Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS?

[Toto]

Originally Posted by shifty117

<snip>

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

You've entered into a dialogue with them, so now get legal advice. This thread contains information on who may be able to help, I'm sorry but I don't have time to find the relative posts.

I'll say this though, the problem won't go away.....you either pay up, or get help, most would suggest the latter.

If you don't act now, a £600 settlement could turn into thousands.

[shifty117]

they say that they do not claim my pc was used, or claim I dl the file so why are they trying to sue me? they are claiming it was my internet connection.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by shifty117

they say that they do not claim my pc was used, or claim I dl the file so why are they trying to sue me? they are claiming it was my internet connection.

Exactly why you should seek advice, that very idea is currently being challenged on what would appear to be a very good defence, scan this thread sir/madam.

[shifty117]

thanks I have read through all the 26 pages and other threads and thats what helped me write the 1st letter, just forgot some of the details,

thanks for the advice and I m a man by the way.

[cook1984]

Originally Posted by Toto

I'll say this though, the problem won't go away.....you either pay up, or get help, most would suggest the latter.

No, no, no! Do not send them a penny, and do not waste money on solicitors!

If they persist, just tell them firmly that you are not going to pay and that you are innocent. It is up them to prove you downloaded the files, not for you to prove your innocence.

Davenport Lyons are trying to scare people into paying up, simply by sending official looking letters from a legal firm. In reality, they have no basis for their demands and there is no legal reason you should pay them. Think about it for a moment - anyone can send a letter demanding money for some alleged download. It's quite another thing to actually take legal action and argue the case in court.

So far, not one single person who told them they were not responsible for the download has been taken to court. They know they cannot win, they simply rely on fear making you pay up. It's a giant scam, and is currently being investigated by the legal services watchdog. For that matter, it was on the BBC Watchdog program too.

NEVER NEVER NEVER pay. NEVER NEVER NEVER argue with them. Just tell them you did not download the file, you are not responsible for any of the alleged downloading, and you are not going to pay. Stick to that and they will give up and go away.

Originally Posted by shifty117

they say that they do not claim my pc was used, or claim I dl the file so why are they trying to sue me? they are claiming it was my internet connection.

It does not matter. They have no proof it was your internet connection. They will say they do, but all they really have is an IP address, which does not identify your internet connection. Even if they could identify it, you are not responsible for the actions of others, even using services you pay for. If someone uses your mobile phone to make abusive calls, or steals your car and crashes it, you are still not responsible, the person who did those things is.

---------- Post added at 23:27 ---------- Previous post was at 23:18 ----------

Originally Posted by shifty117

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.

Can you please scan this part of the letter? DL just admitted that they have no case!

You don't have to provide any kind of explanation. It is up to them to prove you downloaded the file. You are innocent until they provide evidence to prove otherwise, and as they just admitted they don't know it was you.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by cook1984

No, no, no! Do not send them a penny, and do not waste money on solicitors!

If they persist, just tell them firmly that you are not going to pay and that you are innocent. It is up them to prove you downloaded the files, not for you to prove your innocence.

Davenport Lyons are trying to scare people into paying up, simply by sending official looking letters from a legal firm. In reality, they have no basis for their demands and there is no legal reason you should pay them. Think about it for a moment - anyone can send a letter demanding money for some alleged download. It's quite another thing to actually take legal action and argue the case in court.
<snip>

I will agree with the sentiment of Cookie1984 to not hand over any money, but if Davenport Lyons do take the court action route, and you are prepared to defend yourself in court, then you won't need a solicitor, but keep the following mind also if you think they won't pursue you.

Davenport Lyons secured a default judgement against a woman for a similar claim, in a court that specifically deals with copyright infringements, and they got a default judgement because the defendant didn't turn up, nor had any legal representation on her behalf. That judgement was to the tune of £16,000........16 big ones, that's a down payment on a mortgage, if you can get one these days.

It may well be possible to get a solicitor who will represent you on a pro bono basis, one such solicitor has offered this service for UK defendants, articles can be found in this thread. I'm not sure how that is progressing, but here's some reading:

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.

What we can see though is that DL mean business, and if they think the defendant can't afford a reasonable defence lawyer, or simply ignores the letters, then they know they could potentially secure a significant payout, by default.

I'd say it takes a serious set of stones to stand up to this kind of thing, but until somebody actually does, this is going to continue.

By all means fight the good fight if you are completely confident in your defence, and damned good luck to all of you who have to do this.

[shifty117]

thanks to both cook and toto, you advice was very helpful. I have spoken to my friend who knows a thing or to about law and he has advised me on a follow up letter.

hope this nonsense is put to bed.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by shifty117

thanks to both cook and toto, you advice was very helpful. I have spoken to my friend who knows a thing or to about law and he has advised me on a follow up letter.

hope this nonsense is put to bed.

You're very welcome, I know you have the sympathy of others in a similar position - I wish you well.

[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)

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Matt D

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 ----------




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/




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


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

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

Thanks Matt, I was skim reading the articles I linked to,and your quotes helped sort that out.

[cook1984]

Originally Posted by Toto

Davenport Lyons secured a default judgement against a woman for a similar claim, in a court that specifically deals with copyright infringements, and they got a default judgement because the defendant didn't turn up, nor had any legal representation on her behalf. That judgement was to the tune of £16,000........16 big ones, that's a down payment on a mortgage, if you can get one these days.

Thing is you have to keep in mind that in this case there was no response from the woman at all. DL know that they would loose, without a shadow of a doubt, if the accused turned up. Even worse (for them), it would prove the had no case against anyone and set a president for the use of IP addresses and their claim that the person paying for the service is responsible for everything that happens on it.

What we can see though is that DL mean business, and if they think the defendant can't afford a reasonable defence lawyer, or simply ignores the letters, then they know they could potentially secure a significant payout, by default.

No, what is shows is that they have discovered an excellent scam. A letter costs, what, £1 to print and send to someone. It could potentially generate £600+ in return. No real evidence or court hearing required.

I have had three letters now, from three different companies. Refuted them all. Not heard anything more from any of them, except DL who currently owe me over £300 in costs.

[Russ]

Just a friendly reminder for everyone to play nicely in this thread please....

[Toto]

Originally Posted by cook1984

Been busy but I have two very encouraging things to report!

First, I took Davenport Lyons to Small Claims Court and WON! They didn't send anyone, only some letters to the court. I won £250 from them for wasted time leading to lost earnings (charged at my hourly rate of £45+VAT), letters, stamps, envelopes, phone calls and interest. It even includes the hour I spent in court and petrol costs to drive there and back, plus parking. Oh, and £30 court costs as well.

My argument was simple: they had no intention of ever taking me to court, as evidenced by the fact that they backed down very quickly once I started asking for more details. As such they caused me financial loss (having to waste time checking computers and networks used for business, writing letters etc), which I have now recovered.

They have not paid up yet, but if I don't get a cheque come January I will be contacting a debt recovery agency. Part of me hopes they don't pay, just so the bailiffs get sent in

The other positive development is that it looks like there is a good case to be made with the Information Commissioner, as pointed out in this article:

http://torrentfreak.com/accused-of-i...rnment-081205/

Basically, the European Directive on personal data is to be interpreted as not requiring it's disclosure for purely civil matters, such as copyright infringement. As such, VM should not disclose the information, and the court was wrong to order it to be disclosed. Furthermore, it seems that Davenport Lyons must also not retain that data. I have already written to all involved parties to ask for clarification, and in DL's case to delete all data regarding myself which is stored electronically.

Originally Posted by cook1984

Thing is you have to keep in mind that in this case there was no response from the woman at all. DL know that they would loose, without a shadow of a doubt, if the accused turned up. Even worse (for them), it would prove the had no case against anyone and set a president for the use of IP addresses and their claim that the person paying for the service is responsible for everything that happens on it.



No, what is shows is that they have discovered an excellent scam. A letter costs, what, £1 to print and send to someone. It could potentially generate £600+ in return. No real evidence or court hearing required.

I have had three letters now, from three different companies. Refuted them all. Not heard anything more from any of them, except DL who currently owe me over £300 in costs.

What?

They haven't paid up for the small claims you claimed you WON from them?

Shocking.

[Scarlett]

Originally Posted by cook1984

Can you please scan this part of the letter? DL just admitted that they have no case!

You don't have to provide any kind of explanation. It is up to them to prove you downloaded the file. You are innocent until they provide evidence to prove otherwise, and as they just admitted they don't know it was you.

Yes please do.

From my laymans understanding of the second paragraph, they are suing you becasue you have at some time connected to a bit torrent on which it is possible to obtain there clients software.

So basically will all P2P users please pay us £600 please?

[cook1984]

Originally Posted by Toto

They haven't paid up for the small claims you claimed you WON from them?

That is correct. They are currently trying to appeal it by claiming they were not given enough time to prepare, which is why they did not turn up to the hearing. They tried to get another hearing for next month when they knew I would be away, but it has been postponed until June now.

Originally Posted by Scarlett

From my laymans understanding of the second paragraph, they are suing you becasue you have at some time connected to a bit torrent on which it is possible to obtain there clients software.

Not quite. They don't actually know if you were connected to any torrent or tracker. All they have is an IP address, which identifies nothing.

When your car is caught speeding by a speed camera, they send you a notice asking you who was driving at the time. They have no way of knowing who it was, but the law does require you to make a reasonable effort to work out who it was. It doesn't matter who owns the car, only who was actually driving it at the time.

Civil law for copyright infringement has no such requirement. It is up to DL to prove that you personally did it, which they simply cannot. There is no technological way of doing it, short of hacking into your webcam