Our philosophy in our forums, reviews, podcasts and feature videos is to promote audio and visual excellence by gathering and sharing the best information and resources available.
Evening all...Yesterday I recieved a letter from Davenport Lyons solicitors demanding £504 for an illegal download that I have not downloaded. I have done some googling and I am having mixed answers on what to do about them. Some say ingore the letter and some say reply but do not pay up.
Thay say they contacted my ISP provider to get my details but on phoning them today they say they have not given my details to anyone, they have all the calls I have made to them logged and these muppets are not on there, so, I do not know how they got my details. So..has anyone on here had any dealings with this company and have some advice for me before I call my own solicitors to deal with them.
Thanks in advance for your help,
Tiffster...
Presumably your ISP wouldn't be allowed to disclose your details to them without a Court Order under the DPA.
They're probably initially trying their luck to see who pays up. I would ignore the first letter and then reply if you get any future letters asking for their proof and how they got it.
Legal Eagles on here may however offer a different opinion.
Edit: Take a look at this thread on the Money Saving Expert forums.
You’re caught Downloading “Dream Pinball”, Settle Now or go Broke Written by enigmax on March 31, 2007
Having outstayed its welcome in Germany, a company is bringing its legal strategy against file-sharers to the UK. Its first targets are 500 P2P users who illegally distributed a game according to the company, even though many of the victims never even heard of the game in question. All Filesharers receive a letter in which they are urged to settle the case for a relatively small sum of money. So who are the accusers and what quality of evidence do they hold?
Since early March 2007, many internet forums have been buzzing with news of users receiving letters from UK law firm Davenport Lyons, alleging that they have illegally distributed (uploaded) the ‘Dream Pinball 3D’ game from German company Zuxxez Entertainment. The letters, which were sent out to 500 alleged file-sharers, demand a minimum of £340 ($667) to avoid being taken to court and claimed potential costs of “tens of thousands of pounds”. Most of the alleged filesharers never even heard of the pinball game, or never had the IP-address that was listed in the letter. However, some already report to have paid the settlement money because they don’t want any legal trouble, it almost sounds like a perfect scam.
The letters state:
"Our client has retained forensic computer analysts to search for and identify internet addresses from which their games are being made available on so called "peer to peer" (P2P) internet sites for the purposes of making them available for download by third parties without our client's consent or licence"
Note that the letters are not addressed to an individual, just ‘Dear sir or madam’ - this proves that the ‘forensic’ process cannot correctly identify an alleged infringer behind an IP address.
It continues:
"Our client is in possession of compelling evidence that on the following date and time 15.09.2006 12:15:22 [made up date/time for illustration purposes] (captured in the German time zone), the Game was made available from the internet protocol (or IP) address XXX.XXX.XXX.XX specifically for the purpose of downloading by third parties. Pursuant to a High Court Order, the internet service provider XXXXXXXXXXXXX identified you as the subscriber associated with that IP address at the time in question”.
TorrentFreak has seen evidence that suggests alleged infringers’ IP addresses were being collected within hours of the game appearing on the eDonkey network. Unconfirmed reports even suggest that the delay could be measured in minutes.
So where exactly does this ‘compelling evidence’ come from, who are these ‘forensic computer analysts’ and why does the letter speak of evidence gathered in the German time zone? A little background;
Back in 2005, it became evident that Zuxxez Entertainment had decided to take a very aggressive course of action against Germans accused of sharing their game ‘Earth 2160′ on the eDonkey network by employing a law firm to file 12,000 claims with the state prosecutor’s office in Karlsruhe (the home town of Zuxxez). In the German case the settlement were also relatively low, giving the alleged filesharers an easy way out, instead of taking it to court.
The ISPs in Germany soon got tired of all these ungrounded, and seemingly random infringement notices, and they soon stopped responding to the claims Zuxxez made until there was some hard evidence against their customers. Zuxxez realized then decided that they couldn’t make any easy money in Germany anymore and moved to the UK, still using the same strategy.
In each claim, the law firm shows the software alleged to have been uploaded (in the UK it’s the Pinball game), the IP address of the alleged infringer plus the users emule/edonkey user ID and a timestamp. So who collated this information? Enter Logistep, a Swiss anti-piracy company employed by Zuxxez to track down eMule users they claim were sharing its software, gather information and use it to gain Court Orders to force ISP’s to give up the names and addresses connected to the accused IP address. In the UK, it’s believed that up to 18 ISP’s were presented with Court Orders to force them to reveal users personal details.
Although Zuxxez and Davenport Lyons don’t openly admit to using Logistep in these UK cases, it seems more than likely, given that information on the Internet Piracy Portal states that Logistep are a partner of Schutt, Waetke (the law firm dealing with the German cases) and also Davenport Lyons in the UK. Of interest is that Zuxxez Entertainment has its home in Karlsruhe, Germany and so does Logistep, even though the company appears to be registered in Switzerland.
In each English case it’s likely that Davenport Lyons will have obtained what is known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order, which relates to the obtaining of information regarding infringements from parties who may not themselves be involved in the infringement, i.e the ISP. In the original Norwich Pharmacal Co and Others v Customs & Excise Commissioners case in 1973/74, it was ruled that a party who became even innocently involved in someone else’s wrong doing, was under obligation to provide the injured party with information to identify the wrong doer.
Apparently, such an order should not be granted where it’s clear that the plaintiff is ‘fishing’ (phishing) for information and is attempting to discover something that will form the basis of a court action. As the law firm is very obviously making a ‘phishing’ attempt to obtain the name of a possible infringer other than the account holder, this should be something that anyone accused should take up with their lawyer.
Davenport Lyons imply that the evidence against alleged infringers is so good that the fact that a court order was granted is likely to be enough to prove guilt. This is seriously up for debate. In Germany, a criminal investigator has stated that Logistep refuses to reveal how it gathers information against alleged infringers so it becomes impossible to confirm that the data it collects is correct. In my opinion, it is of paramount importance that Logistep is required to reveal how it gathers such evidence in order to prove its validity to a court, otherwise it’s possible that there would be errors, leading to the wrong people being accused and/or convicted. A UK Government audited and approved system could give their case credibility but until such an audit takes place, I don’t see how their systems can be trusted.
According to a computer forensics expert, the evidence held is likely to be inconclusive and the digital equivalent of Hearsay. Visitors to this thread will note that the expert seems to be offering his services on a no-win, no-fee basis. If his support means that the accused don’t have to go to Court, then he says there is nothing to pay. Any fees will be taken from costs awarded should the accused win their cases. We cannot endorse this guy but it’s certainly worth a look. There is an interesting post about other legal issues here.
Several people accused of uploading Dream Pinball are concerned that they may have an unsecured wireless network and that unknown third-parties may have committed an offence without their knowledge. Davenport Lyons have already responded to at least one person who put this scenario to them;
“There has already been a ruling in the German courts confirming that a wireless network is the responsibility of its owner and any consequences of failing to secure the network fall upon the owner of it, irrespective of who carried out the illegal activity”.
There was indeed a decision in the regional court of Hamburg on 27th July 2006 (ref 308 O 407/06) which ruled that the owner of an internet connection is responsible for infringements which take place on it. Presumably, if there had been a case under relevant UK law, Davenport Lyons would have mentioned it, rather than having to resort to referencing a German case.
So it appears that in the UK it may remain uncertain as to whether an account holder is liable for the actions of others on his internet connection. It’s an issue for the Court to decide, not a law firm or anti-piracy company. Indeed, an English Court may decide that the person who has had their wireless network hacked, bandwidth stolen, connection used illegally and reputation damaged, is actually a victim of a crime themselves and if companies like Logistep have the ability to identify the criminal who did this, then surely they have a legal obligation to do so. Anyone who feels they are the victim of this fraud should present this scenario to their lawyer.
In addition to the ‘uploading’ claim, one of the claims in the letter relates to the illegal copying of the game to the hard drive. Even if someone in the UK is found responsible for what someone does on their internet connection, surely they cannot be guilty of copying the game to the hard drive if this was done by an unauthorised user accessing an unsecured wireless LAN, on a PC outside of their control?
In Germany the district court in Mannheim denied Schutt-Waetke any fees they asked from a defendant, claiming the firm had already filed over 3700 similar cases and it was hard to see where such automated proceedings would require extensive work justifying any fees. A Court may or may not decide that should be the case here.
Dirk Hassinger, the sales director at Zuxxez said he had tried to find a law firm prepared to charge low fees because he didn’t want to “bankrupt” file sharers. On face value, this seems like a considerate thing to do, until you examine some of the wording in the Davenport Lyons letter;
“In the event that you were not able to pay whatever sums the court may direct, our client would have no option but to take steps to enforce the debt against your property”
So Zuxxez don’t want to bankrupt people but are quite willing to threaten their family home. Very considerate. It’s more likely that Zuxxez make the settlement ‘affordable’ to make sure defendants choose not to go to court. If going to court means companies like Logistep are forced to reveal their methods and they prove suspect, the whole process could fall to its knees. If someone is proven unresponsible for the actions of a wireless hacker, the whole process could fall to its knees. Obviously this is the last thing that Zexxez, Logistep or Davenport Lyons want.
Finally, having battered the German legal system with their proceedings and taking steps to do the same in the UK, it appears Italy is also becoming a target . Ominously, Logistep also have legal partners in Dubai, Israel, Austria, Poland and the USA.
The Corporate Enemies of File-Sharers list just got longer.
they are a legit solicitors and have been actively pursuing people who have downloaded illegally from p2p, in particular dream pinball. it may related to something you downloaded some time ago. does it give any specific details, and have you downloaded illegally from p2p, such as dream pinball?
they aren't accepting the unsecured wireless network excuse as it's the account holders responsibility as to what happens on the network, so it's up to you to secure it
a quick google will give plenty of further details about what they've been doing
Evening all...Yesterday I recieved a letter from Davenport Lyons solicitors demanding £504 for an illegal download that I have not downloaded. I have done some googling and I am having mixed answers on what to do about them. Some say ingore the letter and some say reply but do not pay up.
Thay say they contacted my ISP provider to get my details but on phoning them today they say they have not given my details to anyone, they have all the calls I have made to them logged and these muppets are not on there, so, I do not know how they got my details. So..has anyone on here had any dealings with this company and have some advice for me before I call my own solicitors to deal with them.
Thanks in advance for your help,
Tiffster...
Does the letter actually mention the name of your ISP? Or does it just say something along the lines of, "....we contacted yhour ISP....."
Unfortuantly, these are very real people, trying to get money out of you. I have been battling them for a few months now. All they have is an IP address, which has then been attributed to your connection via your ISP. They then say because you pay the bill, you are laible for anything on your connection and you must pay up, or go to court. What ever you do, make sure you reply, and deny it. They are taking non repliers to court and getting defaults.....
According to this they have taken five people to court so far and won all of the cases but this was simply because the defendants didn't bother to show up so they were found guilty by default.
As they have sent out many letters threatening court action and yet have only taken five people to court so far it would appear that they are only taking people to court who they believe won't turn up as if they did turn up and actually won that would set a precedent for all of the cases to follow.
There are also questions about how the data was gathered as IP addresses are seen as personal data and the company that has been gathering the addresses has been told to stop doing so. So if the information has been gathered illegally I don't think that it can be used in court.
Personally if it was me who was accused of this and I was innocent I'd write back to them stating so and that I wanted to see all of the evidence that they had on me so that I could prepare my defence. Hopefully that would show them that you are willing to fight this in court (even if you're not) and they'll move onto a weaker target.
Have to say that I have no sympathy for the file sharers but until it's proven that the information obtained is 100% accurate it is worrying that so many people are receiving these letters that claim to be innocent.
Also I have no law training or personal experience of this so I'd highly recommend speaking to somebody who does and well see my disclaimer in my sig
Does the letter actually mention the name of your ISP? Or does it just say something along the lines of, "....we contacted yhour ISP....."
Hi all, the letter does state my ISP (Tiscali) and that they have contacted them to get my details, but I have asked Tiscali and they have no record of talking to them. The game in question was Race 07, which I have never downloaded so where they got that from is a mystery.
Thanks to all for trying to help me and I hope this post helps others who are getting grief from this company. I'm giving it a day or two more then I'm off to my own solicitor before the onslaught begins...
I thought that most accounts had dynamic IP addresses and you have to pay extra for a static one (if that facility is even available).
Sure you may actually keep the same IP for a while but it can't be guaranteed. So I would have thought that they can only associate an IP with a user by contacting the ISP and then the ISP has to look up the records for the time of the offence, not what it is now - I wonder if they keep those records?
So it could be that the offence was commited by someone else some time ago and since then the IP address has been reallocated to you.
I thought that most accounts had dynamic IP addresses and you have to pay extra for a static one (if that facility is even available).
Sure you may actually keep the same IP for a while but it can't be guaranteed. So I would have thought that they can only associate an IP with a user by contacting the ISP and then the ISP has to look up the records for the time of the offence, not what it is now - I wonder if they keep those records?
So it could be that the offence was commited by someone else some time ago and since then the IP address has been reallocated to you.
Cheers,
Nigel
IP's can change, but they keep records. if telephone companies can keep records of the millions of phone calls every day, then ISP's will be able to keep a log of the much fewer IP logs each day, especially if you consider how much other data is flowing across the network each hour. that's how they track down pirates, hackers, etc in serious cases, the police get a court injuction for the ISP to provide that info. essentially it's the same thing with these types of cases
it's possible that someone else piggy backed the OP's wireless or someone else at home use the OP's account without their knowledge
Personally if it was me who was accused of this and I was innocent I'd write back to them stating so and that I wanted to see all of the evidence that they had on me so that I could prepare my defence. Hopefully that would show them that you are willing to fight this in court (even if you're not) and they'll move onto a weaker target.
I'm afraid that if anyone sent them a letter like that they would assume that you were a weak target and would be more likely to issue proceedings.
Anyone receiving a letter like that should just deny it (if that is true) and if they threaten to issue proceedings just tell them that you will defend them in court.
County Court doesn't work on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt" but on "balance of probabilities" which carries a much lower burden of proof
I thought that most accounts had dynamic IP addresses and you have to pay extra for a static one (if that facility is even available).
Sure you may actually keep the same IP for a while but it can't be guaranteed. So I would have thought that they can only associate an IP with a user by contacting the ISP and then the ISP has to look up the records for the time of the offence, not what it is now - I wonder if they keep those records?
So it could be that the offence was commited by someone else some time ago and since then the IP address has been reallocated to you.
Cheers,
Nigel
Under the prevention of terrorism rules ISPs keep all user data for 5 years.
Which phone was connected to which IP address and at what times and dates is part of that data.
I'm afraid that if anyone sent them a letter like that they would assume that you were a weak target and would be more likely to issue proceedings.
The main reason I said that was because at the time it was thought that they were only going after people who had ignored their letter (which they have now confirmed) and would be the unlikeliest to turn up in court (not sure what the count is now but back then they had take five people to court and had five defaults in their favour as the defendants hadn't turned up) so I figured that by telling them that you would be willing to go to court and then asking for the evidence that they would think that it was too much trouble and simply move on to somebody else.
Hi all I received a letter today from Davenport Lyons accusing Me of illegally downloading an Atari game back in January.
i have been doing some research on this company and apparently they are a so call Ambulance Chasers kind of operation that are trying to get people to pay up using shock bully tactics.
if anyone has received a letter let us all know so we can share some info and discuss the next step.
cheers guys and whatever you do don't pay up !!!!!!
Am I the only one to read this thread and wonder why anyone was bothering to download pinball?
Liam
Indeed, personally I would tell these ambulance chasing scumbags in no uncertain terms to 'Foxtrot Oscar'. They and their ilk have caused no end of trouble in the past few years.
Well, I'm a solicitor but I don't do any of the type of work discussed here.
However what I have noticed with P2P software is that you get the option whether to upload or not.
The trouble is that the download/upload process can operate without your knowledge if both are enabled.
Thus it is quite possible for you to be involved in file sharing you know nothing about.
The idea is to stop that sort of file sharing.
If they have traced you via your ISP then it's quite likely that you are guilty of the offence without ever knowing just because you have enabled the
upload facility.
Now whether they could ever prove that in a Court or make it economic to do so is another issue.
The more who make them finance a disputed court hearing the less chance they have of making the whole operation economically viable. If people don't defend or don't turn up at court then it is economically viable for them but there is plenty of scope for negotiation because in each case cost will be weighed against benefit.
Please note that this is not legal advice, merely a personal opinion.
Looks like Atari have realised the bad PR that being linked to a scummy outfit like Davenport Lyons could create and have backed out of their deal with them
Hopefully now Davenport's have branched out into Porn the other software houses will soon follow suit.
As briefly mentioned by Krish above Davenport lyons latest escapde involves uploading porn movies onto Bittorrent sites then once someone starts downloading (and at the same time uploading due to the way BT works) they harvest the IP addresses, get a court order to get the users details from the ISP and then send a menacing letter out demanding money with the threat of civil court action if they aren't paid. Nice
trouble is their IP harvesting method's are unproven/unreliable and many many people are being falsely accused.
I thought DL's con was to get younger folk biting the bullet embarrased to go to court about porn rather rather than pensioners. Is there some way that couple can press charges against DL for sending an obscene letter (presuming it mentions the particular title they certainly didn't download) or for some Data Protection abuse, along with their weasely ISP?
Btw ... just to make it clear about my mod-edited last post here, it wasn't my intention to be family-unfriendly, my link was pretty much a similar article (from a blogger) to those linked to since
- all mention the same German production ... without asterisks ... so be warned (which I should have written earlier)
I thought DL's con was to get younger folk biting the bullet embarrased to go to court about porn rather rather than pensioners. Is there some way that couple can press charges against DL for sending an obscene letter (presuming it mentions the particular title they certainly didn't download) or for some Data Protection abuse, along with their weasely ISP?
Btw ... just to make it clear about my mod-edited last post here, it wasn't my intention to be family-unfriendly, my link was pretty much a similar article (from a blogger) to those linked to since
- all mention the same German production ... without asterisks ... so be warned (which I should have written earlier)
I wonder where DL stand legally by making hardcore sexual material freely available to anyone with an internet connection and a bittorrent programme; this means minors can obtain these movies.
One of the biggest problems is that DL are a large highly respected London law firm with some major big name clients; people are wary about taking them on.
Hopefully someone will stand up to them soon and win putting an end to there money making scam.
03-08-2008, 3:54 PM
]] 
E. & O.E.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
