Lawyers Forced to Drop P2P ‘Wireless Defense’ Case
Written by enigmax on October 29, 2008A married couple with a combined age of 120 have been accused by UK games lawyers Davenport Lyons of pirating an Atari game, and faced demands for over £500. However, the shocked couple enlisted the help of a popular consumer magazine, and unsurprisingly, the lawyers have backed down.
No matter how many times it gets said, it doesn’t seem to sink in. On its own, an IP address doesn’t identify a copyright infringer, but that doesn’t stop the accusations by anti-piracy tracking companies and lawyers.
In what is expected to be the first of many such instances, a married couple have been incorrectly accused of online piracy. The combined efforts of controversial anti-piracy monitoring company Logistep and UK lawyers Davenport Lyons found that one of the couple, Ken and Gill Murdoch, aged 54 and 66, illegally shared the Atari game Race 07. As in all cases, the couple were given the opportunity to pay up a significant amount – £525 ($855), or face ruination in court.
According to Metro, the pair stated that they had never even played a computer game and presumed that they had been wrongfully identified due to the fact that someone accessed their wireless router. In reality, the error could’ve been made at any stage in the detection process but due to a lack of transparency on the part of anti-piracy tracking company Logistep, it’s impossible to say exactly where. Whatever the truth, the couple rightly refused to take the accusations and demands for payments lying down – and not without result.
The couple enrolled the help of high-profile consumer magazine, Which? Computing, with editor Sarah Kidner supporting the couple entirely. “It’s outrageous that lawyers are falsely accusing people of illegally file-sharing,” she said. “They [Davenport Lyons] should cut out the heavy-handed tactics immediately.”
And surprise surprise, thanks to the Which? Computing intervention, Davenport Lyons did just that, dropping the case against the Murdochs, which should be the first of many. Again, it seems that the law firm is mainly interested in making easy money for their clients. They celebrate default judgments as huge victories, but back down when accused filesharers actually defend themselves.
Previously: Use BitTorrent to Upgrade to Ubuntu ‘Intrepid Ibex’
Next: Pirate Bay Talk: How To Dismantle a Billion Dollar Industry
55 Responses
First :) Sorry, but I was never first on torrentfreak.
I think everyone should open their wifi.
This way the freedom to share will be preserved.
Just put some QoS, so Wifi leachers won’t slow your downloads too much.
I think its much more complicated than that since many people with wireless defences have been taken to court and lost.
It’s a crime to wrongly accuse other people! Sue the lawyers!
Come on! How stupid can you get accusing an elderly couple of pirating a computer game in the 1st place??
Open their WiFi? C’mon now im sure you know all of the vulnerabilities and securitie threats that would be opened up if every Joe Schmoe did that.
Just demonstrates the crappy “investigative” tactics these morons use… pathetic.
http://www.eZee.se
they can stick their riaa-style tactics up their arses. i will never buy a game from them again.
Cool, we all just need an old dude to take out our ISP subscription and they can’t sue us!
Any volunteers?
@2, where are these cases? Certainly not in UK
@2, wheres the sauce to back up your statement?
@2, Where’s the sauce to back up your statements?
most of the P2P users are pedophiles, for example the owner of piratebay runs an illicit porn site
@12… wtf? so all p2p is perverts?
there is a lot of legit porn sites out there with good terms of use…
http://doodmovies.com/
read the terms if you want…
They must be related to Rupert Murdoch, that owns FOX and Myspace!
RUPERT MURDOCH IS A FILE SHARER OMG!!
It not only demonstrates crappy investigative tactics, but that the anti-pirates in general care more about self-profit than about justice. Of course, we already knew that – but there are plenty who still don’t.
Roze
http://www.10ch.org/
To VLAD the moron (answerer number 1) illegal filesharing isn’t a born right asshole, innocent people are being threatened with ruin in the UK because of you assholes.
#12 What the hell dude? Where did that come from?
People on these forums can be extreme in their opinions, usually for the worse.
Anyway, good thing this couple won their case. If we keep up articles like this one and continue to see innocent people trump that of greedy corporations perhaps they’ll think twice before assaulting people again with this bullshit. At the very least it’s embarrassing, at the most they stand to lose potentially lots of business from P2P diehards.
“To VLAD the moron (answerer number 1) illegal filesharing isn’t a born right asshole”
Sorry, but the freedom to share your own possessions with whomever you choose is indeed a born right. Try again.
“innocent people are being threatened with ruin in the UK because of you assholes.”
Innocent people? Haha, no. Just the Copyright Mafia.
Lol
grandma and grandpa pirates.
“innocent people are being threatened with ruin in the UK because of you assholes”
you mean, entertainers can’t pretend they are important people anymore? Yes, I agree, but i think that’s a positive thing. True artists will survive, others will hafta get a real job.
You can’t own music.
You can only ‘own’ ability to make/play music.
a married couuple with the combined age of 120? What are we supposed to be sympathetic? Just say 60 years old.
“You can’t own music.”
OK, so I guess you can’t own anything you create then?
Well, well. Like a turd that just won’t flush, the scum of the British legal community is once again in the news. Take notice of any game company that signs with these bastards and torrent their products relentlessly.
To paraphrase Ivan Drago from Rocky IV….
WE WILL BREAK YOU! :P
The “which” article is not very good: http://www.which.co.uk/news/2008/10/games-firms-pursuing-innocent-file-sharers-160403.jsp
It states “While most of these cases are valid…” – How do they actually know this?
It also gives the impression that the couple had a wireless network, but does not state this outright.
The case is reported on the BBC but states that the couple did not have a wireless network. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7697898.stm
When I first read the story on the BBC website this morning I noticed that the logo for The Pirate Bay was actually from http://piratebay.com/ i.e. not the real Pirate Bay at all. The BBC have since corrected this.
Poor journalism all round?
well that sucks
@16
“illegal filesharing isn’t a born right asshole, innocent people are being threatened with ruin in the UK because of you assholes.”
Sharing, including files is a born right moron. Only greedy cocksuckers like you consider it illegal.
“Combined age of 120″ – Maybe we’re assuming too much here. I think it’s an old lady 99 years old who married a 21 year old boy-toy who really likes to play retro-atari crap. I say – GUILTY!!!
heh, although in the article their ages are stated explicitly :P
To those who say you can’t own music, that is saying you can’t own your ideas! It is intellectual property, are you saying that any invention is not to be owned because people can’t own property that they have the ability to create? Give me a break, it makes no sense. I agree that filesharing has its many benefits and the RIAA and other copyright protectors are going about it in the wrong way. Its like watching a new found drug war, where the mass distributors and creators of these are not getting hurt, its the little people. Just because the files are digital doesn’t make them free reign. Listen to the music, but if you like it support the artist. This is how you will drive talented people into the “real jobs” and make our world surrounded by the shit that radio and record execs deem the best to make money and promote.
There is something to say for bands taking it upon themselves to sell their records online or give away low-res versions if people want. Radiohead, NIN, etc.
The problem is that the music Industry has changed, but the big portion of the industry and lawyers/laws do not want to accept it. There needs to be a fundamental change in the way Musicians and Artists handle their record releases and monetary compensation for them. Our world is connection, music is readily and easily available to whomever wants it. We need to find a way to make this work, but the first step is to realize that the game has changed. Make the artists reap benefits for creating good records, give the consumer a true incentive to NOT download, and maybe they will. The record companies also need to take responsibility and apologize for OVER-CHARGING the consumer with record sales….18-20-22$ for an album of 12 songs. Like I said, you have a dis-heartened consumer base of music-lovers who have forgone the days of spending mass money on albums. Now is the time to reform, and that doesn’t mean charging every IP you find to be seeding on a torrent. You aren’t looking at the real problem, you are just skimming the top and not realizing that the TIMES HAVE CHANGED.
But needless to say, stealing Intellectual property is still stealing property. You haven’t paid for that property. They dont give away concert tickets for free, or shirts for free, or movie tickets for free. But until there is incentive, no one will change, and music will continue to bear the effects of FREE REIGN.
Ola Torrentfreak. Little offtopic.
Any article coming up about the VS elections and especially their thoughts about P2P, filesharing and what they call “piracy” ?
Otherwise i might give it a try.
And @ 28
You used the evil word stealing.
It isnt !
Its a sticky territory, but the facts are that if you didn’t PAY for the album and don’t own an originial copy, then what legitimizes that as not STOLEN property. Intellectual property is still property.
Definition (STEALING):
to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
The music is property of the Record company or Artist that released it. It is sold for monetary compensation. That is not to be distributed, broadcasted, etc. without violating the copyright. Sharing that is illegal by violating the copyright attached to that property. If you sold a soup that was world famous secret recipe from your Mom, do you feel that everyone has a right to open up shop next to you and give the same soup the same recipe away for free….you would go out of business.
Even if the word isn’t stealing, your are still violating the copyright, and is illegal.
@32 : there is a word for “stealing” intellextual propriety : “forgery”
You can call it stealing if you want but it only shows that you don’t know at all what you’re talking of.
So please shut up we all here have seen your arguments so many times we’re too tired to answerd those basic trolls.
@33: What’s the solution that your propose? Or better yet, do you not feel that there is nothing wrong with filesharing the way it is?
BTW:
for·ger·y (fôrj-r, fr-)
n. pl. for·ger·ies
1. The act of forging, especially the illegal production of something counterfeit.
illegal.
Forgery is illegal ? thanks for telling it me i had no idea….
Seriously i did’nt said it wasn’t illegal, i said there is a word for this and the fact you don’t use it’s a proof you don’t know what you’re tlaking about.
Solutions ? well i bearlly only listen music played in “free parties ” or “raves” taht are free and in most countries illegals themselves…
But the artist in those free parties make almost as good music that the “comercial” artist for me…
@34: Actually forgery is only illegal if you try pass your forged work off AS the original one.
So forgery isn’t illegal by default, only by proxy if used as a means to commit an illegal act.
Violating copyright is illegal.
@32
Like in music . about every sound, sample, idea has been forwarded to us in public one way or another.
For example …
You ever went to Africa for a holiday. It was a great trip.
20 years later you (as a musician) you come up with a CD influenced by that journey). By your means you will have to pay that African tribe that inspired you.
I say … the world is really getting crazy.
Please read!:
To those who say you can’t own music, that is saying you can’t own your ideas! It is intellectual property, are you saying that any invention is not to be owned because people can’t own property that they have the ability to create? Give me a break, it makes no sense. I agree that filesharing has its many benefits and the RIAA and other copyright protectors are going about it in the wrong way. Its like watching a new found drug war, where the mass distributors and creators of these are not getting hurt, its the little people. Just because the files are digital doesn’t make them free reign. Listen to the music, but if you like it support the artist. This is how you will drive talented people into the “real jobs” and make our world surrounded by the shit that radio and record execs deem the best to make money and promote.
There is something to say for bands taking it upon themselves to sell their records online or give away low-res versions if people want. Radiohead, NIN, etc.
The problem is that the music Industry has changed, but the big portion of the industry and lawyers/laws do not want to accept it. There needs to be a fundamental change in the way Musicians and Artists handle their record releases and monetary compensation for them. Our world is connection, music is readily and easily available to whomever wants it. We need to find a way to make this work, but the first step is to realize that the game has changed. Make the artists reap benefits for creating good records, give the consumer a true incentive to NOT download, and maybe they will. The record companies also need to take responsibility and apologize for OVER-CHARGING the consumer with record sales….18-20-22$ for an album of 12 songs. Like I said, you have a dis-heartened consumer base of music-lovers who have forgone the days of spending mass money on albums. Now is the time to reform, and that doesn’t mean charging every IP you find to be seeding on a torrent. You aren’t looking at the real problem, you are just skimming the top and not realizing that the TIMES HAVE CHANGED.
—If as that musician you bought a cd of that african tribe playing music, and then sold it 20 years later as your own then yes. Never once did anyone say that influence = copyright violation. Everyone is influenced by something.
And to that person who said I am not educated, I have a B.S in Music Industry and have taken many classes in Copyright law. Read what I wrote! I agree that file-sharing has had MANY MANY benefits on the record industry and will continue to do so. We can now get our music to an infinite amount of people INSTANTANEOUSLY. But that doesn’t mean it is being done in the right way.
So quick to attack because you feel that you are the little guy. If you read, maybe you’ll understand I am on your side and not against you.
Once again, its completely wrong to say influence = illegal. VIOLATING a COPYRIGHT LAW, no matter how much we dont like it, is STILL ILLEGAL.
“And to that person who said I am not educated, I have a B.S in Music Industry and have taken many classes in Copyright law.”
And you didn’t know the meaning of “forgery” in piracy context ?
I hope you didn’t paid for those classes, if yes you have been fooled… you know less than the average geek here…
Like i said every little argument you say has been discussed of many times on many forum topics with more qualified people than you and me…
Stop arguing for nothing.
Read before speaking please. Forgery isn’t what I was arguing, I was simply stating the act of piracy is in essence COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.
QUOTE: For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is occasionally referred to as piracy (an early reference was made by Daniel Defoe in 1703 when he said of his novel True-born Englishman : “Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates”.
The whole point is to argue global intellectual copyright REFORM to adjust to today’s standard. That way, the failed copyright enforcers aren’t wrongly prosecuting people.
“And you didn’t know the meaning of “forgery” in piracy context?”
so you agree it is ‘piracy’ to share files illegally… This whole argument is born out of misuse of language that has been adapted to fit terms that do not quite fit – especially with classic definitions of the words.
To download a copy of a file IS illegal, its just there is no way to really enforce it.
@42: To download a copy of a file IS illegal, its just there is no way to really enforce it.
EXACTLY! The question is where to go from here…
You. Cannot. Own. An. Idea.
An idea is a thought. The result of electrical impulses working in the brain. To try and claim electrical impulses as “intellectual property” means you may as well start scanning everyone’s brain so they don’t have the same idea, because then thinking it after it’s already been thought is illegal.
@39
To say that you “own” music is like saying that you “own” software. When you purchase it, you are purchasing the right to use it (or in the case of music, listen to). Certainly anything you create can be considered your own, but when you purchase it, you don’t “own” it in the sense that you can do whatever you want with it. I agree with you, I just wanted to make it shorter :)
My question is.. what evidence did these lawyers have that this couple pirated this game other than the fact that the connection came from their IP address? When students get caught with drugs on a school campus do they go after the school officials? No, they go after the students..
Wyatt
http://whatan00b.com
There are far too many lawyers in this overpopulated world.
when are you retards going to realize nobody cares that its ‘illegal’.
F*ck copyright.
F*ck the RIAA.
They do evil shit, we do evil shit right back, thats how it works. Are you trying to play on peoples morals or something? This website is what makes people feel morally right, since the industry sucks.
Weed is ‘illegal’ and i smoke the hell outa that.
And there in lies the problem. The average piratebay fanboy faggot just doesnt realise that what they take for free has cost someone time and effort for which they deserve some compensation. These freetards think that everything in life should be free, that no one has a right to carge any ammount for anything that they create while creating nothing of any value themselves but simply regirgitate the same old psuedo socialist idea that they have a right to take anything as long as they feel justified by doing so.
The discussion about Forgery/copyright is interesting.
I know whenever I write a “script” or do something that I feel proud of it kinda sucks for someone else to take it and call it their own.
The arguement “Influenced” vs “Stolen” is an interesting one, where being influenced by an African tribe to write music instead of having stolen the music. However, the line is very grey. At one hand you could have obvious “influenced” where you write your own song that simply relates to the event, and at the other you have a direct copy of the original song…
But in between you have so many shades of grey. How do you decide if you are breaking a moral code or not? (Sometimes people are immoral, but in general people have these in-built laws that they follow when they recognize others as human beings that have similar feelings).
I honestly don’t know where I stand yet. I’m mostly on the side of mass sharing of information (where everyone benefits from a new chemical I just discovered) instead of privatizing (where I get a lot of money for this new chemical).
Please continue the discussion, some kind of name that you keep throughout the discussion would make it easier though :P
TELL ME WHO THEY ARE!
In the old days a false accuser would be put to death, but these days there are no penalties. Here is the problem: these companies are faceless. What we need is the identities of the people behind this to be exposed on the net. I want to know their addresses, phone numbers and where their kids go to school. Only if this information is public would they think twice about their dirty tactics.
So you’re going to require people to submit all this information each time they log on the internet?
I assume that at the same time you’ll be tracking their web-usage,the websites they go to, what they see.
This way you can tell if they’re going to websites that build bombs or not.
You know, you’re on to something. We should wire-tap phones, install security cameras into all buildings and rooms. Maybe even start assigning people specific Jobs, so that they are completely controlled. Then there won’t be any problem at all with people doing things they shouldn’t. We could call this place Libria.
I say you cant own music. Music is just a number. 0 and 1s. You cant own zero’s and once’s. You can’t own the pattern that they make. It was here long before you and will be here long after you. So just because you happen to stumble upon it you own it?
Or we could go down the religous side of things. All ideas spawn from god. so really he owns them. now i dont agree with that part. just an arguement.
Really though you cant own numbers.
What? Filesharing is illegal!?
Oh, but wait.
It doesn’t matter, because copyright laws are woefully outdated, having been drafted long before the dawn of the Internet age, and are so biased towards parasitic middlemen like the RIAA that it lets them get away with robbing both the consumers and the artists blind. In otherwords, copyright law as it exists today is bad.
And bad laws are made to be broken.
So don’t worry if filesharing is illegal, because the only laws you’re violating are ones that richly deserve it.
BTW, I love these losers’ implication that we should obey the law simply because its the law. These are the types of citizens that fascists throughout history have drooled over.
make sure you support P2P by visiting http://WhoGoesToCollege.com
lol to the copyright defenders:
“Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.
Even if you win, you’re still retarded.”
7 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.