The Davenport Lyons/Atari copyright saga

[kiptower]

they have started a new "CON" now

 

Filesharing ambulance chasers get into the gay smut racket • The Register

[polmac]

the pdf scan of that letter is the same as the one i got accusing me in the exact same way.

 

i will let people know how i fared with my solicitor over this matter.

[Albert_123]

Hi Folks,

 

I received a letter form DL this week and like many I am unable to understand how I could have downloaded or shared the file in question.

 

The IP address they supplied definately was my static address and could be nobody elses and I have run an open WiFi network for as long as I can remember (now secured after the shock of this letter). It could have come through my DSL line by being shared by a rogue wifi user but I cannot prove this.

 

I am really unable to determine if this copywrite violation was for sure made from my DSL line as I cannot find the file but with the IP they have given I can hardly deny it. I am inclined to pay the settlement to end the issue once and for all.

 

I suppose the few questions that I would like answered are:

 

1) If I pay up will it be the end of it or do these people use any admission of guilt as a way of opening the floodgates for any other scan successes they may have captured?

 

2) During the time of the scan would they have captured more general information that they have stored in order to keep the ball rolling? Has anyone reported the agreement to pay leading to them just moving onto the next file they logged and trying to get another lump of cash from them?

 

4) Whether I am guilty or not, is the scanning DL have done conclusive proof that would stand up in court that the file did indeed get shared from my DSL network?

 

5) Given the situation if I were to contest the case would I be expected to give up any PC's that are attached to the DSL network at my home for interrogation?

 

6) Is there a group of consumers in the UK in a similar situation who have sought to challenge the acusations in numbers and if so what was the outcome or status of the challenge?

 

I just want this thing to get resolved and go away but I am concerned that what I can only see the start of multiple claims being the outcome and a whole load of financial hurt.

 

Thanks,

 

Albert

Edited January 29, 2009 by Albert_123

[Bookworm]

They accuse, they need to prove: It's not about whether it came from your IP, but whether it was you who d/l the file. With an open network, it could have been anyone, even s/one from the street, so you could write back and say: "Not me, guv, see you in court and be prepared to prove that it was me, and don't bother me again unless you are prepared to go to court and by the way, wasn't the Watchdog programme in which you prominently featured interesting?"

 

I would strongly recommend you do not part with a penny unless you like giving money away for nothing... (in which case my cooker has just broken down and needs replacing! ;-) )

[MATTYFEZ]

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.

Edited February 1, 2009 by MATTYFEZ

[toxicdebt]

They accuse, they need to prove: It's not about whether it came from your IP, but whether it was you who d/l the file.

 

Not in my case.

 

I run an PC repair shop. My solicitor (Lawdit) told them that i did not deny it may have been downloaded via my IP address but it was not myself pressing any buttons, more likely to be one of my customers PC's running bittorrent software whilst connected to my network.

 

DL wrote back saying that did not imply that I deliberately downloaded the said file but that the IP address used was linked to my name and that was all they need.

 

The latest is they are proceeding with this to court in 14 days time. This despite letters from Lawdit stating they will defend vigorously.

 

If i loose I will be filing for bankruptcy immediately.

i cant pay the settlement as this would be an admission and thus prevent me from connecting customers PC's t my network ever again.

[skonk]

Toxicdebt, am I assuming that when someone has brought their pc into your shop, they could have easily had a bit torrent application set to run at start up, and when it was connected to your network, the bit torrent software kicks in on start up and continues downloading the file the owner of the pc had started?

 

Keep us posted about what happens in court. Oh, and good luck as well, I hope it works out in your favour.

[DonDino2]

I thought Atari sacked Davenport Lyons a few months ago, according to an article published on The Register...?

[Bookworm]

DL wrote back saying that did not imply that I deliberately downloaded the said file but that the IP address used was linked to my name and that was all they need.

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? How are they going to get you to cough up otherwise if they agree with you? It remains that they need to prove (or convince the judge on balance of probabilities, as it is a civil case)that YOU downloaded and distributed whatever it is they accuse you of d/l.

The latest is they are proceeding with this to court in 14 days time. This despite letters from Lawdit stating they will defend vigorously.

But will they? Or are they just giving you 14 days to pay up or else they say they will file at court?

If i loose I will be filing for bankruptcy immediately.

I doubt that you will, tbh, that is if they do file. Let's face it, with your solicitors involved, you won't be seen as one of the soft targets, so I am rather dubious. Do let us know.

i cant pay the settlement as this would be an admission

Why should you if you have done nothing wrong?

[toxicdebt]

Thanks for the replies guys. It really does help. Im going to open a thread entitled Toxic Vs DL and detail my ongoing saga there. I do have one more question tho but...

 

Will I have to travel to London for the hearing (where DL are) or will I get the hearing in my local court?

[DonDino2]

You should be given the chance to contest jurisdiction before the hearing takes place, in which case there are many arguments you can put forward as to why you would like the case transferred to your local court. Jurisdiction, if properly contested, is usually awarded in favour of the defendant, at least in civil cases.

[Bookworm]

Thanks for the replies guys. It really does help. Im going to open a thread entitled Toxic Vs DL and detail my ongoing saga there. I do have one more question tho but...

 

Will I have to travel to London for the hearing (where DL are) or will I get the hearing in my local court?

If they do issue a claim, you'll be given the chance to ask that the case be transferred to your local court.

[toxicdebt]

Cheers guys

 

[Dimlo]

It would be interesting to hear what happens Toxic.

 

My mum received a letter in August 2008 and after many written exchanges with Davenport Lyons denying that she ever downloaded the file, it all went very quiet. I did hear that Atari had dropped Davenport after they started chasing people for downloading porn.

 

Being an IT professional I was convinced that their claims had no substance and that they were just trying to get people to pay the "settlement" fee. As far as I'm aware it is not the law to secure a network and is up to the individuals using it as to what content they download/upload.

[toxicdebt]

Well their allowance of 14 days for me to reconsider and pay up has long passed. Nothing more has come through.

[Yorky2008]

Davenport Lyons Threatens to Sue Wikileaks Over Publication of Extortion Letter - Wikileaks

[locutus]

Tee Hee they've not even taken the letter down LOL

[Conniff]

Any updates on this? Are they still chasing people? The Wikileaks link no longer works, is the letter still available?

[42man]

UPDATE - http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/two-solicitors-accused-over-file-sharing-bully-tactics

[locutus]

Also, you can find the original letter via a torrent from the wikileaks site.