This article was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ACS:Law article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Only a guess but Andrew Crossley Solicitor(s)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.183.126 ( talk) 23:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
Here's the BBC coverage of the hearing on the 16th of March. DuncanHill ( talk) 01:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
[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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sra.org.uk/documents/consumers/SDT/Crossley%209346.05_0206.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
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)