Letter of claim - p2p
too
dream pinball saying we have been downloading and sharing a game and they
want Ł325 pounds off us for costs and this includes the Ł25 fee they and to
pay KC.
Now the account is in my wife's name and she nor I have done this, might
have
been someone else in the house, but very unlikely, have looked through all
PC's and kids games and nothing.
The law firm Davenport Lyons, who sent us the letter saying they had
compelling evidence that in October, German time zone that a 3d pinball game
was being shared from our PC.
I have of course wrote a letter to Davenport Lyons, refuting the claim and
explaining that no such game is in our possession, however I have no
intention of paying them Ł325 by return of post which sounds a scam, they
are requesting this as a way of not taking my wife to court as she is the
holder of the account and also there is no way she is going to fill in any
of the documents which in effect state that we have deleted such software
and will not download/share it or anything form the net again.
To pay up or to sign any of these documents would be admitting guilt for
something not done.
I have no idea what compelling evidence they have, but they have quoted the
time, the file and an IP address which I presume is dynamic not static, so
the information on this could me someone else as I have been told by someone
else, dynamic IP address can get mixed up and are not concrete evidence.
One other thing its odd, but looking at the date, this was a few days after
we fitted a wireless network.
Any ideas what to do here.
TIA
Tony
The Todal
"too" <so...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:ZbRHh.21596$MB....@newsfe15.ams...
Aha! Was your network secure and password-protected? Is it possible that a
neighbour was logging onto your wireless network and downloading stuff?
>
>
> Any ideas what to do here.
I think you've already done it. Davenport Lyons will probably shut up. Their
letter is probably written with a view to its deterrent effect, to stop you
downloading anything else.
ABC
As them for proof of you sharing this game with other p2p users. Ask them
for proof that they have contacted your ISP and have tracked the IP address
to your account.
Dean Lambert
Most probably is a scam to scare you into paying the money, Advise them
that if they intend of taking your wife to court, you are allowed copies of
their evidence, including communications with your ISP who will have traced
your IP. Ask for it to be sent to you within a certain time limit. Also
mention that until you recieve this information that no payment can be made
until you have concrete proof that you have indeed downloaded this
software..
M.I.5¾
"Dean Lambert" <nos...@ohdearnever.mind> wrote in message
news:7NRHh.525$DX5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Better still would be to proceed from the angle that there is no way that
they could have proof, and put the ball firmly back in their court.
Demanding the proof (and thereby implying that it could exist) hints that
you did, but are denying it.
M.I.5¾
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:55a6b7F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "too" <so...@noemail.com> wrote in message
> news:ZbRHh.21596$MB....@newsfe15.ams...
>> Just got a bloody letter from someone acting on behalf of the makers of
>> 3D
>> dream pinball saying we have been downloading and sharing a game and they
>> pay KC.
>>
>> Now the account is in my wife's name and she nor I have done this, might
>> have
>> been someone else in the house, but very unlikely, have looked through
>> all PC's and kids games and nothing.
>>
>> The law firm Davenport Lyons, who sent us the letter saying they had
>> compelling evidence that in October, German time zone that a 3d pinball
>> game was being shared from our PC.
>>
>> I have of course wrote a letter to Davenport Lyons, refuting the claim
>> and explaining that no such game is in our possession, however I have no
>> holder of the account and also there is no way she is going to fill in
>> any of the documents which in effect state that we have deleted such
>> software and will not download/share it or anything form the net again.
>>
>> To pay up or to sign any of these documents would be admitting guilt for
>> something not done.
>>
>> I have no idea what compelling evidence they have, but they have quoted
>> the time, the file and an IP address which I presume is dynamic not
>> static, so the information on this could me someone else as I have been
>> told by someone else, dynamic IP address can get mixed up and are not
>> concrete evidence.
>>
>> One other thing its odd, but looking at the date, this was a few days
>> after we fitted a wireless network.
>
> Aha! Was your network secure and password-protected? Is it possible that
> a neighbour was logging onto your wireless network and downloading stuff?
>
Check the router logs for any unknown users.
Peter Crosland
> of 3D dream pinball saying we have been downloading and sharing a
> £25 fee they and to pay KC.
>
> Now the account is in my wife's name and she nor I have done this,
> might have
> been someone else in the house, but very unlikely, have looked
> through all PC's and kids games and nothing.
>
> The law firm Davenport Lyons, who sent us the letter saying they had
> compelling evidence that in October, German time zone that a 3d
> pinball game was being shared from our PC.
>
> I have of course wrote a letter to Davenport Lyons, refuting the
> claim and explaining that no such game is in our possession, however
> sounds a scam, they are requesting this as a way of not taking my
> wife to court as she is the holder of the account and also there is
> no way she is going to fill in any of the documents which in effect
> state that we have deleted such software and will not download/share
> it or anything form the net again.
> To pay up or to sign any of these documents would be admitting guilt
> for something not done.
>
> I have no idea what compelling evidence they have, but they have
> quoted the time, the file and an IP address which I presume is
> dynamic not static, so the information on this could me someone else
> as I have been told by someone else, dynamic IP address can get mixed
> up and are not concrete evidence.
> One other thing its odd, but looking at the date, this was a few days
> after we fitted a wireless network.
There are various possibilities.
It could be a scam but frankly it is unlikely because the company would have
had to provide compelling evidence to your ISP to get them to provide the
name and address of the user. How else would they have got the details
associated with the IPS address concerned.
If you have, or had, a wireless network that was insecure then it is quite
possible that, by accident or design, someone else gained access to your
network and used it for illegal purposes.
The machine could have been infested with some form of Trojan software that
turned it into what is known as a "Zombie" machine that silently uses your
computer resources for illegal purposes. Unless you have effective, and up
to date, software to combat this then the machine could be part of a
"Zombie" network. An effective hardware and software firewall is the way to
combat this
Whatever the cause you need to treat it seriously and as a matter of
urgency. I would suggest you take you machine off line until you have had it
checked for any nasties, and if not already done, make sure appropriate
software and/or hardware is installed to protect it in future.
Peter Crosland
too
"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45f009b9$0$8742$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>> Just got a bloody letter from someone acting on behalf of the makers
>> of 3D dream pinball saying we have been downloading and sharing a
>> Ł25 fee they and to pay KC.
>>
>> Now the account is in my wife's name and she nor I have done this,
>> might have
>> been someone else in the house, but very unlikely, have looked
>> through all PC's and kids games and nothing.
>>
>> The law firm Davenport Lyons, who sent us the letter saying they had
>> compelling evidence that in October, German time zone that a 3d
>> pinball game was being shared from our PC.
>>
>> I have of course wrote a letter to Davenport Lyons, refuting the
>> claim and explaining that no such game is in our possession, however
can it share files, so that we can be accused of this and what does one
count as compelling evidence?
TIA
Tosh
The Todal
If you really do not understand any of these issues it would be a good idea
to write to Davenport Lyons to explain that nobody in the household
knowingly downloads any music or software from the internet, that you are
very happy to undertake to delete any such material that is brought to your
attention, and that you cannot trace their game on your computer so you are
not prepared to make any payment.
You said you have a wireless network. You have not said whether or not it is
secured or unsecured - that is, whether a password or code is required to
enable a computer to connect to the network. If you genuinely do not know,
then you ought to find out. It is possible that a neighbour is connecting
to your network and downloading illicit material. It is also possible that
you or your wife, as account holders, are liable for allowing this to
happen.
Peter Crosland
> "Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45f009b9$0$8742$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>>> Just got a bloody letter from someone acting on behalf of the makers
>>> of 3D dream pinball saying we have been downloading and sharing a
>>> the £25 fee they and to pay KC.
>>>
>>> Now the account is in my wife's name and she nor I have done this,
>>> might have
>>> been someone else in the house, but very unlikely, have looked
>>> through all PC's and kids games and nothing.
>>>
>>> The law firm Davenport Lyons, who sent us the letter saying they had
>>> compelling evidence that in October, German time zone that a 3d
>>> pinball game was being shared from our PC.
>>>
>>> I have of course wrote a letter to Davenport Lyons, refuting the
>>> claim and explaining that no such game is in our possession, however
You need to get some advice from a trusted source. Your local independant
computer shop would be one place. NOT PC world! A machine that has been
infected can, and will, share files silently. The IP address allocated to
you by your ISP will be recorded by them and the facy that a specific IP
address was used at a particular time and date is proof that your machine
was used.
Peter Crosland
M.I.5¾
>
> "too" <so...@noemail.com> wrote in message
> news:W1UHh.1093$M03...@newsfe16.ams...
>>
>> "Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:45f009b9$0$8742$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>>>> Just got a bloody letter from someone acting on behalf of the makers
>>>> of 3D dream pinball saying we have been downloading and sharing a
>>>> £25 fee they and to pay KC.
>>>>
>>>> Now the account is in my wife's name and she nor I have done this,
>>>> might have
>>>> been someone else in the house, but very unlikely, have looked
>>>> through all PC's and kids games and nothing.
>>>>
>>>> The law firm Davenport Lyons, who sent us the letter saying they had
>>>> compelling evidence that in October, German time zone that a 3d
>>>> pinball game was being shared from our PC.
>>>>
>>>> I have of course wrote a letter to Davenport Lyons, refuting the
>>>> claim and explaining that no such game is in our possession, however
I don't really see how he can be held liable for sombody else illegally
stealing software via his network. He may be guilty of carelessness in not
securing his wireless network, but then again he may not be savy enough to
understand that the network needs to be secured.
The Todal
"M.I.5¾" <no....@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45f02677$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
The copyright owners have made clear their intention of pursuing the account
holder for breach of copyright irrespective of whether other members of the
family might have been responsible for uploading or downloading the
offending material. They do regularly prosecute the account holder, and
have apparently succeeded in obtaining convictions - for instance the
conviction of a Mr Lewis, who operated a bulletin board on which customers
uploaded and downloaded copyright material. The law might not necessarily
require the defendant to be aware of what activities are taking place.
see eg http://www.bpi.co.uk/pdf/BPI_Downloading_Research_250404.pdf
http://www.pro-music.org/guide/pdf-youngpeople-english.pdf
PeteM
>
>The copyright owners have made clear their intention of pursuing the account
>holder for breach of copyright irrespective of whether other members of the
>family might have been responsible for uploading or downloading the
>offending material.
They certainly have said so, but I am not aware of any cases where they
have actually brought a case let alonw won it.
>They do regularly prosecute the account holder,
Really? Can you cite? Last time we discussed this nobody could produce a
judgement.
>and
>have apparently succeeded in obtaining convictions - for instance the
>conviction of a Mr Lewis, who operated a bulletin board on which customers
>uploaded and downloaded copyright material. The law might not necessarily
>require the defendant to be aware of what activities are taking place.
The Act certainly requires mens rea.
>
>see eg http://www.bpi.co.uk/pdf/BPI_Downloading_Research_250404.pdf
>http://www.pro-music.org/guide/pdf-youngpeople-english.pdf
>
They don't mention Lewis, where did you get that from?
--
PeteM
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
PeteM
>It is also possible that you or your wife, as account holders,
>are liable for allowing this to happen.
>
I think that is fantastically unlikely. Incredibly, unbelievably
unlikely.
PeteM
>Just got a bloody letter from someone acting on behalf of the makers of 3D
>dream pinball saying we have been downloading and sharing a game and they
>want Ł325 pounds off us for costs and this includes the Ł25 fee they and to
>pay KC.
>
>Now the account is in my wife's name and she nor I have done this, might
>have
>been someone else in the house, but very unlikely, have looked through all
>PC's and kids games and nothing.
>
>The law firm Davenport Lyons, who sent us the letter saying they had
>compelling evidence that in October, German time zone that a 3d pinball game
>was being shared from our PC.
>
>I have of course wrote a letter to Davenport Lyons, refuting the claim and
>explaining that no such game is in our possession, however I have no
>intention of paying them Ł325 by return of post
I don't think there is anything else you need to do at the moment.
You might contact your ISP though and ask them exactly what information
they have given about you, to whom and why. Say that you are making a
formal Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act.
>which sounds a scam, they
>are requesting this as a way of not taking my wife to court as she is the
>holder of the account and also there is no way she is going to fill in any
>of the documents which in effect state that we have deleted such software
>and will not download/share it or anything form the net again.
>
>To pay up or to sign any of these documents would be admitting guilt for
>something not done.
>
>I have no idea what compelling evidence they have, but they have quoted the
>time, the file and an IP address which I presume is dynamic not static, so
>the information on this could me someone else as I have been told by someone
>else, dynamic IP address can get mixed up and are not concrete evidence.
>
>One other thing its odd, but looking at the date, this was a few days after
>we fitted a wireless network.
Yes, that could be significant if it's unsecured.
Mike_B
Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>The IP address allocated to you by your ISP will be recorded by them
>and the facy that a specific IP address was used at a particular time
>and date is proof that your machine was used.
This assumes that the IP address in the letter was in fact the IP
address being used by the poster's computer at the time indicated. We
have no information to indicate whether this is true or not.
--
Mike_B
too
"PeteM" <Bo...@embankment.org> wrote in message
news:pF9uQhA5...@snowstorm.demon.co.uk...
> too <so...@noemail.com> posted
>>Just got a bloody letter from someone acting on behalf of the makers of 3D
>>dream pinball saying we have been downloading and sharing a game and they
>>pay KC.
>>
>>Now the account is in my wife's name and she nor I have done this, might
>>have
>>been someone else in the house, but very unlikely, have looked through all
>>PC's and kids games and nothing.
>>
>>The law firm Davenport Lyons, who sent us the letter saying they had
>>compelling evidence that in October, German time zone that a 3d pinball
>>game
>>was being shared from our PC.
>>
>>I have of course wrote a letter to Davenport Lyons, refuting the claim and
>>explaining that no such game is in our possession, however I have no
I have it seems been using the wireless network unsecured since we bought
it, I thought I had secured it, but it seems not, I have now asked someone
how to do this and they have helped us password our wireless router with
some kind of encryption also.
Tosh
Peter Crosland
> bought it, I thought I had secured it, but it seems not, I have now
> asked someone how to do this and they have helped us password our
> wireless router with some kind of encryption also.
You also need to install software to remove and protect against infections
by Trojans and a firewall that will help protect you as well. Do a search on
Zone Alarm and Spybot for a start as well as Spyware Doctor. Then download
and install them.
Peter Crosland
The Todal
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> posted
>>It is also possible that you or your wife, as account holders,
>>are liable for allowing this to happen.
>>
>
> I think that is fantastically unlikely. Incredibly, unbelievably
> unlikely.
Yet true. So what you probably mean is "blimey, that's unfair".
Polydor v Brown 2005
Headnote: The act of connecting a computer, containing copyright audio
files, to the internet so that the public could access the files without the
copyright owner's permission was an act that infringed the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988. It did not matter whether an individual knew,
or had reason to believe, that what he was doing was an infringement, as
innocence or ignorance was no defence.
"The evidence is that the shared directory of a computer connected to the
Internet by means of an account in Mr Bowles's name with NTL and running
Lineware software, was making available more than 400 audio files to all
other users of the Nutella P2P network. A sample of files was downloaded by
the BPI from the computer, and after Mr Bowles was identified, the claimants'
solicitors wrote and sent him a letter before action. Mr Bowles admitted
that he had used P2P software, but was unaware that by doing so, he said, he
was distributing music, and he said that he had had the software on his
computer for about a year, and that his children had used it for downloading
music.
Connecting a computer to the Internet, where the computer is running P2P
software, and in which music files containing copies of the claimant's
copyright works are placed in a shared directory, falls within the
infringing act. This is a primary act of copyright infringement, and it
does not matter whether the person knows, or has reason to believe, that
what they are doing is an infringement, because innocence or ignorance is no
defence. The mere fact that the files were present and were made available
is sufficient for the infringement under s.20 to have been committed. Mr
Bowles was an infringer by making the recording available to the public, and
authorising the performance of the infringement. "
Dr Zoidberg
But in that case the bloke admitted that it was his computer , running P2P
software that he had installed that was sharing the files in question.
He argued that he didn't know he was uploading , but that's neither here nor
there as far as the law was concerned.
What Pete M was referring to was someone using your wireless connection to
share files without your knowledge or permission - a very different
situation
--
Alex
"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"
www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk
Colin Wilson
> by Trojans and a firewall that will help protect you as well. Do a search on
> Zone Alarm and Spybot for a start as well as Spyware Doctor. Then download
> and install them.
IANAL
...but i've tried to put most of my knowledge gained from helping other
users lock down their systems online at <http://www.coreutilities.co.uk>
If the machine and/or network has been unsecured for any length of time,
I would also run a check for rootkits (they're now gaining popularity,
and are typically damn near impossible to detect)
More info about what a rootkit can do can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkits
A rootkit detector can be downloaded for free here:
http://www.f-secure.com/blacklight
or
http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/RootkitRevealer.html
I would favour the one from F-Secure over the Sysinternals application
due to a simplified user interface, and fewer false positives.
Colin Wilson
> dream pinball saying we have been downloading and sharing a game and they
> pay KC.
IANAL
£325 sounds like quite a low fee compared to the ridiculous amounts the
RIAA are trying to impose on dead people who could not have possibly
downloaded copyright material ($15,000 per song is a figure I recall).
The game itself appears to be published by Topware (website linked here
<http://www.topware.com/game_projects/project.php?l=en&game=19>
Topware appear to be based in the US, and perhaps i'm being naive here,
but why would a US company employ a UK based solicitor, who then tries
to base the time of the alleged "offence" on a german timezone rather
than the country in which they operate ?
Something that might be worth doing is checking your home insurance
policy - many offer a free legal helpline.
Mike_B
<deadm...@beeb.net> writes
>innocence or ignorance was no defence.
This made me chuckle. I guess it was the concept of innocence not being
a defence :)
--
Mike_B
Steve Walker
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> posted
>> see eg http://www.bpi.co.uk/pdf/BPI_Downloading_Research_250404.pdf
>> http://www.pro-music.org/guide/pdf-youngpeople-english.pdf
>>
>
> They don't mention Lewis, where did you get that from?
That pdf is just a collection of aggressive enforcement rhetoric, probably
bought from TV Licencing as a job-lot.
Mike
<removeeverythi...@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.co.uk> wrote:
>Topware appear to be based in the US, and perhaps i'm being naive here,
>but why would a US company employ a UK based solicitor, who then tries
>to base the time of the alleged "offence" on a german timezone rather
>than the country in which they operate ?
An American company employing a UK solicitor is, admittedly, difficult
to believe but perhaps they're unusually well-informed about
jurisdiction.
US companies and their lawyers, in my experience, tend to be somewhat
naive. I once had the misfortune to exchange emails with some US
attorneys who clearly believed in the extra-territoriality of US law
and quoted a raft of irrelevant US legislation at me in an attempt to
stop me doing something or other. They seemed genuinely surprised
when I explained that US law (generally) doesn't apply over here and
retired hurt.
Mike.
--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
too
"Colin Wilson" <removeeverythi...@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.co.uk> wrote
in message news:MPG.205a98a6a...@news.individual.net...
> Just got a bloody letter from someone acting on behalf of the makers of 3D
> dream pinball saying we have been downloading and sharing a game and they
> to
> pay KC.
IANAL
Ł325 sounds like quite a low fee compared to the ridiculous amounts the
RIAA are trying to impose on dead people who could not have possibly
downloaded copyright material ($15,000 per song is a figure I recall).
The game itself appears to be published by Topware (website linked here
<http://www.topware.com/game_projects/project.php?l=en&game=19>
Topware appear to be based in the US, and perhaps i'm being naive here,
but why would a US company employ a UK based solicitor, who then tries
to base the time of the alleged "offence" on a german timezone rather
than the country in which they operate ?
Something that might be worth doing is checking your home insurance
policy - many offer a free legal helpline.
I will wait and see what response I get from the law firm as I my wife has
wrote to them.
Tosh
Peter Crosland
>> infections by Trojans and a firewall that will help protect you as
>> well. Do a search on Zone Alarm and Spybot for a start as well as
>> Spyware Doctor. Then download and install them.
>
> IANAL
>
> ...but i've tried to put most of my knowledge gained from helping
> other users lock down their systems online at
> <http://www.coreutilities.co.uk>
Good collection Colin. Well done.
> If the machine and/or network has been unsecured for any length of
> time, I would also run a check for rootkits (they're now gaining
> popularity, and are typically damn near impossible to detect)
>
> More info about what a rootkit can do can be found here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkits
>
> A rootkit detector can be downloaded for free here:
>
> http://www.f-secure.com/blacklight
> or
> http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/RootkitRevealer.html
>
> I would favour the one from F-Secure over the Sysinternals application
> due to a simplified user interface, and fewer false positives.
Peter Crosland
Colin Wilson
> Good collection Colin. Well done.
Thanks :-)
Colin Wilson
> wrote to them.
IANAL
In the meantime, if you do happen to do any filesharing, torrents and
binary newsgroups are probably the best way of avoiding direct tracking,
but torrents will show your IP address to the remote computer.
Using something like PeerGuardian2 will help limit this exposure, as the
remote end will know you have have an interest in the file, but PG2 will
prevent your machine from connecting to them (if the person trying to
trace file movements is in their lists), which means they can't actually
prove anything.
You can download it here:
http://peerguardian.sourceforge.net (will redirect to phoenixlabs.org)
You might want to include the Government / Spyware / Ads / p2p lists :-)
Graham Murray
> Connecting a computer to the Internet, where the computer is running P2P
> software, and in which music files containing copies of the claimant's
> copyright works are placed in a shared directory, falls within the
> infringing act.
In which case nobody running (at least Win2000 or later) Windows
who has copyright music files *anywhere* on their system would fall
foul of this if they ran p2p software while connected to the
internet. Or do the administrative shares which Windows automatically
creates not count as making the whole system a 'shared directory'?
The Todal
"Dr Zoidberg" <alexNOOOOOO!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:55bdsfF...@mid.individual.net...
In law it's a slightly different, not very different situation.
a) You are the account holder and your child upstairs is, unknown to you,
running P2P software
b) You are the account holder and the neighbour is, unknown to you,
connecting to your computer and running P2P software.
In both cases, you are committing a strict liability offence of making
copyright material available. Your ignorance is (probably) no defence. There
has been no test case on the situation of a neighbour connecting to your
router, but I think we can expect the courts (always keen to protect
copyright holders and reluctant to allow defendants to evade the law) to say
that each account holder is responsible for securing his own network and
ensuring that it is not used for copyright material.
Otherwise you could of course end up with a friendly member of the public
allowing the whole street to use his wireless network, choosing not to pay
any attention to the nature of the material that is uploaded or downloaded,
and then everyone escapes punishment.
PeteM
Quite, but the Polydor case is interesting nonetheless. It shows that
things have moved on since I last spoke to the BPI in December 2005. At
that time they were unable to quote me *any* case or statute law for
their position (which was, essentially, that everybody owes the BPI
money if the BPI says they do).
The most interesting remarks made by the Polydor judge are:
"Mr Bowles did put forward a defence that he did not know that he was
doing anything wrong or illegal [...] These are not defences, because
ignorance is not a defence".
If the judge meant what he seemed to mean, he's quite wrong there. It is
true that ignorance of the *law* is not a defence. But ignorance of the
facts, and a lack of mens rea, certainly is. It is a defence explicitly
provided by the Act: "s.97(1) Where in an action for infringement of
copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant
did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in
the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to
damages against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy." So if
Bowles genuinely did not know that copyright music was being shared -
and it sounds as though he didn't - then the judgement was wrong.
The second interesting remark is:
"[Bowles] has accepted that he himself was a user - distinct from any
acts committed by his children - which gives rise to direct liability.
It is not necessary for me on the facts of this case to consider what
his liability might be in relation to the use by his children of the
computer."
So the judgement does *not* apply to cases where the Internet account
holder was not himself actively sharing files. And that is the kind of
case the OP is describing.
The Todal
"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:55bgomF...@mid.individual.net...
I think it is a great pity that the BPI do not take the trouble to quote
chapter and verse, and case law, to prove that a parent can be liable for
the downloads made by his children etc.
It sounds like bullying rhetoric but there might be substance in it. Those
who have been threatened with prosecution (or civil action) and have paid
for legal advice from a copyright lawyer, seem to end up paying.
Lewis, by the way, was a guilty plea.
R. v Lewis (Christopher)
L appealed against a sentence of 27 months' imprisonment, having pleaded
guilty to 10 specimen counts of distributing infringing articles contrary to
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.107(1)(d)(iv). He operated a
computer bulletin board which was used to exchange copyright computer games
without the copyright owner's licence. Callers could download computer games
onto L's computer system, and upload games from that system. Over a period
of three months 934 games were downloaded and 592 were uploaded. The value
of each game to the copyright owner was about GBP 40.
Held, allowing the appeal and reducing the sentence to 12 months'
imprisonment, concurrent on each count, that while an immediate prison
sentence was necessary and appropriate, 27 months was longer than required,
having regard to L's plea and good character.
Court: (CA (Crim Div)) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Judge: Judge Crawford Q.C.; Otton, L.J.; Hidden, J.
Judgment date: June 28, 1996
PeteM
>I think it is a great pity that the BPI do not take the trouble to quote
>chapter and verse, and case law, to prove that a parent can be liable for
>the downloads made by his children etc.
No prizes for guessing why they don't!
>
>It sounds like bullying rhetoric but there might be substance in it. Those
>who have been threatened with prosecution (or civil action) and have paid
>for legal advice from a copyright lawyer, seem to end up paying.
Like who?
>
>Lewis, by the way, was a guilty plea.
>
>R. v Lewis (Christopher)
>L appealed against a sentence of 27 months' imprisonment, having pleaded
>guilty to 10 specimen counts of distributing infringing articles contrary to
>the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.107(1)(d)(iv). He operated a
>computer bulletin board which was used to exchange copyright computer games
>without the copyright owner's licence. Callers could download computer games
>onto L's computer system, and upload games from that system. Over a period
>of three months 934 games were downloaded and 592 were uploaded. The value
>of each game to the copyright owner was about GBP 40.
>Held, allowing the appeal and reducing the sentence to 12 months'
>imprisonment, concurrent on each count, that while an immediate prison
>sentence was necessary and appropriate, 27 months was longer than required,
>having regard to L's plea and good character.
>Court: (CA (Crim Div)) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
>Judge: Judge Crawford Q.C.; Otton, L.J.; Hidden, J.
>Judgment date: June 28, 1996
Well he was bang to rights. That kind of blatant infringement is exactly
what the law is meant for. Although it seems to me extremely harsh (and
in fact stupid) to send him to prison at all for a non-violent offence.
The boy who mugged my 14 year old son didn't even get probabion.
PeteM
>I think we can expect the courts (always keen to
>protect copyright holders and reluctant to allow defendants to evade the
>law) to say that each account holder is responsible for securing his own
>network and ensuring that it is not used for copyright material.
Why? They don't do that for any other sort of equipment.
>Otherwise you could of course end up with a friendly member of the
>public allowing the whole street to use his wireless network, choosing
>not to pay any attention to the nature of the material that is uploaded
>or downloaded, and then everyone escapes punishment.
Well that is exactly what many hotels, business centres and even some
local authorities do. And for that matter ISPs. No-one AFAIK has yet
suggested that they should be liable for their users' copyright
breaches. Except probably the BPI, but then they think *everybody* is
liable.
The Todal
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> posted
>>I think it is a great pity that the BPI do not take the trouble to quote
>>chapter and verse, and case law, to prove that a parent can be liable for
>>the downloads made by his children etc.
>
> No prizes for guessing why they don't!
>
>>
>>It sounds like bullying rhetoric but there might be substance in it.
>>Those
>>who have been threatened with prosecution (or civil action) and have paid
>>for legal advice from a copyright lawyer, seem to end up paying.
>
> Like who?
>
This sort of thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/4166784.stm
"A mother facing a £2,500 bill after her daughter shared music on the
internet has decided not to contest the case.
Emily Price, 14, from Cheltenham, was accused of file-sharing - opening up
her computer for others to share her downloaded music.
Her mother Sylvia, 53, said she made a settlement offer because she could
not afford to fight the case in court."
and see also
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4653662.stm
Cynic
<no....@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote:
>Check the router logs for any unknown users.
You *really* believe that a home wireless router would be likely to
keep logs of logins that happened months ago?
The home router I use is *capable* of logging such information *if* it
is set up with a logging IP address & log file path. Which would of
course mean leaving a PC running all the time for it to log to.
I would be extremely surprised if more than a handful of home users
set up such a path. I never have.
And such a log could only show the MAC address of the machine that
*possibly* caused the offending traffic at the time. I'm not sure
that that information would help a lot.
Bear in mind that your neighbour may well log into your wireless
network completely inadvertently.
Someone I know once mentioned to me how they were really pleased that
they had finally decided to get onto the Internet, and we discussed
various adavantages of being able to use the Internet. I then asked
whether she was using broadband or dialup. "I don't know," she
replied, "The laptop I bought came with the Internet built in." It
turned out that its built-in wireless had logged into her neighbour's
wireless network fully automatically - she had no idea how it all
worked!
Mind you, she was over 50 years old, so can perhaps be forgiven. A
person who is of the age where they would be interested in playing
online pinball is likely to have known *exactly* what was going on!
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>R. v Lewis (Christopher)
>L appealed against a sentence of 27 months' imprisonment, having pleaded
>guilty to 10 specimen counts of distributing infringing articles contrary to
>the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.107(1)(d)(iv). He operated a
>computer bulletin board which was used to exchange copyright computer games
>without the copyright owner's licence. Callers could download computer games
>onto L's computer system, and upload games from that system. Over a period
>of three months 934 games were downloaded and 592 were uploaded. The value
>of each game to the copyright owner was about GBP 40.
>Held, allowing the appeal and reducing the sentence to 12 months'
>imprisonment, concurrent on each count, that while an immediate prison
>sentence was necessary and appropriate, 27 months was longer than required,
>having regard to L's plea and good character.
>Court: (CA (Crim Div)) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
>Judge: Judge Crawford Q.C.; Otton, L.J.; Hidden, J.
>Judgment date: June 28, 1996
Where does that judgement put news service providers? There are
*many* binary news groups that are used primarily to exchage copyright
material. Surely therefore any service provider that includes such
groups on the news server is guilty of the exact same thing?
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>In law it's a slightly different, not very different situation.
>
>a) You are the account holder and your child upstairs is, unknown to you,
>running P2P software
>b) You are the account holder and the neighbour is, unknown to you,
>connecting to your computer and running P2P software.
>
>In both cases, you are committing a strict liability offence of making
>copyright material available. Your ignorance is (probably) no defence.
Your ignorance of the fact that your connection is being used for such
a purpose *must* be a defence. Otherwise every ISP would be
responsible for unlawful material transfered by their customers.
Unless you are saying that you are legally liable if your neighbour
connects to your wireless network *without your knowlege*, but not if
you charge your neighbour for using your network with your permission.
--
Cynic
PeteM
>This sort of thing:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/4166784.stm
>
>"A mother facing a £2,500 bill after her daughter shared music on the
>internet has decided not to contest the case.
>Emily Price, 14, from Cheltenham, was accused of file-sharing - opening up
>her computer for others to share her downloaded music.
>Her mother Sylvia, 53, said she made a settlement offer because she could
>not afford to fight the case in court."
Understandable. Ordinary people are frightened by corporate bullying.
It doesn't leave us any wiser about what a court would have decided. We
don't even know what her legal advice was.
I had to laugh at this: "A BPI spokesman said ... "We genuinely feel
sorry for parents who are caught up (in this) because their children
have been file sharing illegally". Yeah. He's all heart.
>and see also
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4653662.stm
That seems to be the Polydor case, although they didn't give the names.
Tim Jackson
> Your ignorance of the fact that your connection is being used for such
> a purpose *must* be a defence. Otherwise every ISP would be
> responsible for unlawful material transfered by their customers.
>
> Unless you are saying that you are legally liable if your neighbour
> connects to your wireless network *without your knowlege*, but not if
> you charge your neighbour for using your network with your permission.
I think ISPs are protected by the "mere conduit" provisions of
Regulation 17 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations
2002, SI 2002/2013. <http://tinyurl.com/2vxjco>
It's not completely clear to me, but a neighbour with an insecure
wireless network might get the same protection. Are they providing an
"information society service"? This is defined in Regulation 2(1) in
the same way as the corresponding EC Directive. It is summarised as
covering "any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance,
by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital
compression) and storage of data, and at the individual request of a
recipient of a service".
You could argue that connection to the internet is normally provided for
remuneration, even though the neighbour is not charging. Is next door
"at a distance"?
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.plus.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)
M.I.5¾
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0c95v2l4tvfqnmsog...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:22:11 -0000, "M.I.5พ"
I can't speak for your router, but my router logs all accesses with machine
name, MAC address and IP address allocated. I presume that when the log
memory is full that it removes the older entries, but I have not encountered
that situation yet.
PeteM
>
>I can't speak for your router, but my router logs all accesses with
>machine name, MAC address and IP address allocated. I presume that when
>the log memory is full that it removes the older entries, but I have not
>encountered that situation yet.
Mine doesn't seem to log anything except for what happens when it starts
up and connects to the DSL link. It claims to have a facility for remote
logging of more detailed information but I can't work out how to use it.
too
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:55dnleF...@mid.individual.net...
What happens as in our case, we have no assets or wage coming in as my wife
is disabled and I am her full time carer and sadly because of this, we have
to live on benefits and also we own no property, also due to our
circumstances changing a few years ago, where I had to give up work to look
after my wife, we are in such bad finances that we are only able to pay our
debtors a pound per week, token payment.
We have not downloaded or shared files, even though we are being accused as
such, but it seems to me that the courts seem to be taking the words of the
big companies and there lawyers over the individual.
I suppose they will no doubt jail my wife as she is the account holder who
is being accused and throw away the key.
Tony
The Todal
"too" <so...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:5bDJh.72175$ig6....@newsfe07.ams...
I still think you should stand up to them. If you explain that (a) you
haven't any illegal copyright material on your computers in your home (b)
your wireless network was unsecured but is now secured (c) you have no
intention of ever downloading any copyright material without paying for it,
then they should leave you alone.
But if they have threatened court proceedings since you wrote to them, or
have actually served proceedings, please say.
PeteM
>What happens as in our case, we have no assets or wage coming in as my
>wife is disabled and I am her full time carer and sadly because of this,
>we have to live on benefits and also we own no property, also due to our
>circumstances changing a few years ago, where I had to give up work to
>look after my wife, we are in such bad finances that we are only able to
>pay our debtors a pound per week, token payment.
>
>We have not downloaded or shared files, even though we are being accused
>as such,
Why? Tell us the details.
>but it seems to me that the courts seem to be taking the words
>of the big companies and there lawyers over the individual.
Has this got to court then?
>
>I suppose they will no doubt jail my wife as she is the account holder
>who is being accused and throw away the key.
Don't suppose any such thing until it happens. It has never yet happened
to anybody else.
too
No they have not, but I am just worried they might.
Tosh
The Todal
>
> "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
> news:55oqekF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "too" <so...@noemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5bDJh.72175$ig6....@newsfe07.ams...
>>>
>>> We have not downloaded or shared files, even though we are being accused
>>> as such, but it seems to me that the courts seem to be taking the words
>>> of the big companies and there lawyers over the individual.
>>>
>>> I suppose they will no doubt jail my wife as she is the account holder
>>> who is being accused and throw away the key.
>>
>> I still think you should stand up to them. If you explain that (a) you
>> haven't any illegal copyright material on your computers in your home (b)
>> your wireless network was unsecured but is now secured (c) you have no
>> intention of ever downloading any copyright material without paying for
>> it, then they should leave you alone.
>>
>> But if they have threatened court proceedings since you wrote to them, or
>> have actually served proceedings, please say.
>
> No they have not, but I am just worried they might.
Try not to worry. Presumably you have replied to their letter. The ball is
in their court. They really aren't likely to issue court proceedings without
giving you plenty of warning. Their real target is dedicated members of the
file-sharing community.
Unfortunately it isn't likely that they will write to you to say "sorry to
have troubled you, we won't bother you again". But the likelihood is that
their attention will be focused on other people. You may never hear from
them again.
too
payments in installments and still either want us to find out who did the
illegal activity and get them to sign the form or we sign the form and pay
up.
The letter says they have "processes and methods employed by there IT
experts to produce the evidence which is then submitted to the ISP's, has
been the subject of a detailed investigation and report prepared by a
qualified information technology consultant and which has been approved and
recognized by the courts in Germany and England as verifying and validating
such process and methods. We therefore remain of the view that there has
been no mistake and that at the very least, your iP address has been
identified as being responsible for the infringing of the act(s)
identified."
So they want us to identify the person we claim is responsible for the
infringement and get them to sign and pay up or else we do so, if not done
within 7 days then they will take us to court.
They are then saying there cline will take £57 per month as payment and that
we sign the forms saying we did it and will not do it again.
I am thinking about replying and now explaining to them that I did not know
my wireless network was not secure and that is why I think that's someone
unknown to me had used my Internet connection and that I have no way of
identifying that person and that as it was not me or nobody in my household
I am not going to sign any papers or make any payment for something I did
not do.
On the otherhand I might be best finding a solictor in Hull who can take
this on, as I do not want to write and make a mistake which could land us
kwowhere.
Regards
Tosh
The Todal
Have the solicitors quoted precisely which laws entitle them to make this
claim for damages? If so, can you tell us what they have said?
If not, write to them and say
"I require you to set out the legal basis of the claim you are making,
specifying all statutory provisions relied upon and citing any relevant case
law. I will bring this correspondence to the court on the issue of costs."
That's all I'd be inclined to say to them just now, but when they reply,
could you give us the details they provide?
too
>
> Have the solicitors quoted precisely which laws entitle them to make this
> claim for damages? If so, can you tell us what they have said?
>
> If not, write to them and say
>
> "I require you to set out the legal basis of the claim you are making,
> specifying all statutory provisions relied upon and citing any relevant
> case law. I will bring this correspondence to the court on the issue of
> costs."
>
> That's all I'd be inclined to say to them just now, but when they reply,
> could you give us the details they provide?
On the original letter it quoted as follows:
(pursuant to sections 16 (1)(a) and 17 of the copyright designs and
patents act 1988 ("the act") and for making available to third
parties for downloading (pursuant to sections 16 (1)(d) and 20 of the act).
You should be aware that there are both criminal penalties (pursuant
to section 107(1)(e) of the act) and civil remedies, namely damages,
available.
In another paragraph by the way on the original letter they say:
"given the nature of our clients evidence (which has already been
presented to and reviewed by the court in obtaining
disclosure of your contact details) we have advised our client that a claim
against you would be successful and that this would result in your
having to compensate our client for its losses
They on to mention court costs etc.
Just one more question, we have very little income due to me having to look
after my wife who is disabled and it is her whom the letter is addressed to
as she is the Internet account holder.
We have so very little money at the moment that we even are in debt and have
to pay our debtors token payments of £1 each, so if we where taken to court
there is no way that any fine could be paid, never mine court costs, what
would happen, we by the way live in rented accommodation and do not own any
property.
Also would we be able to get legal aid if we stuck to our guns on this and
let them take us to court.
Regards
Tony
The Todal
>
> "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
> news:56ckviF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>
>> Have the solicitors quoted precisely which laws entitle them to make this
>> claim for damages? If so, can you tell us what they have said?
>>
>> If not, write to them and say
>>
>> "I require you to set out the legal basis of the claim you are making,
>> specifying all statutory provisions relied upon and citing any relevant
>> case law. I will bring this correspondence to the court on the issue of
>> costs."
>>
>> That's all I'd be inclined to say to them just now, but when they reply,
>> could you give us the details they provide?
>
> On the original letter it quoted as follows:
>
> (pursuant to sections 16 (1)(a) and 17 of the copyright designs and
> patents act 1988 ("the act") and for making available to third
> parties for downloading (pursuant to sections 16 (1)(d) and 20 of the
> act). You should be aware that there are both criminal penalties
> (pursuant to section 107(1)(e) of the act) and civil remedies, namely
> damages, available.
The Act can of course be found at
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm
As I would have expected, they seem to be suggesting that you are a person
who "distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an
extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,"
> In another paragraph by the way on the original letter they say:
>
> "given the nature of our clients evidence (which has already been
> presented to and reviewed by the court in obtaining
> disclosure of your contact details) we have advised our client that a
> claim against you would be successful and that this would result in
> your having to compensate our client for its losses
>
> They on to mention court costs etc.
I would therefore suggest writing to them as follows (presumably this would
be from your wife as account holder)
"Your allegations are denied. I confirm that neither I nor anybody in my
household has ever knowingly uploaded or downloaded copyright material of
the sort you are referring to.
My wireless network was, for a while, unsecured. I am no expert in these
matters but it is possible for all I know that a neighbour could have
accessed my wireless network, unknown to me, and downloaded or uploaded
material. Obviously I am in no position to examine computers owned by my
neighbours.
I have no financial offer to make. If it is your intention to pursue this
claim through the courts, please cite all relevant case law in support of
the proposition that I can be held liable for downloading or uploading that
takes place without my knowledge. Please also supply me with a copy of any
expert's report proving that my IP address was the source of any such
material.
I shall bring this correspondence to the attention of the court in
connection with costs and generally"
>
> Just one more question, we have very little income due to me having to
> look after my wife who is disabled and it is her whom the letter is
> addressed to as she is the Internet account holder.
>
> We have so very little money at the moment that we even are in debt and
> have to pay our debtors token payments of £1 each, so if we where taken to
> court there is no way that any fine could be paid, never mine court costs,
> what would happen, we by the way live in rented accommodation and do not
> own any property.
If you don't have the money (and they can't seize valuables such as washing
machines or beds) then they can't get blood out of a stone. If they are daft
enough to sue you, don't roll over and agree to judgment. Whether or not you
can get a solicitor to represent you on legal aid, you want to make sure
that you tell the judge exactly what has happened and let him decide whether
your wife is liable.
>
> Also would we be able to get legal aid if we stuck to our guns on this and
> let them take us to court.
I don't know. Maybe. But I don't think you are quite at the point where you
need to involve a solicitor. I think they are bluffing.
too
Do you think its worth also letting them know in this letter, that we have
no money etc or should we leave that until they take us to court if they do
so.
Regards
Tosh
The Todal
>
> Do you think its worth also letting them know in this letter, that we have
> no money etc or should we leave that until they take us to court if they
> do so.
I'd be inclined to tell them that later. First make them work, then just
when they think they've convinced you that you owe them some money, give
them the bad news. There ain't any money.
I am sure they are paid to do a lot of barking but maybe not much biting.
PeteM
>Just had a letter back from the buggers, now they are willing to accept
>payments in installments and still either want us to find out who did the
>illegal activity and get them to sign the form or we sign the form and pay
>up.
Could you perhaps post a scan of the letter, suitably edited?
>
>The letter says they have "processes and methods employed by there IT
>experts to produce the evidence which is then submitted to the ISP's, has
>been the subject of a detailed investigation and report prepared by a
>qualified information technology consultant and which has been approved and
>recognized by the courts in Germany and England as verifying and validating
>such process and methods. We therefore remain of the view that there has
>been no mistake and that at the very least, your iP address has been
>identified as being responsible for the infringing of the act(s)
>identified."
>
>So they want us to identify the person we claim is responsible for the
>infringement and get them to sign and pay up or else we do so, if not done
>within 7 days then they will take us to court.
>
>They are then saying there cline will take £57 per month as payment and that
>we sign the forms saying we did it and will not do it again.
Sign nothing. The bastards!
>
>I am thinking about replying and now explaining to them that I did not know
>my wireless network was not secure and that is why I think that's someone
>unknown to me had used my Internet connection and that I have no way of
>identifying that person and that as it was not me or nobody in my household
>I am not going to sign any papers or make any payment for something I did
>not do.
>
>On the otherhand I might be best finding a solictor in Hull who can take
>this on,
I think it is very unlikely that you can find a solicitor who knows as
much about it as you can find out from this group and from the Web. Save
yourself the money and deal with it yourself. They are almost certainly
bluffing.
PeteM
>
>"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>news:56ckviF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>
>> Have the solicitors quoted precisely which laws entitle them to make this
>> claim for damages? If so, can you tell us what they have said?
>>
>> If not, write to them and say
>>
>> "I require you to set out the legal basis of the claim you are making,
>> specifying all statutory provisions relied upon and citing any relevant
>> case law. I will bring this correspondence to the court on the issue of
>> costs."
>>
>> That's all I'd be inclined to say to them just now, but when they reply,
>> could you give us the details they provide?
>
>On the original letter it quoted as follows:
>
> (pursuant to sections 16 (1)(a) and 17 of the copyright designs and
>patents act 1988 ("the act") and for making available to third
>parties for downloading (pursuant to sections 16 (1)(d) and 20 of the act).
>You should be aware that there are both criminal penalties (pursuant
>to section 107(1)(e) of the act) and civil remedies, namely damages,
>available.
S.97 of the Act says they have to prove that you deliberately breached
copyright. There is no way in the world they can prove that.
>
>In another paragraph by the way on the original letter they say:
>
> "given the nature of our clients evidence (which has already been
>presented to and reviewed by the court in obtaining
>disclosure of your contact details)
Has it now? I should ask them which court, and the date and nature of
the hearing.
too
> Could you perhaps post a scan of the letter, suitably edited?
I myself do not use the Internet for downloading games, in fact all I do on the Internet is competitions and would have no idea how to download anything.
Other people in my house do use the Internet including my nine year old child , as well as people who look after my house when I am away, therefore I have no idea who is responsible for this, if what you say is correct.
I have had a look at my sons playstation games and cannot find this game, therefore I am unable to dispose of the game as we do not seem to have it.
I find this letter very distressing that you seem to be accusing me of breaking the law and being disabled, with many health problems I have very little money and cannot possibly pay such a large sum of money.
Therefore all I can do is make sure that when we are not at home that I ensure that nobody can use our Internet and I will ask a friend who knows about computers to ensure that nobody is able to download things off the Internet.
Therefore I ask that you ask you clients if they can take in account what I have said in this letter and that your client may consider under the circumstances not to take this further."
Tosh
nullified
(snipped)
I've never read such tosh! In fact I've half a mind to think that you
are an elaborate troll. No offence intended, but to imagine that any
company worthy of their name would send such a badly worded letter
littered with spelling and grammatical errors is beyond belief!
Presuming that its *not* a troll, write back and demand full proof of
an IP address along with the documentation from your ISP stating that
that IP was assigned to you at the relevant time. Point out again that
you are distressed by their letters and should a court at some future
time decide in YOUR favour, you'll be asking for costs AND an award
for the stress you have suffered
too
"nullified" <nu...@null.null> wrote in message
news:o1u203h2a2asj8830...@4ax.com...
The spelling might be me as I typed out what it said, however apart from the
spelling the letter is for real.
Tosh
The Todal
>
> "PeteM" <Bo...@embankment.org <mailto:Bo...@embankment.org>> wrote in
>
> > Could you perhaps post a scan of the letter, suitably edited?
>
> Yep here is what the letter says in full, which we got today:
>
> "We have read your letter dated 7 March 2007 and note its contents.
>
> The processes and methods employed by there IT experts to produce the
> evidence which is then submitted to the ISP's, has been the subject of a
> detailed investigation and report prepared by a qualified information
> technology consultant and which has been approved and recognized by the
> courts in Germany and England as verifying and validating such process
> and methods. We therefore remain of the view that there has been no
> mistake and that at the very least, your IP address has been identified
> as being responsible for the infringing of the act(s) identified."
>
> Unless you are able to either (1) identify the person you claim is
> responsible for the infringement and arrange for that person or their
> parent (if under eighteen) to send us the signed undertakings together
> with the payment requested or, alternatively, (2) sign and return to us
> the undertakings together with the payment requested within the next
> seven days, we shall have no alternative but to commence proceedings
> against you without further notice.
There's a clue, right there.
"Unless.... we shall have no alternative but to...."
Compare and contrast with the more purposeful
"Unless.... we shall commence proceedings without further notice"
The buggers are bluffing. But reply to them nevertheless, as I suggested.
chuckles_the...@budweiser.com
> too wrote:
>
> > "PeteM" <B...@embankment.org <mailto:B...@embankment.org>> wrote in
> > messagenews:tg5$ZIAamW...@snowstorm.demon.co.uk...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Am I the only person reading this thread who has difficulty equating
the many claims of "we have no money" with the fact that the OP has
internet access (which last time I checked, was never free)?
What else aren't we being told?
too
<chuckles_the...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:1174503955.1...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
hey, we signed a 12 month contract before we had finance problems, and I
take your opinion as an insult to my integrity and if you have nothing
constructive to say, say nowt.
Tosh
PeteM
> In relation to payment our client is on this occasion prepared to
> accept payment in installments by the way of a maximum of six post
> dated cheques payable to Daveport Lyons which must all be provided
> simultaneously, dated as follows:
Fucking filthy, disgusting, lying, blackmailing, scummy wankers. A
shining example to law firms everywhere.
Still, I suppose somebody's got to do it. They can always go to church
on Sunday to confess to being lower than a snake's belly in terms of
their personal integrity. And I guess they have their BMW convertibles
to console them for the loss of any remaining shred of self-respect.
Phil Stovell
> Yep here is what the letter says in full, which we got today:
I don't believe this. Sorry if I'm wrong.
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
too
"Phil Stovell" <ph...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.21....@stovell.org.uk...
Do not believe what?
Tosh
The Todal
>
>> Yep here is what the letter says in full, which we got today:
>
> I don't believe this. Sorry if I'm wrong.
I find your comment bizarre. It reads exactly as one would expect from the
esteemed firm of Davenport Lyons and I can't see what motive the OP would
have for giving a false story. Unless, perhaps (and this would smack of
paranoia) he's a lawyer or detective working for the BPI and looking for
inside information.
And there's a piece in the Guardian today, on this subject.
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2039102,00.html
The British Phonographic Industry (BPI), has displayed a tad more
sensitivity than its US counterparts, where more than 18,000 people have
faced legal proceedings, including a recently deceased 83-year-old woman
and, in one high-profile case, a 12-year-old girl. "You have to give the BPI
credit," says Struan Robertson, a technology lawyer with Pinsent Masons and
editor of IT legal magazine Out-Law. "At the time that the RIAA started
making noises about suing individuals, the BPI waited until the law was
clear until and a legitimate [download business] was in place. I think they
deserve credit for that."
Since launching legal proceedings against 28 filesharers in October 2004,
the BPI says only 111 further actions have been instigated. Of this total,
127 were settled out of court, with the offending individuals paying an
average of £2,300. The remaining cases all resulted in civil actions; the
BPI won each one with either default or summary judgements.
The first of these cases, in January last year, resulted in a landmark legal
ruling, with two men ordered to pay £5,000 and £1,500 respectively for
copyright infringement. Additional costs and damages were estimated at up to
£20,000.
However, although the court's opinion was unequivocal - that "ignorance"
about the legality of filesharing is not a defence - the question of whether
those lawsuits have begun to eradicate file sharing is less clearcut.
"In Europe there have been hundreds of [legal] actions, but the number of
filesharers are in the tens of millions," says Mark Mulligan of Jupiter
Research. "If you're a filesharer, you know that the likelihood of you being
caught is very similar to that of being hit by an asteroid."However, for the
BPI's chief executive, Geoff Taylor, the primary motivation behind the legal
action was never to stamp out filesharing, but to raise consciousness. "Our
goals were to establish clearly that filesharing is illegal," he says.
"We never expected these actions to wipe out illegal filesharing on their
own, but they've done much to raise awareness about the illegality of
distributing music over the internet using P2P networks, and have been
effective in changing many consumers' behaviour."
Taylor adds it is "likely" that legal actions will continue this year,
although he would not say whether this would include downloaders as well as
uploaders. So far only those who offer music have been sought, not those who
grab a copy via download. The BPI will also be "developing new strands to
our enforcement strategy that respond to developments in the nature of the
internet piracy threat".
Phil Stovell
That a presumably respectable company would send such a letter.
>
> Tosh
too
as they had calculated the payments wrong that they want us to make in
instalments to pay the £325.
The rest of the letter was the same as yesterday apart from the adjusted
some and telling us to ignore yestedays letter.
The total for yesterdays letter where £307.57
Todays is £325.00, all the same if I had written and posted the cheques off
to them based on yesterdays letter.
nullified
**Again, presuming this isnt a troll**
Dont write, phone. Make a comprehensive note of the call immediately
afterwards. Tell them they will get nothing from you and if they are
confident then go right ahead and issue a small claims action. I'd
also point out that their mothers mated with donkeys, but thats
optional... :o)
too
"nullified" <nu...@null.null> wrote in message
We have tried phoning last time, they told us to write and due to a lot of
medication,, I dare not let my wife ring them anyway, she is gets mixed up
and would no doubt say things that might make things worst, I have no idea
how she will be able to stand up in court and so I will hopefully be her
defense, since we cannot get a solicitor, with of course some good tips from
the excellent knowledgeable people form here.
May at this point thank all that have replied to my posts.
Tosh
nullified
Okay, no problems... They *insist* you write, then you write. But
write *once*, and once only. State specifically that you are writing
only because they have insisted upon that, and that you will be
charging £25 for this letter and the same for any subsequent ones.
This cost together with other costs associated with defending their
allegation, plus punitive damages for your stress, will form your
counterclaim which will be issued on receipt of their small claims
court summons.
State, specifically again, that you wish to have no further
correspondence with them until they provide for you the full and total
evidence against you, including any correspondence from your ISP. Then
sign off by typing in capital letters and underlined "PLEASE NOTE WE
WILL NOT RESPOND TO ANY COMMUNICATIONS OTHER THAN AS DESCRIBED ABOVE"
Then stand by your guns - ignore anything they send you other than
what you have requested. By all means post about it here, but resist
the temptation to reply. They're attempting to grind you down, and
each time you respond they get a little nearer you just giving in and
sending them the cheques. Fuck 'em, provide evidence, or if they have
the balls then issue a summons. From what you've told us, you simply
cant lose anyway
Colin Wilson
IANAL
Before you give in and pay for an *UNPROVEN ALLEGATION* of filesharing
you might want to read this article published today:
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/22/ec_ip_incite>
In particular, this sentence:
-----
Eventually, the committee agreed to leave copying for personal use
uncriminalised. It states that to be criminal an infringement must be "a
deliberate and conscious infringement of the intellectual property right
for the purpose of obtaining commercial advantage".
-----
*remember that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law*
ISTM that any payment at this stage can only be seen an admission of
guilt, of which not only have they:
* provided no evidence
* proven no intent that it was for commercial advantage
* their behaviour has been challenged under racketeering laws in the US#
# <http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=14233>
While this directive has not yet been passed, I wonder if the nature of
the bill would stand as a defence in light of existing law.
Colin Wilson
Further to the previous link, check this one out too:
5murf
>
> "nullified" nu...@null.null wrote in message
> I got another letter from them today, telling me to igore yesterdays
> letter
> as they had calculated the payments wrong that they want us to make in
> instalments to pay the £325.
>
> The rest of the letter was the same as yesterday apart from the
> adjusted
> some and telling us to ignore yestedays letter.
>
> The total for yesterdays letter where £307.57
>
> Todays is £325.00, all the same if I had written and posted the cheques
>
> off
> to them based on yesterdays letter.
> **Again, presuming this isnt a troll**
> Dont write, phone. Make a comprehensive note of the call immediately
> afterwards. Tell them they will get nothing from you and if they are
> confident then go right ahead and issue a small claims action. I'd
> also point out that their mothers mated with donkeys, but thats
>
> We have tried phoning last time, they told us to write and due to a lot
> of
> medication,, I dare not let my wife ring them anyway, she is gets mixed
> up
> and would no doubt say things that might make things worst, I have no
> idea
> how she will be able to stand up in court and so I will hopefully be
> her
> defense, since we cannot get a solicitor, with of course some good tips
> from
> the excellent knowledgeable people form here.
>
> May at this point thank all that have replied to my posts.
> Okay, no problems... They *insist* you write, then you write. But
> write *once*, and once only. State specifically that you are writing
> only because they have insisted upon that, and that you will be
> charging £25 for this letter and the same for any subsequent ones.
> This cost together with other costs associated with defending their
> allegation, plus punitive damages for your stress, will form your
> counterclaim which will be issued on receipt of their small claims
> court summons.
> State, specifically again, that you wish to have no further
> correspondence with them until they provide for you the full and total
> evidence against you, including any correspondence from your ISP. Then
> sign off by typing in capital letters and underlined "PLEASE NOTE WE
> WILL NOT RESPOND TO ANY COMMUNICATIONS OTHER THAN AS DESCRIBED ABOVE"
> Then stand by your guns - ignore anything they send you other than
> what you have requested. By all means post about it here, but resist
> the temptation to reply. They're attempting to grind you down, and
> each time you respond they get a little nearer you just giving in and
> the balls then issue a summons. From what you've told us, you simply
> cant lose anyway
Firstly a big hello! I've just come across this posting/forum after
searching the web for 'Topware Claim'. I've read this posting with much
interest and can relate to the stress its causing you Tosh. I received
the same letter from Davenport Lyons at the start of the month
demanding me to sign and return their undertaking along with £350
within 14 days. The way the letter was written and the way it had all
the payment and credit card forms listed at the back just struck me as
a complete scam.
I wrote back to Davenport explaining that I had never heard of Topware
or their pinball game and that I could not comply with the undertakings
since the game had never downloaded/uploaded or installed on my Mac. I
also detailed the measures I have taken to password protect my router
and reinstalling my Mac so as to be sure the files was not on my
computer. I even included copies of email sent to and from my ISP
support which first highlighted the possiblity of my router running in
unprotected mode. I also explained that the £350.00 fee was more than
2/3rd of my current monthly income (i'm trying to start my own design
business and don't make enough to draw a wage. but did not tell them
this) and that I'm unable to pay their amount. To try and bring closure
I asked that if they still wished to claim a sum of money from me after
taking into account my actions that they would consider a two figure
settlement. The cost of purchasing one license of the game and the
£50.00 charge levied by my ISP.
They replied today with the exact same letter as what was sent to you
Tosh stating that the evidence they have stood up in the courts in
Germany and England and that 'at the very least, your IP address has
been identified as being responsible for the infringing act(s)
identified.
They also state;
'it is common' knowledge now that a wireless network needs to be
secured so that unauthorized third parties may not have access to your
network and carry out illegal activities. There has already been a
ruling in the German courts confirming that a wireless network is the
responsibility of it owner and any consequences of failing to secure
the network fall upon the owner of it, irrespective of who carried out
the illegal activity. We are of the view that the UK courts would take
the same position.'
'We reject your settlement offer as inadequate bearing in mind the loss
our client has suffered and the legal costs involved, to which it does
not bear any relation'
They also state that unless I pay them the £350 and sign the
undertaking s they will have 'no alternative but to commence proceeding
against you without further notice'
To say this whole matter is causing me lost sleep would be an
understatement. Its affecting my work, evenings and the stress of
trying to find £350 is another matter. What really annoys me is that
they are asking me to sign my name to something that I have never done
and to pay them for the privilege. They also state in their first
letter that the primary concern of their client is to protect their
property. They're now saying that my settlement does not cover their
clients loss. What evidence do they have to say that even if this game
was downloaded on my IP that it came to £300 of damages? They also
never supplied me with the evidence which I requested to comply with
their terms. I searched my Mac and have never found any reference to
this game. A fact they have ignored.
I feel like I've been thrown into the deep end of legal and IT hell...
Any comments on what you think I should do next will be warmly
appreciated.
--
5murf
nullified
<5murf....@legalbanter.co.uk> wrote:
Can you post the *exact* wording of your recent letter from them,
obviously excluding personal info. I'm fascinated by their claim about
the "now common knowledge" bit. I'm of a mind to believe that this is
a scam based on nothing more than seeking out unsecured networks and
then attempting to extort money from the owner. Obviously that would
be a criminal offence...
Colin Wilson
> was downloaded on my IP that it came to £300 of damages?
IANAL, so this could be complete crap !
I believe this question has been posed in US courts - the nature of any
loss is not the retail price, but the profit they would have made for
the number of sales they allege to have lost as a result, minus all the
fixed costs such as the production of the media and the retailers'
margins.
To come up with a true loss figure, I believe they would have to justify
how they came up with that amount i.e. justify the number of lost sales
as a direct result of "you" sharing it.
On a slightly different note, legalbanter.co.uk is not the home of this
thread - it's a website that effectively copies the posts made on a
newsgroup, typically adding advertisements to line their own pockets
from clickthroughs.
The Todal
"5murf" <5murf....@legalbanter.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5murf....@legalbanter.co.uk...
It begins to sound like a story that ought to interest the newspapers. You
could try Jack Schofield who is the technology correspondent of The
Guardian, and ask if any of his colleagues would be interested in following
this up.
Anyway, the position seems to be that most people cave in and pay up because
Legal Aid is (probably) not available to defend these claims and most people
are intimidated by lawyers and by the prospect of going to court. That is a
scandal, if they are in fact innocent of knowingly uploading copyright
material.
Phil Stovell
This seems to me to have the hallmark of a scam. A Google shows lots of
people having received the same letter.
The Todal
I couldn't find it - what are the search terms you have used?
It is possible, I suppose, that a fraudster is sending out letters
purporting from Davenport Lyons. It seems rather unlikely but another
possibility might be that someone very junior in that firm is sending out
irresponsible letters. Those who have had letters from Davenport Lyons -
have they checked the address on the letter and compared it with the firm's
website?
too
crooks sending out these letters, they would not have been able to issue my
ISP with a court order, which is what happened, so it might be a scam, but
one being done by a real company.
Tosh
too
> Firstly a big hello! I've just come across this posting/forum after
> searching the web for 'Topware Claim'. I've read this posting with much
> interest and can relate to the stress its causing you Tosh. I received
> the same letter from Davenport Lyons at the start of the month
> demanding me to sign and return their undertaking along with £350
> within 14 days. The way the letter was written and the way it had all
> the payment and credit card forms listed at the back just struck me as
> a complete scam.
Hi 5murf, seems the list of people that are being chased up for the game
grows as it is discussed more and more on the internet and in newsgroups, it
makes me wonder how many people are being falsley accused of this
infringment.
>
> I wrote back to Davenport explaining that I had never heard of Topware
> or their pinball game and that I could not comply with the undertakings
> since the game had never downloaded/uploaded or installed on my Mac. I
> also detailed the measures I have taken to password protect my router
> and reinstalling my Mac so as to be sure the files was not on my
> computer. I even included copies of email sent to and from my ISP
> support which first highlighted the possiblity of my router running in
> unprotected mode. I also explained that the £350.00 fee was more than
> 2/3rd of my current monthly income (i'm trying to start my own design
> business and don't make enough to draw a wage. but did not tell them
> this) and that I'm unable to pay their amount. To try and bring closure
> I asked that if they still wished to claim a sum of money from me after
> taking into account my actions that they would consider a two figure
> settlement. The cost of purchasing one license of the game and the
> £50.00 charge levied by my ISP.
Even though my wife is the account golder, I am doing all the letter writing
and finding out information about this travisty that is being instigated by
Davenport and Topware.
One thing there is no way we will sign any undertakings or offer any form of
payment, today I am posting another letter to them, telling them they will
get no money and that nobody has downloaded or uploaded this game called 3D
pinball.
I will post the reply from them when it arrives.
>
> They replied today with the exact same letter as what was sent to you
> Tosh stating that the evidence they have stood up in the courts in
> Germany and England and that 'at the very least, your IP address has
> been identified as being responsible for the infringing act(s)
> identified.
> They also state;
>
> 'it is common' knowledge now that a wireless network needs to be
> secured so that unauthorized third parties may not have access to your
> network and carry out illegal activities. There has already been a
> ruling in the German courts confirming that a wireless network is the
> responsibility of it owner and any consequences of failing to secure
> the network fall upon the owner of it, irrespective of who carried out
> the illegal activity. We are of the view that the UK courts would take
> the same position.'
What is it with this firm and Germany, they quote a German time zone in the
original letter, then they go on about evidence standig up in German courts
and now they have mentioned to about German courts and wirless networks, do
the Germans somehow have a stake in this or is does German law effetc the
laws of the UK?
>
> 'We reject your settlement offer as inadequate bearing in mind the loss
> our client has suffered and the legal costs involved, to which it does
> not bear any relation'
>
> They also state that unless I pay them the £350 and sign the
> undertaking s they will have 'no alternative but to commence proceeding
> against you without further notice'
I would love to know how much Topware claims it has lost as I have looked up
the game and it is not exactly the type of game most people would even
consider playing and for certain nobody in our house would play such a
rubbish game.
>
> To say this whole matter is causing me lost sleep would be an
> understatement. Its affecting my work, evenings and the stress of
> trying to find £350 is another matter. What really annoys me is that
> they are asking me to sign my name to something that I have never done
> and to pay them for the privilege. They also state in their first
> letter that the primary concern of their client is to protect their
> property. They're now saying that my settlement does not cover their
> clients loss. What evidence do they have to say that even if this game
> was downloaded on my IP that it came to £300 of damages? They also
> never supplied me with the evidence which I requested to comply with
> their terms. I searched my Mac and have never found any reference to
> this game. A fact they have ignored.
We also have never had this game on any of the PC's in our home and like you
have even doubled checked to ensure this is not so, problem is I do not
think Davenport care and I suppose all they are interested in is falsly
trying to extort money out of people and I am sure they probably are also
milking money off Topware also, after all I presume at the end of the day,
Davenport wins whatever happens, do they not?
>
> I feel like I've been thrown into the deep end of legal and IT hell...
Same here and what worries me is that I cannot get any legal help and so how
the hell does one fight and be effective, apart form the help here, which I
am gratful for.
Tosh
too
I have checked on the legal aid front and there is no legal aid for such a
case, what I cannot fathom out is that they say they have compulsive
evidence, how does a non IT and non legal expert fight these claims and win.
Tosh
too
There is also a discussion about this form other people here, someone in my
local newsgroup where I am also discussing this pointed this thread out,
however to post one has to register, which I have done and the place I
understand is something to do with file sharing, I think.
I have also read somewhere else on the net, where someone like us has got
one of these letters, but for £600, not the regular £300 plus ISP fees.
Tosh
The Todal
"too" <so...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:mKQMh.44616$n77....@newsfe23.ams...
>
> What is it with this firm and Germany, they quote a German time zone in
> the original letter, then they go on about evidence standig up in German
> courts and now they have mentioned to about German courts and wirless
> networks, do the Germans somehow have a stake in this or is does German
> law effetc the laws of the UK?
I very much doubt if our courts would feel obliged to follow decisions made
in Germany.
It does begin to look as if Davenport Lyons have obtained expert evidence
that is flawed in some way. You can't be expected to pay a computer expert
to produce your own report, but if you go to court and tell the judge that
this stuff isn't on any computer in your house, the chances are that he will
believe you.
I think it would be best to be courteous at all times in your dealings with
Davenport Lyons. Tempting though it is to offer them some choice insults,
remember that any letters are likely to be produced in court and read by a
judge. If he sees you as a sensible, polite person doing your best to reply
to an officious bureaucrat, you'll have the judge on your side.
PeteM
>The address is correct
A scan of the letter, with your own name etc blanked out, would be
helpful for us.
>and if it where a scam by some crooks, other then the
>crooks sending out these letters, they would not have been able to issue my
>ISP with a court order, which is what happened,
How do you know? Do they claim so? Have you asked your ISP?
dotpixel
I am too in a similar situation, but I wanted to make another point -
perhaps irrelevant but in my mind important:
Even if you do secure your network with a password there are many
fairly easy ways to break this security, i.e. somebody can hack into
your network and download/upload illegal content. This will be
particularly difficult to prove, particularly for less
technically-orientated people. I don't see a way for anybody to prove
one way or another. It is less likely if the network was secured, but
nonetheless not beyond reason (I'm thinking beyond reasonable doubt
from watching some films - I don't know if this applies here).
Can this be a valid claim defending against these davenport solicitors
claiming compensation? i.e. that the network is secure and that this
could have occured if somebody hacked into the network.
The way i see it, it's similar to somebody stealing somebody's car and
then caught speeding on camera - obviously no court will find the car
owner liable. However, in this case it is much more difficult to prove
the wireless network has or hasn't been hacked into. If it did, it's
not like a car that disappear - it would rather go unnoticed.
An unrelated question - if one can afford to pay the requested sum, as
it still seems cheaper and easier/quicker than starting a legal battle
and spending more money on solicitors etc, will this be seen as an
aknowledgement of taking responsibility for the infringement? Is there
a way to settle without actually admitting any responsibility direct or
indirect?
--
dotpixel
5murf
I'll try and post their full reply later today.
In the meantime I have done a little more research and found that
Davenport Lyons sent out another batch of letters in Jan. From what I
gather this time they were claiming £200+ISP fees. There are also
scattered reports of other people receiving this letter in Feb/March
and confirmed reports of people paying out without question. There are
no references to any pending court cases.
It seems that Davenport Lyons got a decent payout on their first batch
of letters and have decided to try their luck again.
I've raised this issue with an friend who's an Intellectual Property
Solicitor working on behalf of Microsoft. They were surprised to see
Davenport Lyons acting in this manner and that the first letter was an
'off-the-shelf' response and that no court would consider such a small
claim. Of course, this is all speculation.
What really concerns me is their complete disregard of my attempt to
settle and failure to acknowledge the measures I have taken to protect
my network and ensure their software was/is not available from my Mac.
This firm and Topware seem to have a chequered past with a previous
title called UKinfo Disc. It seems they're simply out to generate cash.
--
5murf
Phil Stovell
> I couldn't find it - what are the search terms you have used?
Topware pinball scam
Davenport Lyons pinball
dotpixel
>
> It does begin to look as if Davenport Lyons have obtained expert
> evidence
> that is flawed in some way. You can't be expected to pay a computer
> expert
> to produce your own report, but if you go to court and tell the judge
> that
> this stuff isn't on any computer in your house, the chances are that he
> will
> believe you.
>
The only expert evidence they can obtain is that the file was shared on
a specific IP address on a certain date and time. Then obtaining the
'link' between the IP address and the actual person (via the ISP) will
allow them to post this letter. This only indicates that *somebody* was
using that internet connection to share the file at the time -
technically there's no way to prove anything beyond that other than
obtaining the hard drives of all PCs connected and demonstrating the
file in question is stored there.
That's of course the technical side of it. Whether or not it will stand
in court is a different question, which I'm hoping this forum is the
right place to find out.
I wish there was a solicitor out there willing to fight on behalf of
all these people. I would personally be happy to pay them £350 instead
of to Davenport Lyons. I can easily enough get a technical expert
counter-evidence to support the technical side of it.
--
dotpixel
Nick Campbell
I just got a similar letter. We have a router and could have been one of
two people however both are 100% sure they didnt download it. Now be
honest people did you lot actually download it or is this just a scam
to make money? They both download stuff which I've told them to stop
doing, but are adament they didnt download a pinball game and even
laughed at the fact.
What should I do, get them to pay it? or fight the fact? even though
further investigation could lead them to find other previously
downloaded material?
One uses emule the other uses torrent? do we know where this file dream
pinball 3d came from?
What is to stop them sending another letter in a few weeks about
another "downloaded" piece of software?
or another law firm doing the same ?
--
Nick Campbell
sjb
As far as I can see no one has mentioned the fact that a lot of files
are posted on emule (which i use) and 1 file can have lots of different
names. i could download a file of a tv episode and when you go to open
it, it's not a movie at all but on further looking a rar file. i
download lots of uncopyrighted material but if someone changes the
filename from pinball dreames.exe to motorcross video.avi when you look
for motorcros and click to download as far as you know you havent
commited a crime (if it is a crime anyway (legally)). If you were to
look at the hash number they would be identicle. they know your
sharing the file but are you actually being dishonest? I WOULD LIKE TO
KNOW HOW THEY KNOW WHAT VERSION OF THE FILE YOU ARE DOWNLOADING,
pinball dreames.exe or motorcross video.avi Same hash number different
filenames. its like clicking on a link to a innocent looking website
only to find porn. YOU WERE INNOCENT. And to pay £350 for a innocent
mistake is a bit much. ALSO... From their letter it seems they are
punishing you for all the people that possibly copied it from you.
huh. example..a robber down my street is put in court and has to be
made to do pay for what hes actually done. the judge cant say there
were a few other breakins done down the road earlier in the week and
he's now gonna be charged for then as well even though theres no
evidence? a £100 pound fine now is £2000. if english courts are
anything, their usually fair. a £10 game now £350 i dont think that
will stick. I see a lot of problems for the company if they wish to
persue this course of action. All it will take is 1 person finding 1
loophole ie the file name change and the information they have wont be
worth the paper its written on. I think their trying bullying tactics
in a really grotesq way, especially when I don't think they can proove
it conclusivly.
--
sjb
5murf
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:33:11 +0000, Colin Wilson wrote:
> # http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=14233-
>
> Further to the previous link, check this one out too:
>
>
> This seems to me to have the hallmark of a scam. A Google shows lots
> of
>
> I couldn't find it - what are the search terms you have used?
>
> It is possible, I suppose, that a fraudster is sending out letters
> purporting from Davenport Lyons. It seems rather unlikely but another
> possibility might be that someone very junior in that firm is sending
> out
> irresponsible letters. Those who have had letters from Davenport Lyons
> -
> have they checked the address on the letter and compared it with the
> firm's
> website?
I'm in no way suggesting that this is a 'scam' in the sense that it is
being run by a fraudster. I mean to say that the intention of the
firm/client seems to be simply to generate revenue in the guise of
protecting their Intellectual Property.
I'm yet to see any hard evidence from this firm linking my IP address
to their clients software, however I can only assume whatever data they
do have was scrutinised before my ISP handed my details to this firm.
With the number of letters floating around I have suspicions as to how
well the 'evidence' was scrutinised by the court or ISP. I suspect they
all profit in some way from this.
Other than having my network locked-down and my Mac checked for viruses
and the software there is little I can do. The mere fact that the firm
ignored my actions to ensure their software has never been installed on
my Mac (it does not even run on a Mac) or is currently available makes
me think their real goal is to raise money for their client. My lawyer
friend noted that the first letter never made any reference to
compensation or losses instead just stating that they needed to cover
legal fees. The second reply is now saying that my offer to settle
bears no relation to the loses.
I also think its not common knowledge to secure a network. I assumed
this was all setup for me by my ISP and whilst no network guru, I'm
under the belief that any network/PC or even Mac is never 100% secure.
Searching 'claim davenport lyons' in Google throws up this link;
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31051
Also found this;
http://tinyurl.com/33bok7 No real words of wisdom here but interesting
to see reports of this letter in Jan 07 and clear evidence that these
letters are going around.
No idea of the legitimacy of these sites or background so like
everything on the web, need to take them with a 'pinch-of-salt'.
--
5murf
too
"PeteM" <Bo...@embankment.org> wrote in message
news:oLnOzLAi...@snowstorm.demon.co.uk...
Where can I post there letters, if I scan them, I presume its not acceptable
to post binaries here?
Tosh
Phil Stovell
> I just got a similar letter.
Surely it's a scam? It seems to be spreading like a chain letter!
PeteM
>
>Where can I post there letters, if I scan them, I presume its not acceptable
>to post binaries here?
>
You can email them to me and I will put them up on some spare web space.
Use otcbn at callnetuk dot com.
The Todal
>
>> I just got a similar letter.
>
> Surely it's a scam? It seems to be spreading like a chain letter!
Tonight a solicitor in the business told me that they go through huge lists
of (alleged) copyright-breachers and pick names at random to attack.
Clearly people need to stand up to them.
Dr_Frankenstein
Hello to all i have just been scouring google regarding the exact same
problem as the Previous posters
I have Today 23/03/07 Received a legal letter from Davenport Lyons
claiming that my ip address has been logged as uploading Dream Pinball
3D i aswell have never even heard of this game or company prior to
today
i would be quite happy to post the Edited versions of the letter i have
received obviously with the ip ect blanked
i have read the letter through a good few times and i am not replying
until getting legal advice from my local CAB one thing i have noticed
is that even if i sign and send payment there is nothing to say they*
(Davenport Lyons) will take no further action or record would be kept
on this
i will also keep this forum updated on my progress i do not really wish
to go to court but i do not see why i should pay for something i have
not done
Scans to follow shortly
--
Dr_Frankenstein
nullified
Hmmmm, looking forward to seeing these scans. Personally, I think its
time that the recipients of these letters got together and found out
which one of them had least to lose at court, and then subsidised him
in taking out an action against Davenport for harrassment. At the
moment, some lowlife gutterdwelling bunch of solicitors have
discovered what they think is a golden egg - just send out blackmail
letters at random to people with wireless networks, and a given %age
of them will simply pay by return post! Its fucking free money innit,
and I cant see them stopping while its a risk-free gamble. When they
have a judgement against *them*, coupled perhaps with a police
investigation for extorting money with menaces, maybe they'll reflect
that it wasn't such a good idea after all.
Mr maggoo
Hi add me to the list of people who have recived this letter, again I
have recived what apears to be a mass mailing, from davenport. clocked
on 11.10.2006, My ISP is telewest and the IP address apears to belong
to some one in hornchurch ( Im not in hornchurch ) Im know a little but
not enough to prove its not me.
I guess im just going to pay, although this pains me greatly as you can
guess, £349
Please somebody HELP.
Steve
--
Mr maggoo
donma...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Dr_Frankenstein Wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hello to all i have just been scouring google regarding the exact same
> > problem as the Previous posters
>
> > I have Today 23/03/07 Received a legal letter fromDavenportLyons
> > claiming that my ip address has been logged as uploading Dream Pinball
> > 3D i aswell have never even heard of this game or company prior to
> > today
>
> > i would be quite happy to post the Edited versions of the letter i have
> > received obviously with the ip ect blanked
>
> > i have read the letter through a good few times and i am not replying
> > until getting legal advice from my local CAB one thing i have noticed
> > is that even if i sign and send payment there is nothing to say they*
> > on this
>
> > i will also keep this forum updated on my progress i do not really wish
> > to go to court but i do not see why i should pay for something i have
> > not done
>
> > Scans to follow shortly
>
> Hi add me to the list of people who have recived this letter, again I
> on 11.10.2006, My ISP is telewest and the IP address apears to belong
> to some one in hornchurch ( Im not in hornchurch ) Im know a little but
> not enough to prove its not me.
>
> I guess im just going to pay, although this pains me greatly as you can
> guess, £349
>
> Please somebody HELP.
>
> Steve
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi all,
Count me in too now :-(
I have been direceted from the other forums to here now, here is my
post from there:
i today (6/03/2007) also got a letter from the law firm Davenport
Lyons.
they want £600+ from me unlike the 350 from the rest of you.
they said i d/l and u/l the file on the date of 26/9/06 last year
and want to me to pay b4 the 14/03/07
Also whats the next action are you talking now? i am going to try to
contact the CAB on the matter. Has anyone taken any further action
then just looking around the Web for info?
i have never heard of this game or think i would even d/l and share it
tbh as just been to the dream pinball 3D site and it seems that its
not the game i would play either. But i guess it must somehow maybe
been d/l since they say they have "proof"
So what is this proof and where can i request to see it? what do i
need to do to obtain it?
thanks for any help
Sam