Consumer Action Group envelope labels
You are part of a community of over 195,000 people. Let your bank know that you won't give in. Display one of our labels on your envelopes. Full description here
Sheet of 20 self-adhesive envelope labels £3.50 inc p&p
|
Reclaim the Right Ltd. - reg.05783665 in the UK
reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road
London
NW11 7PE
| | | | CAG Announcements | |
Welcome Guest
Please register
Registration is free
There are no charges for using any of the facilities of this website.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ.
You will have to register before you can post.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
You will also have to register to access our template letters and claims forms
registration is free
Are you being threatened over debts more than 6 years old? This may be unfair
See our new Unfair Trading Guide Bought an extended warranty? Not satisfied?
The warranty may be an example of unfair trading
See our new Unfair Trading Guide Have you been defaulted?
Would you like to clean up your credit file? Check it out Hold the Front Page!! News updates The Consumer Forums front page Have you been defaulted?
Would you like to clean up your credit file? Check it out | | | | | | Welcome to The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group
Before beginning to claim your bank charges be sure to read the FAQ by clicking the link above. Read it carefully and also read as much of the forum material as you can manage before you start claiming your bank charges refund.
You will have to register before you can post or view the materials which may assist you in reclaiming your penalty charges: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. Understand what you are doing and you will be able to Reclaim the Right more effectively.
Why don't you come and introduce yourself in the Welcome section at the top of the forum. Then have a look around the rest of it.
Do not post or start claiming until you have read the entire FAQ section and step by step guides and you have a good basic idea of what to do and of the layout of the forum.
Good luck claiming your bank charges. We strongly suggest that you register under a UserID and not your own name |  | |
13th September 2008, 21:37
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Customer | Re: The Davenport Lyons/Atari copyright saga Those of you with more legal knowledge than I have... what do you think about a defense based on the following points... how would it hold?
- as mentioned by posters above, location of purported downloads is unlikely, like family with grown up children, or office etc.
- wifi devices are never completely secure and while one can take basic precautions it is a fact that wifi devices can be hijacked relatively easily from anyone in the vicinity, so that no person can be singled out for this offence
- as OSWALDO mentions above, Davenport don't forget to mention lots of IT gobblygook about sophisticated monitoring programs etc, but never anything concrete about which monitoring program it is, how it works, how it collects data about IP addresses, how does it know these results are valid, who gave it the authority to collect IP addresses (can it be noted that IP addresses are personal information?), and have the creators and operators of this monitoring system ever been independently audited to verify the system's accuracy and validity in the results it produces? If not, how do we know the results are valid and not a concoction of the claimant?
Finally a few questions for those of you who might be able to answer:
- if it can be shown that it is probable a wifi device was hijacked at some point (perhaps there was a hack on the user's computer or webpage in the past, showing vulnerability to similar attacks), is this a defence in such a case, i.e. how does uk law treat the wifi device owner's responsibility in cases of breaching its security? Favourably I should think, as wifi devices are never 100% secure, especially when set up by non-IT professionals.
- would the sum of the defence points above provide for sufficient reasonable doubt with regards to the defendant's guilt in such a case, so as to tip the balance of probabilities in favour of the defendant?
Thanks in advance! |
| |
13th September 2008, 22:13
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Platinum Account Customer
I am in: spired.
Posts: 19,677
| Re: The Davenport Lyons/Atari copyright saga Personally, should I ever get this kind of letter, my response would be: "bring it on, and don't forget it's up to you to prove that *I* committed this act". Frankly, unless you live on your own, with a Fort Knox secure connection, and no visitors ever, I fail to see how they could ever prove it.  |
| |
13th September 2008, 23:11
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Platinum Account Customer
I am in: E.Sussex
Posts: 805
| Re: The Davenport Lyons/Atari copyright saga Exactly. In my flat alone, I can see 6 other wireless networks, which given time, I'm sure I could hack (not that I would, of course!) I also have friends whose wireless is totally unsecured  |
| |
14th September 2008, 09:09
|
#11 (permalink)
| | Platinum Account Customer | Re: The Davenport Lyons/Atari copyright saga Quote:
Originally Posted by robin9342 Exactly. In my flat alone, I can see 6 other wireless networks, which given time, I'm sure I could hack (not that I would, of course!) I also have friends whose wireless is totally unsecured  | Last night I found 6 networks, three unprotected and five wi-fi spots which we could latch onto... I did get into the wi-fi spots no problem and two of the three unprotected networks, so who is to say I didn't download porn or anything (illegal) via a roving ISP...
These claims are as bad as the GHD hair people claiming the deal is between the salon and the purchaser and that the purchaser should sell the unwanted item back to the salon at a much reduced rate and not sell them on eBay.... consumer protection doesn't exist in the 'copyright protection' world. |
| |
14th September 2008, 22:22
|
#12 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Customer | Re: The Davenport Lyons/Atari copyright saga Quote:
Originally Posted by DonDino2 Those of you with more legal knowledge than I have... what do you think about a defense based on the following points... how would it hold? | Another point is check the date and time you were supposedly file sharing. In my case, it was 12:30am on a Saturday Morning 1st March 2008. I don't know about your usual computer geek but I'm ususally down my local wine bar surrounded by independent witnesses and my laptop is switched off at that time on Fri night/Sat morn. I pointed this out to Davenport Lyons and it seemed to throw em in their reply - quoting that leaving my wireless open was the legal wrong because I was in breach of Bethere's conditons and they were reporting me to Bethere for not protecting their clients' copyright (of course I am now petriified that Bethere will terminate my contract ;o)) - naturally I replied that file sharing was the legal wrong not leaving the door open - no reply to that point to date. |
| |
15th September 2008, 23:44
|
#13 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Customer | Re: The Davenport Lyons/Atari copyright saga peer guardian 2 look it up on your fav search engine like a p2p condom lol protects from viruses too how many of my friends have told me there pc runs slow because they have downlaoded from limewire jeez protect yourselves
another great site for p2p issues like above is zeropaid . C0m
lots of interesting stuff on copywright laws suing not suing etc etc etc
good luck all 
Last edited by goginng; 15th September 2008 at 23:56.
|
| |
16th November 2008, 22:31
|
#15 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Customer | Re: The Davenport Lyons/Atari copyright saga I thought I'd like to share with you what I have received.
Initial thought on receiving this letter was, 21 days? quick, pay it!
But on closer inspection of the letter I have a suspicion that it's not genuine. I have picked up on several pointers that you should all look out for.
The letter is addressed by personal name in a clear windowed envelope, yet on opening it, the letter is addressed to 'Sir / Madam', now I don't know if you've ever received a legal document , but isn't a legal document that is sent from a solicitor normally started off with 'Dear Mrs Jo Bloggs' (example made up name used there) and not sir/ madam???!!!!!
The other very major point is the signature of the letter.
It goes on to say that the letter has been digitally signed because of the large volume of correspondence it's had to deal with. And do you notice it's digitally signed 'Davenport Lyons' and not a name of a legal representative for the company.
No legal company sending out 'Letters of Claim' would send a letter demanding money with a digital signature.
Every legal letter that is sent out, is written by a legal secretary and is handed over for a representative to sign on behalf of the company, and will bear the signatories name underneath.
Also, if an order was made to Chief in Chancery Division of High Court dated 30 June 2008, why is it that I have only received a photocopy of the order and not received an original.
And why have I only just received it in November........June was 5 months ago???!!!!!!!
I will be seeking some form of legal advice on this matter. It's ringing alarm bells for me. |
| |
17th November 2008, 18:37
|
#17 (permalink)
| | Platinum Account Customer
Watch out, there are Claims Touts about! | |