any different. Jasonfward (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this one is not that it is not available online, but that it is not available at all for verification; per WP:V, having online link is not (and has never been) a requirement, but having some proof (online or otherwise) is a requirement. See WP:LINKROT; while there is an understanding that this kind of things do happen, and substantial time is normally allowed to find alternative sources, WP:V still applies, and unsupported claim can be removed. Ipsign (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ACS:Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ACS:Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ACS:Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2002 and 2006 claims

[edit]

Following up on an external review request (OTRS ticket:2020011610006461) it does not appear there are sufficient reliable sources to back up the "found guilty" claims in 2002 and 2006. Before reinserting this claim, additional reliable sources should be found. — xaosflux Talk 18:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACS:Law&oldid=1197140208"