| Quote from: et0 |
| Do you know it's a small fraction? I do not. |
ACS' own disclosures claim it is a small fraction. A more circumspect consideration would lead me to an even smaller fraction. There is nothing particularly new about the ACS scam. It is just another numbers games, reliant on the cost of the gamble and the ignorance of the victims. It is highly likely to follow the same general mathematical rules established by similar scams.
| Quote |
It may have caused one particular Lionel Hutz type outfit some stress, that doesn't mean to say it's the magic bullet for reducing this problem.
|
Short of legislation there is no magic bullet as such. There are always going to be opportunists looking to make a fast buck by inflicting misery on others. The most effective way of stopping their toxic business practices is to set out to break the underlying business model which makes it lucrative. Speculative invoicing is a gamble, which can be broken by increasing the 'stake' that must be invested to play the game, while simultaneously reducing the realisable return. As I mentioned, the curves are well established.
ISPs charging per IP processed, as they are fully entitled to, increases the investment required. Informing potential victims of the nature of the con reduces the eventual return from it - as less people pay up. Further, although it sounds counter intuitive, increasing the amount demanded from victims also reduces returns. The demand has nothing to do with true cost, it is simply a figure the targets are likely to pay. Increasing the settlement figure motivates people to investigate further, which results in fewer people paying up when they realise the claim of prosecution is an empty threat. Keep in mind that the nature of the evidence supporting the threat is so unreliable that ACS own legal advisers have stated it would not stand scrutiny in front a court.
| Quote |
| I would still feel uncomfortable with having my details "sold" in this way. |
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. In this specific case I believe the alternatives are far worse. I have no wish to finance operations like ACS:law and those that seek to copy their business model. If the scheme is not made less lucrative while it is in it's infancy more shister lawyers will set up to copy it. When enough of them are doing it and lobbying for the right to continue to do it, a repugnant practise may gain a false sense of legitimacy.
For the record, my details were not released by PN, I do not engage in piracy or support piracy and I have had my own intellectual property pirated in the past to the tune of several £10,000sy. I just feel very strongly that it is the duty of those *who know* to protect, as they may, the vulnerable who *do not know* ACS are perverting the law in the pursuit of personal profit, a crime far, far worse than the charge they lay in front their victims.
