The Davenport Lyons/Atari copyright saga

[peter007]

What are the latest updates on it, i had a letter 1 August, I have never even played a computer game in my life let alone downloaded one. But apparently it was my 19 year old son, (who did it to replace his original scratched copy) on reading other sites it seems even this is illegal.

I am going through the normal channels ie CAB and probably looking for a solicitor who has some experience in these matters for a free consultation.

However my concerns are,

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.

I'd be interested in any feedback as some of you must be coming up to your 21 days now.

[fr33d0m]

Downloading the game even though he has the disk is still a break of copyright. But copying the disk that you own and not distributing it is not a break of copyright.

But here is where you could make a claim. Game companies use anti-copying software to stop you making backups of your own disk. Thus causing you to have to download the iso from the internet.

P2P(Peer to Peer) networks are perfectly legal. The fils on them are sometimes not.

[legalpickle]

See an article on Times Online about this saga:
Hundreds sued for sharing video games - Times Online

Good luck people!

[Michael Browne]

Another default judgement. I've yet to see Davenport Lyons win a defended claim.

[legalpickle]

A second article on Times Online about this saga:
Computer games industry threat to downloaders: 'pay up or we'll sue' - Times Online

Seems Davenport Lyons are getting cocky now! Come on people prove that they are what we know they are [I won't use the words here, because I'd be banned from the forum ]!

[OSWALDO]

I have had letter from Davenport Lyons and referred it to my solicitor - he says that court would evaluate the case on the balance of probabilities i.e. a middle aged billpayer like me with sons in their 20s living at home would probably avoid court action because any reasonable judge faced with impenetrable IT gobblygook from the plaintiffs would side with DAD.

[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?

- 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!

[Bookworm]

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.

[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

[waterhouse]

Hi,
Can any of you who recieved the letters post them here?
Obviously after removing perosnal information.
Would be interesting to see the exact wording and will help people avoid 'phishing' attempts.

Thanks,

[sillygirl1]

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.

[OSWALDO]

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.

[goginng]

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

[dithyramb]

Although this doesn't involve the Atari situation,Davenport Lyons issued a case against me in September 2007 which is still ongoing. It involved Tybrun Films(who have been out of production since the 1970s). The upshot of it is that DL have received £2,000 of my hard-earned money due to threats of court action. Now i have a sneaking suspicion this may be a money-making scam,as they are still threatening me with more court action,even though their previous letter stated my payment was in full and final settlement. Another solicitor advised me to pay me then complain but nobody wants to take them on. DL are a most aggressive firm who care not a jot about the "little people" but reading other comments about them makes me think they are not all that kosher. In any case,I am now fighting to get my money back with damages.
Any other opinions about DL would be greatly appreciated.

[lawforlaw]

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.

[sillygirl1]

Davenport Lyons are lying, if you had been to the Chancery Division of the High Court you would have HAD to appear in person, they are known for this dodgy type of work and most junior solicitors won't work for them. They've propably got an action against another person and are using this to say "we won in the High Court so you need to pay up...." highly suspect tactics.

They claim to be leaders in their field, which is dubious copyright claims, and are frequently in the papers with people claiming they haven't downloaded what they state - the ISPs (including Virgin Media) seem to think that they HAVE to pass this information on to them to avoid claims themselves and so the mythy perpetuates...