Cable Forum - View Single Post - Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS?

cook1984 · 09-04-2009, 00:20

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.

09-04-2009, 00:20	#525
cook1984 cf.addict Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 423	Re: Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons? 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.