Several individuals accused by Davenport in the Dream Pinball 3D case have access to some formidable resources and are actually relishing the opportunity of having their day in court. However, as we recently reported, Davenport Lyons like to carefully pick their prey – they simply cannot afford to lose a case due to faulty evidence. TorrentFreak is in contact with many people who are accused by Davenport of uploading, and it’s becoming apparent that people who dig in their heels – who refuse to be intimidated and refuse to be bullied – are mysteriously left alone and not taken to court.

But before we get carried away, here’s some sobering news. Last Friday, seemingly against all the odds and proving our previous articles completely wrong, Davenport Lyons achieved court victories against four file-sharers it accused of unauthorized distribution of Topware’s Dream Pinball 3D.

David Gore, a partner at Davenport Lyons said: “Copyright owners spend millions of pounds developing copyright works for sale to the public for their enjoyment and yet many think it is acceptable to obtain the work illegally and for free by procuring a copy on a peer-to-peer network.”

The four were hit with fines of £750 each – to be paid within a week – along with £2000 costs. Ouch. Surely these historic victories would now open the flood gates to enable the lawyers and anti-pirates to absolutely hammer the hundreds of people who also stand accused?

Well, not quite, no. Not even close.

The victories claimed by Davenport Lyons at Central London County Court on behalf of publisher Topware were all achieved by way of so-called ‘default judgment’. In basic terms, this means that as the individuals accused didn’t bother to turn up at court or even answer court documents, the court had no alternative than to hand victory to Davenport Lyons and Topware.

The remaining several hundred people accused of file-sharing by Davenport Lyons will be heartened to know that the company only has the confidence to go after people it knows will not turn up at court, assuring them of victory.

Loading up its metaphorical gun and getting ready to fire more legal bullets into a small barrel of defenseless fish, Davenport says it has more of these cases lined up to ‘win’ later on this week, while everyone else stands around yawning wondering when they’ll pick on someone who will actually fight back.

If you are one of the four who lost their case last Friday or have been served with court documents to appear in the future, please get in touch via the contact page, we want to speak with you.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Lawyer Elizabeth Martin had been demanding 400 Euros from hundreds of thousands of file-sharers who Logistep say had been infringing the rights of software company Techland, on their game ‘Call of Juarez’.

In her letters she warned alleged file-sharers that should it be necessary to take anyone to court, the costs would be substantial. File-sharers were also led to believe that should they be found guilty, they would not only be responsible for their own costs, but those of the other side – with an indication that the decision against them would mount to “hundreds of thousands of euros”.

Of course, none of these letters are complete without some threats and intimidation. Elizabeth Martin – just like the UK’s Davenport Lyons – finishes up with with a threat totally disproportionate to any petty copyright offense. “If you are not able to pay the damages ordered by the court, our client will seek to gain the amount by the sale of your goods”.

This wording is very similar to other letters received all across Europe, including those received from UK lawyers Davenport Lyons, who are also working with Logistep in exactly the same manner. Their version is “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.”

Unfortunately for Elizabeth Martin, it’s not just the general public who are disgusted by her actions. She has been the subject of a Conseil de l’Ordre du Barreau de Paris disciplinary investigation – and subsequent condemnation – by none other than her own peers. How embarrassing.

The disciplinary board decided that “By choosing to reproduce aggressive foreign methods, intended to force payments, the interested party also violated [the code] which specifies that the lawyer cannot unfairly represent a situation or seriousness of threat.”

In addition, the lawyer also violated the code by cashing payments into a private account, not the usual dedicated litigation account, known as a ‘Carpa’. Martin also refused to reveal how many payments had been received from file-sharers.

For these serious breaches, Elizabeth Martin was ordered by the disciplinary board to suspend her activities as a lawyer for 6 months. Furthermore, she was banned from belonging to the National Council of the Bars (CNB) and other such professional associations for a period of 10 years.

Thanks to Ganza

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

We are delighted to reveal that Logistep’s European tour is not running as smoothly as they would like. Bullied file-sharers have stood up, made a noise and governments – and the Courts – are listening and taking strong action.

Italy

A few months ago, Peppermint Jam (a German record company) and Techland (a Polish videogame company) recruited Logistep to help them carry out a massive anti-P2P campaign in Italy. As usual, they offered guarantees to ISP’s of the accused that their monitoring software is flawless in its data gathering and using a relatively unknown law firm from northern Italy, sent out 3636 threatening letters to P2P users who they accused of breaching their copyrights.

Each recipient was sent a ‘pay up or else’ letter demanding around 330 € for the SINGLE downloaded song and a signed declaration that they would never download any copyrighted material ever again.

Many people got very scared by these demands and paid up, not realizing that paying up would be seen as a clear admission of guilt. However, as the news circulated, national media got involved and so did others – consumer and civil rights associations, up to and including the government.

On July 18th, Rome’s Law Court dealt a massive blow to the Logistep business model when it approved a petition by two important Italian ISP’s (Wind & Telecom Italia) to keep their customer’s personal data secret when approached by companies who tracked their customers using the Logistep software.

The Court decided that the Logistep software violated the privacy of those monitored so the information cannot be used in a lawsuit. In Italy, it is only permissible to breach the privacy of electronic communications in extremely important cases. P2P file-sharing, it has been decided, is not important enough to be included.

According to privacy laws, a private citizen or a company can only harvest personal information to defend their rights in Court and this is only allowed if the harvesting has been done in a legitimate way and if the contender (in this case Peppermint Jam and Techland) have already succeeded in obtaining the data. Clearly in these cases, they had not obtained all of the information as they were requesting some from the ISP’s.

This is a major defeat for those who attempt to enforce copyright in Italy. The Court appears to have established that those who conduct private investigations on P2P networks are doing so illegally and have no legal standing to demand customers private information from their ISPs. If they cannot get the information from ISPs, this means they have no address to send their threatening letters to. No threatening letter means no-one is bullied into paying up extortionate amounts of money whilst being denied a fair hearing.

France

A press release dated 7 July 2007 brought the good news to French P2P users accused of downloading the ‘Call of Juarez’ from Polish publisher ‘Techland’. Through their Parisian lawyer, Techland managed to obtain the names and home addresses of those it accused and sent out their usual threatening letters, this time demanding 400 € to leave their victims alone.

However, after complaints by lawyers and French ISPs, the orders which made it possible for Techland to obtain P2P users identities and home addresses were withdrawn. Essentially, France agrees with the Italian stance that electronic privacy is far more important than anti-piracy activities.

According to the press release, “The processing of data in personal matter relating to suspected infringements or real supposes that a preliminary authorization of the CNIL (Data-processing National Commission and Freedom) is necessary.” Techland did not gain such approval to monitor French internet users.

Additionally, it appears the Court was not happy that citizens were not allowed to exercise their rights as the French legal system allows as they were denied “a contradictory procedure making it possible all the interested parties to be represented in front of the judge within the framework of the use of a peer to peer software”. In other words, people were denied a fair trial but for those who have already paid their seemingly illegal 400 € fine, all is not lost. The cancellation of the orders for Techland to obtain private information means that the accused can now exercise their legal rights to a proper hearing with the possibility of getting their money back.

In future, any businesses or individuals wishing to breach standard privacy laws to monitor file-sharers on the internet, must first get their activities sanctioned by a judge.

UK

Although there has been no comprehensive legal review of Logistep’s actions in the UK, if they continue along the same road, it’s just a matter of time. According to a user on Slyck Forums, the Government-run and highly respected UK Trading Standards has declared claims against UK citizens as “very shakey” as lawyers “offer no evidence that the game was ever on your hard drive” and they accept that “there is no proof that you, or your computer were involved in offering the game for download.” Without such critical evidence, it’s staggering that lawyers have the nerve to even accuse people and clearly, a Court case is the very last thing they want – that’s why they rely on the bullying tactics.

The German courts have had enough of Logistep and their partners, as have the Italians and the French. With UK Trading Standards stating that cases against UK citizens are ‘very shakey’, things are looking bad for the Logistep business model.

Add to that the statement last week from the Advocate General to the European Court of Justice declaring that EU law does not allow Internet Service Providers to be forced to reveal the personal details of people accused of file sharing, it seems defeat for Logistep and their partners may be just around the corner.

We would like to thank Max Marino for his invaluable input to the Italian section

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.