Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS? - Page 26

Kymmy · 17-02-2009, 11:59

Not really...that's a bit like saying that a car owner should go to jail instead of the thief who stole the car after the keys were accidently left inside of it...

It seems the best initial defence isn't to say someone else did it, but to instead deny downloading the material... The fact that you have unsecured wireless and even the fact that you don't have a Wii is probably best kept for later once you've wasted enough of their own precious time

Bammyj · 17-02-2009, 12:37

So my advice for now is to just wait for their next response? And see what happens?

They aren't the quickest at replying, this 2nd letter took about 3-4 weeks to arrive.

Thanks for the replies guys, it's quite worrying when you're living off disability money and faced with a Ã‚Â£600 bill

TheNorm · 17-02-2009, 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Not really...that's a bit like saying that a car owner should go to jail instead of the thief who stole the car after the keys were accidently left inside of it...

I think the more appropriate analogy is the fine issued to the registered owner of a car after it has been caught speeding by a camera. "It wasn't me, guv" is not an excuse, unless you had previously reported that your car has been stolen.

Kymmy · 17-02-2009, 13:33

But that's a permission based argument.. Unless the car gets taken out of the persons control (i.e..without permission to use it)...where as if it's stolen then there's a perfect defence for the speeding ticket..

TheNorm · 17-02-2009, 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

But that's a permission based argument.. Unless the car gets taken out of the persons control (i.e..without permission to use it)...where as if it's stolen then there's a perfect defence for the speeding ticket..

Well, the point is that the fine is sent to the registered keeper, not the user at that particular point in time.

Kymmy · 17-02-2009, 17:06

Lets play spot the difference:

But in each case if an offence is caused by the owner or a driver with permission the owner will get the letter and it will be then referred to the driver with permission where as if someone steals the car the owner has a defence.
But in each case if an offence is caused by the account holder or a downloader with permission the account holder will get the letter and it will be then referred to the downloader with permission where as if someone steals the wifi the account holder has a defence.

TheNorm · 17-02-2009, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Lets play spot the difference:...

Let's see...

In the first case, the fine is sent to the registered keeper, who is expected to pay (unless he has reported a theft, which is unusual).

In the second case, the solicitor's letter is sent to the registered keeper (of the IP address), who is expected to pay (unless he has reported a theft, which is very unusual).

I think the analogy is pretty good!

Kymmy · 17-02-2009, 17:48

But both letter are sent to the registered keeper/acc_holder and both are expected to pay...unless they can prove that either the car/IP was in someone elses possesion OR the car/connection was stolen..

The one good thing about the DL case is that because it's a civil issue it means that you're not laible by default and don't have to prove that your connection was stolen instead a statement saying that you NEVER downloaded said item and that your connection is unsecured so if it even was downlaoded on that IP (that's if the IP wasn't spoofed) then it could have been anyone..

cookie_365 · 17-02-2009, 19:22

Can I remind everyone that these letters threaten civil proceedings, not criminal proceedings. It's balance of probabilities stuff. Saying 'yes it was my connection but not me' is probably going to tip you over the balance

Tezcatlipoca · 17-02-2009, 20:58

As The X Files once said... "Deny everything".

**Hugh** · 17-02-2009, 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt D

As The X Files once said... "Deny everything".

I thought it was "The truth is out there"?

cook1984 · 17-02-2009, 22:24

The solution is simple: just state that it was not you, and you are not going to pay. They will always drop their claims.

They know they have no leg to stand on.

Kymmy · 17-02-2009, 22:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by cook1984

The solution is simple: just state that it was not you, and you are not going to pay. They will always drop their claims.

They know they have no leg to stand on.

That simple statement is the best advice in this over inflated thread

DL will ONLY take you to court if you either admit to the offence and dont pay...or as a lot of people stupidly do just simple non-communication and non-appearance at court..they then win by default..

Bammyj · 17-02-2009, 22:48

Thanks guys, I know a lot of people giving the advice had nothing to do with it, as in never received a letter.

This thread has been the best advice for Davenpr0n Lyons cases. And to be honest, a damn good read.

It's had it's up's and downs lol, I got excited many times when peeps dug up some guideline or something, only for that to be shattered 4 pages on.

But I'll let you know should anything else arise. Thanks again.

shifty117 · 18-02-2009, 15:07

Hello guys I recieved a letter from DL regarding 3D pinball for the nintendo ds, which I have never heard of until the letter. I wrote to them saying I have never heard of this game and never downloaded it and that I have a wireless router, they are demanding 602 pounds. They have now sent me a follow up letter.

sorry for the long read:

[ As far as fake ip addresses are concerned, whilst such faking is possible, our client has received advice from experts, which has confirmed that it is not possible to enter into a successful transaction on a p2p network whilst using a fake IP address. Our client's experts will also not gather torrents containing fake IP addresses as a result of the technical methods they employ.

we do not claim that you pc was used to commit the infringing act(although we do not exclude this possibility) nor do we claim that you downloaded our clients work. Our claim is that your internet connection was used to make our clients work available via one or more p2p networks. We have already supplied you with sufficient evidence ( just the ip address, time and date of download) to establish this claim in our original letter of claim. We also believe this evidence is sufficiently clear.

in the circumstances, unless you are able to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why you are not liable for the acts alleged against you and/or we recieve wrtitten undertaking and payment of 602 pounds with the next 14 days, we shall have no alternative but to take you to court basically.]

this is outrageous i told them they can check my pc if they wished i dont know what else to say.