Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS?

[goggsy0]

Thought i would set upa new thread,the other thread HAVE YOU RECIEVED A LETTER FROM DAVENPORT LYONS...is getting a bit out of hand.however it was very useul at the time..As im one of the many people who recieved a letter off them,im just woindering how people are getting on with replys from DL, as ive sent 2 letters now and dont seem to be getting anywhere with them,they(DL) just keep throwing the ball back in my own court,have asked them for more evidence of wich they replyed they do not have to give..any help on this issue would be appreciated.

[MovedGoalPosts]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7697898.stm

Which Magazine now seems to be throwing it's weight about.

[Kymmy]

It's nice to see that the general news articles are now quoting The Pirate Bays action of inserting innocent IP's...

[cook1984]

TorrentFreak adds a bit more detail, stating that they presumed that the error was because of someone accessing their wifi. If that is the case or if DL just targeted them based on an IP returned from the tracker we will probably never know.

http://torrentfreak.com/magazine-for...e-case-081029/

I just hope the publicity will eventually put a stop to their money making scam.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Rob

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7697898.stm....

I found this rather odd:

...prosecutors argue that users are legally required to secure their network...

[alferret]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

I found this rather odd:

Taken slightly out of context Norm

While prosecutors argue that users are legally required to secure their network, Mr Coyle dismisses this.



"There is no section of the Copyright Act which makes you secure your network although it is commonsense to do so," he said.

But the couple in question dont have a wireless network.

[cook1984]

...prosecutors argue that users are legally required to secure their network...

There is no way that will ever stand up. Most people can't even configure their router, which is why ISPs are now sending them out pre-configured. Setting up security is way beyond what most people are capable of.

Within range of my house I can see 15 wifi networks. 3 of them are on WEP and so are easily cracked within minutes, 3 are totally unsecured. The rest are on WPA, but of those 6 are on either Sky or BT using the default WPA keys which are easily discovered. In other words, only 3 of the 15 networks in range of me are secure.

Technology is powerful but also very vulnerable, and it's pretty much impossible for ordinary people to secure themselves. Are you sure your phone can't be hijacked by Bluetooth? Sure your car's electronic key-lock can't be cloned or sniffed? Are your house's door locks bump-proof? Do you even understand those terms?

And, since this is cableforum, even if you don't have wifi you could always point out that your modem could have been cloned and it would be up to DL to show that it wasn't.

[piggy]

Originally Posted by cook1984

TorrentFreak adds a bit more detail, stating that they presumed that the error was because of someone accessing their wifi. If that is the case or if DL just targeted them based on an IP returned from the tracker we will probably never know.

http://torrentfreak.com/magazine-for...e-case-081029/

I just hope the publicity will eventually put a stop to their money making scam.

people in glass houses!!

i download as much as the next man so im no innocent but "money making scam" is wrong the internet is in flux and getting out of hand copyright does exsist and people like us on this forum break it, what are the copyright owners supposed to do? i know everybody around here only download linux distros but lets get real put yourself on the other side of the fence the system is clumsy but they are using the tools at there disposal. the copyright owners do need some recompense because if they dont there will be nothing new for us to steal.....sorry i mean download!!

you should all read this, very worrying. Davenport now working with Digiprotect in germany, who are seeding 'pirate' material and then getting money from people who download

http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-...o-porn-081118/

"However, most worrying is the leaked contract between DigiProtect and Evil Angel, as it contains the following paragraph, which one would believe applies to these UK cases too:"

To achieve the purpose outlined in clause 1, LICENSOR grants DIGIPROTECT the exclusive right to make the movies listed in Appendix 1 worldwide available to the public via remote computer networks, so-called peer-2-peer and internet file sharing networks such as e-Donkey, Kazaa, Bitorrent, etc. for the duration of this agreement

This destroys claims that these actions are for strict anti-piracy purposes, this is a clearly a money-making operation, designed from the ground-up.

[Alien]

I had a look through the PDF linked from the article [all 45 pages of it, & not in huge font either], & whilst the majority of it is porn, there's some more main-stream stuff in there too, like Rainbow Six - Vegas, & Call of Juarez, as well as some TV episodes, music, & a few main stream [not porn] movies.

[theasix]

I received a letter today. saying I made a single mp3 file available to third parties.

I'm going to send them a letter stating that when that alleged download happened many people lived in my place.

Do you think that is enough? I will also write that there is a posibility of hacking my BT wireless hub as there are many other networks around my place of living with many people who can gain acces to my hub. Although is secured by wep key provided by bt and pre-configured by BT which makes it the safest way.

Does it make any sense? I've read a lot about it and I think it might help right? Besides they want to charge me 505 pounds for single mp3 file. Can you imagine?

Any ideas what else I could possibly write to them? I do not want to say that download had happened because honestly I do not think it had or I do not remember.

As I am foreigner. Could someone please write a nice official sample letter. Just want to see how it should look and sound.

thanks

[cook1984]

Originally Posted by theasix

I received a letter today. saying I made a single mp3 file available to third parties.

I'm going to send them a letter stating that when that alleged download happened many people lived in my place.

Don't do that. Just say you did not do it, and would they please present their evidence. It's not up to you to investigate it or make guesses at who it was, just tell them that you personally are innocent.

Do you think that is enough? I will also write that there is a posibility of hacking my BT wireless hub as there are many other networks around my place of living with many people who can gain acces to my hub. Although is secured by wep key provided by bt and pre-configured by BT which makes it the safest way.

WEP can be cracked in a few minutes. Your network is totally insecure. Don't mention it though, it's up to them to check these kinds of things.

Does it make any sense? I've read a lot about it and I think it might help right? Besides they want to charge me 505 pounds for single mp3 file. Can you imagine?

Ask for evidence to support the amount claimed. I'd be interested to see how they justify that amount for a single MP3.

As I am foreigner. Could someone please write a nice official sample letter. Just want to see how it should look and sound.

I'll see if I can post the one I sent tomorrow. I heard nothing more from them after sending it.

BTW, your English seems quite good, I'm sure you could write something.

[theasix]

It might seem good but official letters are more official

but while reading your post I understood it might be very simple. Actually few lines saying important things and that's it yes?

I suppose I should not expect any heard from them then?

[brundles]

Originally Posted by Alien

I had a look through the PDF linked from the article [all 45 pages of it, & not in huge font either], & whilst the majority of it is porn, there's some more main-stream stuff in there too, like Rainbow Six - Vegas, & Call of Juarez, as well as some TV episodes, music, & a few main stream [not porn] movies.

It's an interesting trick though - almost targeting downloaders by offering something. How do the legalities of entrapment play in to that though?

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by brundles

It's an interesting trick though - almost targeting downloaders by offering something. How do the legalities of entrapment play in to that though?

I would guess that the problem would be proving just who originally uploaded the torrent. I mean they are not gonna admit being implicated are they.