Davenport Lyons going against file sharers

[Conniff]

Originally Posted by WebFerret

Most Davenport demands for money have been for the same sum of £500, or there abouts – how have they arrived at this common figure? – surely each case would vary wildly in the alleged amount of damages Davenport had suffered.

This has to be just an arbitrary figure, and as for damages, they have suffered 'no' damages as it is very unlikely that anyone who downloads would be buying the movie/game anyway.

[mozzer67]

You folks are brill. Thanks so much for your help and advice, I'm actually going to cut and paste some of your responses into my letter to DL because I don't feel confident enough to "knock up" a letter to a law firm.

I'll let you know how I get on, fingers crossed these frightmongers will leave me alone

Thanks again everyone!

Mark

[polmac]

well my solicitor is sending a letter to DL. basically the claim is against my father, who never downloaded the cd, and he is refusing to pay for it.

we have asked DL to provide evidence that he downloaded the album in question.

[patrickq1]

better your solicitor asks under the same procedures they are relying on such as cpr 31.18 but even more also write that you wish for digiprotect to become your witness and that you require deep packet inspection to the said material from their information......
patrickq1

[Conniff]

It seems to have turned into an epidemic now:

Thousands of internet users have been told they'll be taken to court unless they pay hundreds of pounds for illegally downloading and sharing hardcore porn movies

BBC - Newsbeat - Technology - Cash demand over 'porn downloads'

And it's Davenport Lyons again.


"It's not my understanding that they ask for anything near that. I think the amount was $50 (£34) or €50 (£43)," he said.
"I would be very surprised and I wouldn't be happy because it would mean it was completely misrepresented to me." DigiProtect refused to comment directly for this article.

So they are even ripping off the clients they are supposed to be representing.

[WebFerret]

Thanks Conniff - to add to that:

Atari Backs Away From Davenport Lyons, As More Innocent Threat Letters Are Uncovered

Techdirt: Atari Backs Away From Davenport Lyons, As More Innocent Threat Letters Are Uncovered

"from the ain't-that-called-extortion? dept
With plenty of bad publicity showing up for law firm Davenport Lyons and its ongoing campaign to shake people down with "pre-settlement" letters threatening them with copyright infringement lawsuits if they don't pay up, it appears that things aren't going quite as planned.

First, the press has found more people who were apparently falsely accused by the firm -- and this time, it's an elderly couple who are quite horrified that they're being accused of downloading gay porn (this would be the same gay porn where recent reports noted that the publishers were encouraging another company to upload it to many sites, so there would be more people to accuse of pirating it).

On top of that, it appears that Atari, which had hired Davenport Lyons (and whose games were part of the original story of falsely accused people) has now stopped the anti-piracy campaign, canceled requests for identification on various IP addresses and apparently dropped Davenport Lyons in the process. It seems Atari realized that the campaign was generating an awful lot of negative publicity. Shaking down innocent people can do that, apparently."

So it appears that Davenport Lyons 'money making scam' with the Games Companies is drying up - hence the reason we now see them entering the Porn Industry!

The Porn Industry being more lucrative due to the fact of embarrassment on the part of the recipient of their threatening letters and therefore more likely to pay-up without challenge!

More circumstantial evidence to suggest that what I wrote originally in my post http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ml#post1828499 is indeed correct - that this is nothing more than a money making scam


IMHO - if anyone receives such a letter - one should simply file it immediately in the nearest recycling bin! - lol

.

[WebFerret]

For a more light-hearted look at the subject check out this u-tube video:

YouTube - Hey Mr. Thompson


This video tells the story of how everyone started to sue Rockstar Games for the ‘violence’ in their games and how, now the Games Companies are turning the tables and suing their customers - lol


Very funny and extremely well done.

[Conniff]

Your links not working WF.

[WebFerret]

Originally Posted by Conniff

Your links not working WF.

lol - you must have just been looking as I posted cos I just corrected it - takes a while to check it's OK - lol

[Conniff]

Ok, got it. I like that, quality.

[NitrousOxide]

There is solid proof that Digiprotect have uploaded said files to P2P networks themselves. They then target people who then download said files by sending out the letters from DL.
Is that not some form of extortion?
Plus a person can only be sued for copyright if they are the infringer themselves or encouraged it.
If say your mum got a letter and nobody had any idea who downloaded the file it would be quite pointless of them to go to court, considering the onus of proof would be on the claimant and that they would have to be the infinger.

[Helford]

This featured on BBC TV 'Watchdog' tonight. See here:-

BBC iPlayer - Watchdog: 08/12/2008

[Lula]

There was something on Watchdog this evening about this, if you didnt see it it will be available on BBC iplayer

[HSBCrusher]

that was a good item... it well demonstrated that an ip address does not prove an offence by the recipient of the letter...

not by a long chalk.

[kiptower]

update after watchdog exposes

Regulator to probe Davenport Lyons' P2P porn cash demands • The Register

[Conniff]

There are many such things in the legal and financial world that a big organisation like Which should get involved in.

This a move in the right direction as it is blatant profiteering adding hundred of pounds to what their clients demanded, and all for a letter.

Makes the banks £25 for a letter look paltry now.