[Tezcatlipoca]

Re-post from earlier:

For anyone new to the thread, these may be interesting...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/...tening_le.html

http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-b...-peers-081020/

http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-...o-porn-081118/ [WARNING: contains some bad language within the story due to the names of the files]


Michael Coyle at Lawdit Soliciters has been representing some of DL's vict...defendants. For free. Lots of info here:

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room...fringement.htm

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room...on-the-act.htm

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room...le-sharing.htm

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room...of-the-end.htm

---------- Post added at 23:13 ---------- Previous post was at 22:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Toto

Not so high awards to four file sharers.

Here's the big one, YIKES.

Now, as Cookie says, these may be defendants that simply ignored the threats, but I am hard pressed to find anything on the net that confirms this.

AFAIK the one where the woman was stung for £16k was definitely a default judgement due to her not showing up.

As for the other story you linked to:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...m_pinball_win/

Originally Posted by The Register

None of the four filesharers were represented in court last week to contest the accusation that they had illegally shared the game Dream Pinball 3D. The no-show meant the court was forced to find in favour of the plaintiff.

--------------


This is interesting, & fits with what others have said earlier:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/25/p2p_bullies/

Originally Posted by The Register

(snip)

Dai Davis, a solicitor with Brooke North LLP, who has been representing people in intellectual property cases for 20 years, spoke up for the accused after being told that Davenport had refused to entertain their claims of innocence.

Davenport accepts that some users may have had their machines hijacked or used without their knowledge but says they should still pay £300 to £600 to settle its claims or face arguing their case in court.

"The security of your computer and internet connection is your responsibility," it told them.

Davis disagreed, however: "Are you responsible for the criminal acts of others if someone hacks into your wireless network? No you're not. There's no legal requirement for someone to have a secure network.

"Ultimately Davenport will continue to try to bully [people] into settling, but if [people] push it and push it, they'll go away. They can't be held responsible for the criminal act of a third party," he said.

(snip)