Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS? - Page 39

BenMcr · 15-09-2009, 18:02

But surely when ACS apply for a court order they have to prove date/time for when the downloads took place, not just the IP address itself?

Reedy · 15-09-2009, 18:17

Surely then VM would have to keep a permanent record of each IP a users had and at what time period.

Mr Angry · 15-09-2009, 18:22

Reedy,

There is a thing called "the date" - which relates to any given day of the year in any twelve month calendar cycle and indeed any subsequent calendar cycle.

By a "cunning" use of the date and things called your "memory" and "logs" one can, generally, prove / disprove things such as when one may have changed ones IP address and whether or not one was responsible for certain activities associated with any particular IP address.

BenMcr · 15-09-2009, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reedy

Surely then VM would have to keep a permanent record of each IP a users had and at what time period.

Which all ISPs do anyway

Same as this forum can record which users logged in, at what time and from which IP address

Toto · 15-09-2009, 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reedy

Surely then VM would have to keep a permanent record of each IP a users had and at what time period.

I doubt its permanent, probably limited to a couple of years.

BenMcr · 15-09-2009, 18:47

According to this they legally have to keep it for 1 year http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...ion_directive/

cook1984 · 15-09-2009, 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Which court is that win by default recorded at?

Small Claims Court.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reedy

As you can change your IP by changing the MAC address and powering off your modem, surely this means you *could* inherit an IP of a heavy downloader and subsequently end up with a court summons even IF it's nothing to do with you.

That happens all the time.

The problem is that BitTorrent trackers and eDonkey/eMule servers only get updates very infrequently from clients. For BT this can be as little as once every 24 hours. As such, any information, such as lists of client IP addresses, contain information which may be up to 24 hours out of date.

Also, the trackers/servers do not bother to verify IP addresses at all. There are publicised campaigns of seeding them with random IP addresses assigned to major ISPs, in order to make legal action very difficult and thwart attempts to gather information.

Even if they download data from an IP address, they still can't prove much. An IP address does not identify an individual or a computer. Also, it does not rule out hacking, such as a trojan inside the users network or unauthorised use of wifi. This latter point is a major problem, especially as last week a practical attack against WPA with TKIP was made public and many ISPs have supplied thousands of routers pre-configured with that system. Within range of my house there are six networks which are either unencrypted (2) or using WEP/WPA-TKIP (4) which I could gain access to in minutes if I wanted to.

That is also quite a good defence. If I were accused of sharing a copyrighted file, I would point out the number of vulnerable wifi networks within range of my house and how effortlessly I could access them, and then ask the accuser why I would risk using my own connection when I could just as easily use someone else's.

Even if they could somehow rule all that out, downloading a chunk of a file does not prove much either. Unless they have the whole file, downloaded entirely from one IP address (virtually impossible if your client software only seeds to a 1:1 ratio) it is very difficult to prove that it is indeed the file they think it is.

We have also seen the "leecher mod" defence used recently, where the accused showed that she was using a modified client which does not upload any data to other clients; it only downloads. Since only uploading is enough for them to win in court (downloading for personal use would generally not be enough to claim damages).

What we need is a court case where these arguments are made. That would make all of their "evidence" worthless and hopefully put a stop to this scam.

Mr Angry · 15-09-2009, 19:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by cook1984

Small Claims Court.

Yes, obviously - but which one and under what reference?

cook1984 · 16-09-2009, 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Yes, obviously - but which one and under what reference?

Portsmouth. I don't think the records are public (probably, but google didn't turn them up), and I'm not sure where I stand sharing that information.

Mr Angry · 17-09-2009, 07:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by cook1984

Portsmouth. I don't think the records are public (probably, but google didn't turn them up), and I'm not sure where I stand sharing that information.

Why should you or others need Google? You've your own N1 & reference number. The judgement as advised to you is a matter of public record whether available on Google or not and the details will be available from the court by request.

As to where you stand - it's your case, you won by default as the defendants elected to take no action.

Therefore, if you post your case reference and date you'd be going some very considerable way to helping others who have received letters by presenting them with a proof positive precedent that these claims are both vexatious and without merit.

Toto · 17-09-2009, 08:33

Come on cook1984, you're all about getting this in the public domain otherwise you wouldn't be writing about it here, you may well have the key to help a lot of people, or is there something more to this, as I suspect?

Prove my suspicions wrong sir.

cook1984 · 20-09-2009, 00:10

The only problem is that if I post my case reference, it exposes my personal data (name, address, alleged IP address, evidence I submitted including details of my home and business networks, what UBR I'm on etc).

Also, DL are not the first people I have taken to Small Claims Court. If I give out my name or case reference number it would be possible for anyone to find all cases related to me. I also don't want ACS to know my identity, as I am hoping to get a letter from them and try to force the issue to go to court. If they know who I am, they won't send me one.

Anyway, this method is not a solution for most people. I was only able to claim monetary loss because it affected my work and I was able to demonstrate that. I wasted time I could have spent making money on checking my network and amassing evidence to defend against a frivolous accusation that was dropped before ever reaching court. If you threaten someone with legal action and cause them to loose money preparing a defence and communicating with you, only to drop the case the moment you realise they are not simply going to pay your "fine" then you can expect to reimburse them.

Mr Angry · 20-09-2009, 01:31

Cookie,

Are you sure you haven't banged your head?

I have recently been in contact with Mr G******** at Portsmouth court hearings@portsmouth.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk
and he advises that there are no, nor have there ever been, claims registered against Davenport Lyons in their jurisdiction.

If you'd like to drop me a line (pm) with your court reference I'd be only too happy to put him right.

Regards

Mr A

20-09-2009, 05:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Cookie,

Are you sure you haven't banged your head?

I have recently been in contact with Mr G******** at Portsmouth court hearings@portsmouth.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk
and he advises that there are no, nor have there ever been, claims registered against Davenport Lyons in their jurisdiction.

If you'd like to drop me a line (pm) with your court reference I'd be only too happy to put him right.

Regards

Mr A

I do not think your avatar has ever been more apt lol lol

Toto · 20-09-2009, 09:41

Says it all doesn't it?