Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS? - Page 19

theasix · 01-12-2008, 23:29

so what happens if they don't reply? You're not saying they just drop the case "like that" are you?

theoretically i still have time till sunday to pay but christ that would be stupid wouldn't it?

penumbra · 02-12-2008, 09:55

Theasix, there's some helpful advice over at the Slyk forums. Specifically two posts, "I've received a letter what should I do?" and "What can we do as a group?".

In brief, if you didn't do it - reply and deny. Don't put too many details in the letter - you're just giving them points to argue over.

They don't need to know you use wireless, they don't need to know how many people use your connection - just that you have never bought or downloaded what they accuse you of making available so you couldn't possibly have distributed it. Express concern but politely tell them they are mistaken and they should go away. It is not a legal requirement to secure your wireless and you are not responsible for people breaking the law with your connection, without your consent. Bear in mind that if it's your name on the letter it is you they are accusing of the offence and you they will (probably not) take to court.

If you did do it, Ã‚Â£500 is a lot for a single file. Also, they have no place deciding the damages - the only person who can do this is a judge. Send them a cheque for one copy of the song and tell them you consider the matter closed.

If you are innocent, complain loudly to your MP, the Information commissioner, the SRA and your local newspapers.

slowcoach · 02-12-2008, 11:03

I have heard that those who do pay tend to get another letter regarding some other download, so it appears you just can't win.

penumbra · 02-12-2008, 11:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowcoach

I have heard that those who do pay tend to get another letter regarding some other download, so it appears you just can't win.

There has been one reported person who paid the Ã‚Â£500 for a computer game way back, then got a demand for Ã‚Â£1600 for downloading a different game. They had signed an undertaking never to fileshare again, however.

Details about what they do if you offer them less aren't readily available, but they have been quoted by the mail as being "willing to negotiate". I certainly would not sign any undertaking provided by them, but perhaps it would be prudent to agree not to make that particular file available again.

theasix · 02-12-2008, 20:41

@penumbra.. yeah I've read it.. but it was after I sent my letter. I'm waiting for response and next time I'll make sure to write more convincing one.

Mick Fisher · 02-12-2008, 23:23

As it is well known that swarms are 'seeded' with fictitious IP's wouldn't it be impossible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a particular individual downloaded/uploaded something/anything.

Surely it can only be established that a paid third party reportedly observed said IP in some swarm at some time. Isn't that Hearsay? To me that seems somewhat tenuous particularly as it is likely the third party probably initiated the swarm in the first place for the sole purpose of entrapping people.

Of course, under this present Government, we seem to be heading to the presumed Guilty unless proved Innocent state but we are not quite there yet. So I am of the opinion that denying everything is the way to go.

My sympathies to anyone who has become enmeshed in this affair with the extremely seedy Davenport Lyons and the equally seedy and opportunistic lackeys they employ.

penumbra · 03-12-2008, 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

As it is well known that swarms are 'seeded' with fictitious IP's wouldn't it be impossible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a particular individual downloaded/uploaded something/anything.

You're quite right, it can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, because Davenport Lyons have gone down the civil action route, all they require is balance of probabilities. They just have to convince a judge 51%.

It's arguable that an IP alone could do this - with a halfway competent defence (and a well informed judge) I don't think it would stand a chance of reaching the required level. If no defence is filed (as in the case of Ms Barwiniska) then the judge will have no option but to side with DL.

dippergt750 · 04-12-2008, 14:29

Atari (Test Drive Unlimited and other Davenport Lyons "traps") have sacked Davenport Lyons due presumably to their "ambulance chasing" tactics, and their practce of "baiting" various peer to peer services with their wares in order to procure IP addresses that they can then chase for their Ã‚Â£500 pay off.

It would seem that a large and reputable company like Atari, no longer wish to be linked with such practice.

It should be understood, that the Davenport Lyons campaign, though unethical and heavy handed, was, just, legal. Their evidence trail was weak and their source at best questionable and (in my humble opinion) none of it was likely to stand up in court if defended properly......BUT IT WAS LEGAL.

Now we come to an interesting point. Notwithstanding the fact that "offenders" who were scared into paying had to give an undertaking not to partake in further file sharing, in other words declaring themselves guilty. Are the fees they paid to Davenport Lyons recoverable?

I would wonder, under the wonderfully obtuse British legal system, if those payments collected would be returnable as Atari have effectivly withdrawn their case, also, if the payment has been held by the acting solicitor (Davenport Lyons) in a client account (which earns interest) is interest payable on the returned amount? Also, as Atari have withdrawn their case, are those of us who contested the claim entitled to claim back the cost of the time, trouble and effort not to mention stress, involved in so doing?

**Hugh** · 04-12-2008, 14:34

Link re Atari?

dippergt750 · 04-12-2008, 14:45

Sorry, should have said.........

Simply Google Davenport Lyons and the press story comes up. Phoning Davenport Lyons gets a grudging admission (if you badger them) that they are no longer acting for Atari.

04-12-2008, 14:55

The Register

dippergt750 · 04-12-2008, 15:42

It was also all over radio 4 this morning.

Kymmy · 05-12-2008, 10:29

Look out guys you're all in for it now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/te...00/7766448.stm

dippergt750 · 05-12-2008, 10:59

Yeah! Davenport Lyons have lost one ambulance to chase so they manufacture another one!

Personally, I've billed them Ã‚Â£300.00 through the small claims court for forcing me to "defend" myself via correspondance (as per the Civil Proceedings Act) and also for stress & anguish. As they went after me for Atari's "Test Drive Unlimited" which I have a HUGE need for on a Linux based business network!

05-12-2008, 11:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Look out guys you're all in for it now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/te...00/7766448.stm

Quote:

'Upset and angry' Twenty-seven-year-old 'Helen', not her real name, from Hull, told Newsbeat she was "upset, scared and angry" after a letter landed on her doormat last month demanding Ã‚Â£525 for sharing a single adult movie over the net.

that quote makes me laugh. Helen not here real name so if her name was clare and they posted clare from hull they aint gonna know who they mean unless there is only one clare in hull. Every Helen in hull is now worried lol lol