Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS?

[lymmranger]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

So 1100110101 can use Google.

Well done, I'm proud of you.

After all, cutting and pasting a load of text is the same as having an actual understanding of what it's saying.

Actually... to be fair this is a realistic (but tenuous) possibility.

I would not normally comment on posts like this due to not being legally trained but I was on the fringe of a court case where the defense was considering this as an option. I cannot comment further due to risking my job

Before you all jump on me consider the following...

even if the above was merely "cut n pasted" it does (read it) suggest that this is an option to be seriously considered - That the upside!

...the downside is - Who the hell would organise it????? - to "work" a LOT of people would need to complain to the attorney general and I mean a lot.
Surely a full time job and logistical nightmare, for a start the present anonimity of posters on this thread would have toi turn into real names and addressess!!!!!!!! and the number of people admitting to having recieved a letter on this thread isn`t any where near enough in my opinion

Right I`ve got me coat and I am off into the air raid shelter

[Kymmy]

Can I remind people to be civil to each other in this thread as it's DL who are the enemy here and not each other. The thread's done really well to get this far and not descend into chaos.

[penumbra]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

So 1100110101 can use Google.

Well done, I'm proud of you.

After all, cutting and pasting a load of text is the same as having an actual understanding of what it's saying.

Perhaps that was part of the point of bringing it to the attention of people on the forum?

Originally Posted by Lymmranger

Before you all jump on me consider the following...

even if the above was merely "cut n pasted" it does (read it) suggest that this is an option to be seriously considered - That the upside!

...the downside is - Who the hell would organise it????? - to "work" a LOT of people would need to complain to the attorney general and I mean a lot.
Surely a full time job and logistical nightmare, for a start the present anonimity of posters on this thread would have toi turn into real names and addressess!!!!!!!! and the number of people admitting to having recieved a letter on this thread isn`t any where near enough in my opinion

Right I`ve got me coat and I am off into the air raid shelter

From my reading of it, it looks more like something you would do when they actually start litigating. At the moment they aren't litigating, they're jsut sending out nasty letters.

IF they start going to court and IF there are sufficient numbers of cases then I think this would definitely be an avenue to think about (you've got a point about organising it, tho!).

Assuming their evidence base doesn't change (it won't) Then there is definitely an argument to be made that it is vexatious litigation. That is possible one reason why they probably will never take a reply and denyer to court.

The other interesting point at the moment (also raised by 1100110101) is the fact that the Norwich Pharmecal orders attained by Davenport Lyons to make the ISPs stump up your details have provisions to prevent them going on a fishing expedition with the details they obtain from them.

I would think asking the accused whether they'd undertaken any investigations, and for details about their router set up, network configuration would count as this. Now the question is how to take action along those lines.

[lymmranger]

oooooooooops! fair point Penumbra

.....DL arent actually litigating (much)

more like "professional (sic) extraction of money with menaces"

how about an extortion charge???? - Answers to that one NOT required!

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by lymmranger

Actually... to be fair this is a realistic (but tenuous) possibility.

I would not normally comment on posts like this due to not being legally trained but I was on the fringe of a court case where the defense was considering this as an option. I cannot comment further due to risking my job

Before you all jump on me consider the following...

even if the above was merely "cut n pasted" it does (read it) suggest that this is an option to be seriously considered - That the upside!

...the downside is - Who the hell would organise it????? - to "work" a LOT of people would need to complain to the attorney general and I mean a lot.
Surely a full time job and logistical nightmare, for a start the present anonimity of posters on this thread would have toi turn into real names and addressess!!!!!!!! and the number of people admitting to having recieved a letter on this thread isn`t any where near enough in my opinion

Right I`ve got me coat and I am off into the air raid shelter

People are reading this thread because they've received letters and want to know what to do. If they make the wrong decisions it could cost them £thousands as a result.

This thread is now 35 pages long. Way too much of it is legal advice from people who clearly have not got a clue how the law works. They think that because they can do a search on Google it equates to actual knowledge and understanding. That's all very well if someone's asking how to fix the remote control on their TV. It's a different story when someone could walk themselves into an expensive court judgement as a result of following their advice.

My response to binary boy was indeed sarcastic. I chose sarcasm as an alternative to plain abuse, which is not allowed on this forum. He signed up to post something which is absolutely of no value whatsoever to anyone who has received one of these letters. If I've upset anyone - and through the magic of PMs and the reputation system you can be sure that I have - then I really could not care less. My purpose to posting was to put a brake on the sea of useless and misleading drivel that is clogging up this thread and may possibly cause the people who really need the thread to lose money.

So if you want a genuine answer to the vexatious litigant question: I'm going to provide that by asking you another question instead. See if you can Google the answer to this: since 1997, how many companies have been added to the list of UK Vexatious Litigants?

[penumbra]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

People are reading this thread because they've received letters and want to know what to do. If they make the wrong decisions it could cost them £thousands as a result.

This thread is now 35 pages long. Way too much of it is legal advice from people who clearly have not got a clue how the law works.

...

My response to binary boy was indeed sarcastic. I chose sarcasm as an alternative to plain abuse, which is not allowed on this forum. He signed up to post something which is absolutely of no value whatsoever to anyone who has received one of these letters.... My purpose to posting was to put a brake on the sea of useless and misleading drivel that is clogging up this thread and may possibly cause the people who really need the thread to lose money.

So if you want a genuine answer to the vexatious litigant question: I'm going to provide that by asking you another question instead. See if you can Google the answer to this: since 1997, how many companies have been added to the list of UK Vexatious Litigants?

But you can go about achieving this noble goal in a different way.

Seeing as you clearly have a wealth of legal knowledge, and are very well versed in the matter, how about saying something along these lines:

Originally Posted by PoliteCookie

"Sorry, old bean but I'm afraid you're probably barking up the wrong tree. The reason is x (insert too expensive / unlikley / DL have you bang to rights). Cheerio old chum."

There is no need for the attitude. We're just looking for answers, and to know where we stand. Out of interest - where else in the thread's is such dangerous advice contained?

After all, if you want to avoid someone walking into a legal rake, that's the best thing to do. Point them out and give reasons why. We will listen and learn.

[cook1984]

I think next time I'm going to respond by sending them a demand for money, based on my "evidence" that their IP address was used to download something of mine. By simply mirroring their demands I will be able to discover what defence they themselves would use.

In other words, they will be either forced to pay up or give me an argument that would defeat their own demands.

[lymmranger]

Originally Posted by cook1984

I think next time I'm going to respond by sending them a demand for money, based on my "evidence" that their IP address was used to download something of mine. By simply mirroring their demands I will be able to discover what defence they themselves would use.

In other words, they will be either forced to pay up or give me an argument that would defeat their own demands.

lol - brilliant idea!

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by penumbra

After all, if you want to avoid someone walking into a legal rake, that's the best thing to do. Point them out and give reasons why. We will listen and learn.

No. The best way to help someone avoid a legal rake is to not pretend to give them legal advice.

This Google advice is going to give people a false sense of security and lead them straight into the rake.

This thread has some useful information from people who have travelled along the same path but it's important that people realise that their circumstances might be subtly but fundamentally different; different evidence, changed approach by DL, that kind of thing. Advice by Google is never going to pick that up.

There's also some useful info from people pointing out that these are civil proceedings and not criminal proceedings for example, but what they can't do is explain to an individual person who's received one of these letters how that should effect them specifically.

The problem with Google law is that it never, ever, gets all the context behind what's been searched for, and that is absolutely vital. And even if some by miracle it did hit all the context, Google law isn't going to tell YOU as an individual what you're best approach should be.

And if it really is double miracle week and it does; who are you going to complain to if the advice is wrong and you get slapped with a £10k judgement?

If you still insist on me giving you a bit of advice after all of that, then it's:

Don't ignore the letter, get yourself some proper legal advice.

Happy?

[cook1984]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

This thread has some useful information from people who have travelled along the same path but it's important that people realise that their circumstances might be subtly but fundamentally different; different evidence, changed approach by DL, that kind of thing. Advice by Google is never going to pick that up.

All the cases and circumstances are the same. DL have an IP address and maybe a screenshot for evidence. That does not identify any individual or any particular computer. As the burden of proof is on them, they have no case.

It's a simple extortion racket. Pay up or we will sue you.

Luckily, as long as you just keep telling them you didn't do it and to go away, they will never take you to court since they want to avoid setting a precedent at all costs.

There's also some useful info from people pointing out that these are civil proceedings and not criminal proceedings for example, but what they can't do is explain to an individual person who's received one of these letters how that should effect them specifically.

Specifically, it means that there is no way you can get a criminal conviction or criminal record. At the worst, you would end up owing them money, or more likely they would end up owing you your costs.

[ljc]

just to update those who are following the thread. i was contacted today by a person from Westminster trading standards. he has asked me to forward copies off the letters. he stated he will be organising a meeting with Davenport to discuss these letters. He couldnt comment on other letters he had recieced, but the impresion i got was that what they are doing is clearly wrong, they are trying to establish if its actulally legal, but Davenport wont give them copies of the letters they are sending out. The plot thickens. if anyone wants this guys phone number to pass discuss there case then contact me via the pm function. I would advise anyone who recieves these letters not to pay a penny!

[Bammyj]

Although a lot of the advise given here is not aimed at one particular individual case, it's proved invaluable to myself as without it, I just 'may' have paid up.

There is a 'feel' to the thread, and it's a feeling of don't give in to the parasites! I do hope that someone will come up with an answer to all our letter woes, but it's doing a damn good job at the moment without it. While the people that are actually watching this thread whom have received a letter, refuse to pay... It's all good for the cause.

Bugs me when peeps who may not have legal backgrounds are trying to help and they're getting shot down in flames simply for trying to help. It's up to the reader who's advise he/she takes.

In short because I'm rambling... Thanks again

[cook1984]

Very interesting, ljc. What Davenport Lyons are doing is probably legal, in that you can send anyone you like a demand for money, but it's probably in breech of the code of practice for law firms.

The fact that they will not allow a test case to go through the courts doesn't help their position. Hopefully either Trading Standards or the legal watchdog will stop them.

[ljc]

the chap from westminster trading standards was very keen to persue this. i wlll keep you updated. again i would strongly advise not to pay. it is important to note that there does not seem to be one case that has gone to court, and the simple fact is they havnt got the evidence to take this to court! the only reason why they went to court for the test case is due to the fact the other part did not show, and they knew that. ive told them i will see them in court as i have done nouthing wrong.

[cook1984]

For those who have not yet seen one, here is a sample letter from DL:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/UK_piracy_...2C_18_Nov_2008

I can verify that it is very similar to the letters I have received.

There are many, many flaws in those letters. For example, they present an IP address, but have not established that it can be tied to the individual they sent the letter to. They also don't show that any copyright infringement (i.e. transfer of copyrighted data) took place. "Making available via P2P networks" does not equal copyright infringement, in the same way that someone might "make available" their CD collection to their friends but do not actually infringe copyright until they actually record a tape or burn a CD-R.

They also claim that the alleged copyright infringement is "illegal", which is totally untrue. Only copyright infringement on a commercial scale is illegal. Non commercial infringement is only a civil matter.

The letter is written in a very threatening tone. They mention the potential "thousands of pounds" that could be awarded as costs to the loosing party, however in reality a court is highly unlikely to ever award that much. Consider also that since DL have failed to show that any actual transfer of data took place, and even if they could it would only have have been to the investigator's computer, at most they could only claim damages for a single transfer, or the value of the file involved. At most, that would be the cost of a single DVD, maximum £20. Under UK law, compensation is only awarded to undo actual loss incurred, i.e. £20. Asking for £500 is a joke.

DL also do serious damage to their case by providing detailed instructions for payment, setting an artificial deadline and making the absurd claim that their client is entitled to a far larger amount. By doing so they illustrate the commercial nature of their extortion operation. You simply do not send letters like this if you have a legitimate claim to make.

The letter is confirmation of all the points myself and others have made in the past. Specifically:

1. They admit that an IP address does not identify an individual.

2. They admit that they did not download a copy of the file from the IP address in question.

3. They do not state how the IP address was collected, but presumably it was from one of the trackers for the torrent, which of course can and do provide inaccurate information. They do not appear to have taken any steps to verify this information at all, despite many trackers, including the popular Pirate Bay, regularly add random IP addresses to their trackers.

4. They admit that they do not have any evidence of copyright infringement, merely that the IP address in question may have offered parts of the file in question at some point.

5. They do not show that the entire file may have been available on the IP address in question, and in fact all P2P applications will upload parts of a file before the download is complete. It is unlikely that small parts of a larger copyrighted work would be considered for copyright infringement.

6. They do not show that the IP address deliberately shared the file in question, which for example could have been renamed to linux.torrent and innocently downloaded.