Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS?

[theasix]

I got another letter form Davenport.

They want me to provide some information about my router, manufacturer, model, how many letters and digits is used to protect my network etc.

then as I suggested in my letter written to them, they asked me to give them full names of people that lived with me at the time of this alleged infrigement. and if i know who could get access to my network - did i authorize that person and give full details of that person.

But on the other hand how could I know that person if someone theoretically could gain access to my network without me knowing it right?

Should I write back and give them all needed information, at least about router and hardware stuff?


edit:

that's their words:

"You state that you have a secured wireless network and/or have an internet connection which is shared with a number of individuals at your property.

In order to enable us to assess what you say as a matter of evidence, we would ask that you please provide the following information applicable at the time of the infregement (and anyh relevant changes made subsequently)"

[Raistlin]

I think I'd send them a two word response TBH - they're asking you to give information that could potentially incriminate someone else, guilt is up to them to prove.

[theasix]

So what you're saying is just to write "c'ya in court?"

[Raistlin]

Well, I'm not qualified to give legal advice, but I'd have been tempted not to even bother responding in the first place (or, if I did respond, it would have been two words long and I might have been tempted to enclose something nasty in the envelope with it!).

[penumbra]

Originally Posted by theasix

I got another letter form Davenport.

They want me to provide some information about my router, manufacturer, model, how many letters and digits is used to protect my network etc.
<snip>

Very interesting.

I would contact Which? magazine at whichcomputingnews@which.co.uk specifically Emma Mash about this as they are clearly fishing for information from you in a manner which I'm not quite sure they're allowed to (or it is ethical to do). This could be another thing to report them to the SRA for.

Briefly the CDPA 1988 requires for you personally have infringed copyright, or to have authorised another person to do so. Davenport Lyons do not have evidence that you have done this - in fact they even go to great lengths to state that they are not saying you did it, or have it on your hard drive, just that your connection was used to do it. Thus, their case under the CDPA 1988 vanishes in a puff of smoke.

Although the standard of evidence in a civil case is just balance of probabilities, the fact remains that you say you did not do it and they have no evidence it was you at all. It is not up to you to help them. They should have gathered the required evidence themselves.

Any form of wireless encryption can be broken, with various degrees of triviality. They are clearly fishing for other people to write to, and to asses whether your story rings true (e.g if you had a low security WEP password at the time). They really should have made up their minds on this BEFORE they sent the first letter and I'm not sure if you're obliged to give them the information. They've dug their own hole and now they have to lie in it.

If I were you, I would visit your local CAB / Solicitors surgery. Michael Coyle at Lawdit has previously offered free telephone advice, which if he's still providing would be well worth it. Also - contact Which? ASAP.

[theasix]

I wrote to Which?.

Actually I forgot to mention that in my letter from November I asked them to provide me with evidence that they're accusing me of doing this AS a PARTICULAR PERSON and not as a account holder (cuz that's what they actually did - that's how they got my adress - because BT can provide only account holder's name - they don't know who's living with me at the moment). But being an account holder isn't a crime. Even in case of infregement by someone in the household, cuz still you can't prove who exactly was it. I don't remember where I've read it but accont holder can not be held responsible for actions of people in the network. Am I right?

There's one thing I don't understand from that letter (forgive me, I'm foreigner so I'm still having some problems with that kind of language);

".... explain what inquiries you have made since receiving our letter of claim as to whether your internet connection was used to infringe our client's copyright..."

[cook1984]

Originally Posted by theasix

They want me to provide some information about my router, manufacturer, model, how many letters and digits is used to protect my network etc.

then as I suggested in my letter written to them, they asked me to give them full names of people that lived with me at the time of this alleged infrigement. and if i know who could get access to my network - did i authorize that person and give full details of that person.

They are phishing for information here. You should not provide it. You are under no legal obligation to. If they want to build a case it is up to them to do the investigation, not you.

I would write back to them stating that you are unwilling to provide the information they have requested, and repeat your request to see any evidence they might have. You might also want to include an invoice for say 100 pounds, to cover your time and costs.

---------- Post added at 04:24 ---------- Previous post was at 04:19 ----------

Originally Posted by theasix

".... explain what inquiries you have made since receiving our letter of claim as to whether your internet connection was used to infringe our client's copyright..."

Tell them that you are still waiting to see any evidence they have so that you can investigate further. Be clear that if they want you to investigate, they will be charged at £100 per hour for your time. Ask them to agree to this in writing if they wish you to investigate.

Once more, state that you do not share the file, and that you did not authorise anyone else to share it, and that they have still not provided any evidence or identified any individual who may have infringed their client's copyright.

[penumbra]

Originally Posted by cook1984

Tell them that you are still waiting to see any evidence they have so that you can investigate further. Be clear that if they want you to investigate, they will be charged at £100 per hour for your time. Ask them to agree to this in writing if they wish you to investigate.

Once more, state that you do not share the file, and that you did not authorise anyone else to share it, and that they have still not provided any evidence or identified any individual who may have infringed their client's copyright.

This is pretty disgusting. I'm actually quite horrified at this.

Davenport Lyons' clients should really do their own investigation, seeing as they are the forensic experts. DL have no place in becoming some kind of police force and asking you to do their clients' work for them. Furthermore, this is showing exactly how weak their method of IP fishing is.

Note, that in the past when asked for more evidence off Davenport Lyons, they have merely replied "we feel we have given you enough evidence" which it is worth considering writing in reply. Cook1984 has hit the nail on the head, It should be enough that you have denied you have done it and you have not authorised anyone else to do it. Davenport Lyons do not even accuse you - just your connection.

If you like, you could invite them over to your house to shout at your phone socket until £500 drops out. It would achieve the same thing.

[cook1984]

It might be worth forwarding copies of all the letters to the Solicitors Regulation Authority too. They are currently investigating Davenport Lyons and I'm sure they would be very interested in this.

[theasix]

I wrote back to Davenport. gonna send it out tomorrow.

nobody from Which? replied...

[minimum]

I received an identical letter asking for information on make, model and serial No. of router used and what enquiries I'd made to find out who did infringe the copyright.

Stupid me, thought they were maybe going to see sense and drop the accusation.

I wrote to Which and they did reply. They contacted DL in February about this.

[Toxic Debt]

Here's my story so far..

Got letter last November informing me my ip address was caught downloading at 9.01am one day last May downloading and uploading a music album by Scooter over bittorrent.

It didnt surprise me as I run a PC repair shop and have many customers PC's connected to my network at any point in time. Many riddled with hijackers and other virus based software.

I contacted Lawdit solicitors and gave them my mitigation that as an PC repair business it may have been one of my customers PC's that continued downloading / uploading when it was connected to my network at the start of business (9am). I was advised that this would not be going to court and for a fee of £50 plus VAT they would write to Davenport Lyons on my behalf.

Heard nothing for three months then Lawdit sent me a letter from DL stating that they did not say I had deliberately downloaded / uploaded the file but were proceeding with the case on the grounds that my IP address was enough to secure a victory.

Another £50 to lawdit secured a final letter to DL from Lawdit telling them they would defend my case vigorously.

Today they received a reply stating that if payment was not forthcoming with 14 days the will start proceedings against me. Lawdit said it would cost me £3000 for my defence and if I loose DL's costs could amount to around £15000.

My Dilemma:
I can not afford to pay for a defence (lawdit said no to a 'No win No fee').
I could defend myself (badly)
Or i could just pay up.

But I have a real problem with paying their demanded £505 as this will be seen as an admission. Therefore I can no longer allow it to happen again which means that I con not allow any of my customers PC's to be connected to my network in fear of some torrent download software running behind a hijacked (loacked) PC.

So therefore DL will have effectively put me out of business as i will no longer to be able to ply my trade.

I am going to email Lawdit and ask them if I pay can we do DL for taking my business away.

Any advice would be welcome

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Toxic Debt

snip snip

More advice will be forth coming I am sure, in the mean time have a look through the thread, this particular issue has been touched on in depth and if IIRC it bodes well for you.

[minimum]

Phew! I thought I had problems. I can't afford the £500 DL want therefore I can't afford a solicitor.

I have seen so many times the Lawdit solicitor was helping for free but when I contacted them they wanted £70 to write a letter which should put a stop to it all. Ha! I'm wondering now if they aren't on a money making scam of there own.

The matter still hasn't been resolved for me but I think I might have made the right decision not to use Lawdit but wrote to: my MP, Watchdog and Which.

Good luck with it, I think you'll need it

[penumbra]

Originally Posted by Toxic Debt

<snip>
It didnt surprise me as I run a PC repair shop and have many customers PC's connected to my network at any point in time. Many riddled with hijackers and other virus based software.
<snip>
I contacted Lawdit solicitors and gave them my mitigation that as an PC repair business it may have been one of my customers PC's that continued downloading / uploading when it was connected to my network at the start of business (9am). I was advised that this would not be going to court and for a fee of £50 plus VAT they would write to Davenport Lyons on my behalf.
<snip>

Davenport Lyons take great care to not accuse you of anything. Just your connection. They do not have evidence of you doing anything, which is required to bring a case of copyright infringement.

They merely state they will hold you responsible for your connection being used at time point X for distributing file y.

This is legal gibberish.

If this were the possible basis of a court case, then ISPs, internet cafes and wireless hotspots would be in extremely hot water and would be getting dragged to court left right and centre.

They aren't.

This whole campaign is an intimidation tactic, which an awful lot of people fall for. They don't need to lay out any money on a court case - plenty of people pay up the £500 to make it very profitable indeed.

Also, if they had such super duper evidence, then in their history of nearly 3 years doing this they would have taken someone who isn't imaginary (or rather who doesn't ignore their letters completely) to court and won by now.

I know several people who have had the third letter and are being represented by Lawdit. They are simply practising justice by mailshot again. Even if you do end up in court it seems you have a more than adequate case.

Relax.