This might be worth a read if anyone is having problems, the company is well known for is spurious threats:
Being Sued by Atari/Davenport ! - Overclockers UK Forums a) The letter states with regard to Atari "their copyright works (including the work) are being made available on so called peer to peer (P2P) internet sites. Implying that there may be more should I pay this one, as i do not understand the implications or even the workings of this peer to peer thing, (not ever having been on one) b) Am i right in thinking this is a civil offense (should it go that far), as a criminal offense/conviction could have impacts on my profession c) the other posts on this appear to be from people with the same letter who have perhaps downloaded this game knowingly or others who have no knowledge about it all. How do i stand in my situation? Such as, am i guilty by default as i pay the bill so am responsible for its use by everyone in the house.
A) This is just a psyche-out, they would have to take seperate action on each alleged offence. I think if they had more evidence, then you would know about it.
B) if the allegations are true, it is a civil offence.
C) This company have approached people who are innocent, and those who are guilty, thier methods are highly questionable in terms of how they select their "victims".
The advent of wireless networking has made it very easy to "jump" onto a wireless network, personal equipment/data is very safe due to firewalls and other security on the computer itself, but it is very easy to utilise sombody elses broadband connection to download information from the internet using thier connection, so it would appear that the "owner" of that connection was doing it themselves. I would be very interested to hear about any real court cases regarding this, as it is very shakey ground.
Peer to Peer (P2P) networking is a really tricky thing, the basic idea is that you download a file (any file) for example BBC IPlayer, but the condition of you downloading it, is that you share it with others.
In very simple terms, a peer to peer network is any collecton of devices that is not controlled by a single device that enforces rules, it is the very nature of networking and the internet. If you have more than one computer in your home, connected by a router, then you have a very small P2P network - there is no central file-server or domain.
The file itself, is broken down into hundreds, sometimes thousands of little "chunks", and you only get one chunk at a time. As you collect all the chunks, you also share the chunks with other people who are connected to the same group or network, and they share thier chunks with you. this makes for a highly efficient way of moving data, as the historical method invoves connecting to a single source to download a single huge chunk of data, which is obviously very limited in terms of speed, as you are relying on a single connection to a "host", rather than multiple connections to hundreds of "peers"
A thousand people sharing small parts of the same data between themselves, rather than from a single source, makes for highly efficient sharing of data, and it is fundamental to modern computing.
Anyway - back on track,
I don't belive any of these cases have gone all the way, as in, they have never been properly defended. I think it would be very interesting to see a case defended, because of the ammount of background work to prosecute would be massive.
The nature of P2P networking means that any given person who allegedly "downloads a file protected by copyright" would potentially be liable for obtaining that file illegaly. which means that they would be liable for £3-£60 depending on the price of the software/music in question. (hardly worth going to court over).
The way people such as davenport Lyons operate, is that they analyse how many "peers" you were connected to at the time, an then boldy pronounce "you were connected to 2500 peers, therefore you have illegaly distributed 2500 copies of our clients material" 2500x£30= lots of money.
In reality, you generally re-distribute less than 1% of the entire file, due to the sheer number of sharers (peers), so if the case went all the way you could only be held liable for the price of the software/media(that you obtained), plus the ammount you shared, so if we take for example, a software item that retails at £100, they would have to prove how much you shared, ( how many chunks did you upload?) lets say for an extreme example, you uploaded 100% of what you downloaded, that means you would be liable for £200 plus costs....and thats a bit ambiguous as I dont belive the technology exists to see who shares how much and to whom.
Re: The Davenport Lyons/Atari copyright saga 
)
