Partner David Gore and former partner Brian Miller claimed that their evidence showed that letter recipients were guilty of copyright infringement. The pair demanded around £500 in compensation to make highly expensive legal action go away, demands which left many of those targeted bewildered and distressed.

The highly controversial scheme was later brought to the attention of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) by consumer magazine Which?, a move which in hindsight signalled the beginning of the end.

The subsequent investigation found that Gore and Miller – who has since left Davenport Lyons – knowingly targeted innocent people, failed to act in the best interests of clients, acted in a way likely to diminish trust in the legal profession and had entered into banned contingency fee arrangements.

Between 31st May and 8th June this year the pair faced the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and were found guilty of professional misconduct on all six counts presented.

Yesterday Gore and Miller received news of their punishments. Each lawyer will have to pay a £20,000 fine and will be suspended from practising for 3 months.

“The SDT found that Miller and Gore became too concerned about making the scheme profitable for themselves and their firm, and their judgment became distorted, so that they pursued the scheme regardless of the impact on the people receiving the letters, and their own clients,” reports the Law Society Gazette.

Payment of interim costs totalling £150,000 was also ordered.

“Some of those affected were vulnerable members of the public. There was significant distress,” said an SRA spokesman welcoming the SDT’s decision.

“We are pleased that this matter has been brought to a conclusion and hope that it serves as a warning to others.”

The warning will come too late for ACS:Law’s Andrew Crossley. When Davenport Lyons grew tired of the so-called Speculative Invoicing controversy it was he who picked up the baton and took the project to a whole new level. The resulting failure bankrupted his company.

Crossley himself will face the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal later this year.

Source: Bullying Anti-Piracy Lawyers Fined and Suspended

The letters sent out by David Gore and former partner Brian Miller claimed that evidence showed that the letter recipient was guilty of copyright infringement and demanded around £500 in compensation to make highly expensive legal action go away.

However, the highly controversial scheme was drawn to the attention of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) by consumer magazine Which? when it became clear that the letters, which made some baseless and outlandish claims, were targeting innocent people and were “bullying” in nature.

The subsequent SRA investigation found that Gore and Miller – who has since left Davenport Lyons – knowingly targeted innocent people, failed to act in the best interests of clients, acted in a way likely to diminish trust in the legal profession and had also entered into banned contingency fee arrangements.

In March 2010 the pair were referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) and last week their hearing began. After a shaky start (as detailed in the excellent report from ‘Speculative Invoicing’ expert Will Gilmour) and a certain amount of pessimism that the tribunal would reach a conclusion which would satisfy victims of Gore and Miller’s scheme, after 7 days it was all over.

As reported by ComputerActive, in summing up Timothy Dutton QC for the SRA said that the scheme was designed to make money and “browbeat people into submission”, whether they were innocent or not.

Mr Dutton added that Miller and Gore’s conduct represented “a wholly inappropriate discharge of professional duties” and described the campaign as “a debt collection scheme but no debt was owed.” IP address evidence, Dutton noted, was the “flimsiest” of all evidence.

The hearing ended with the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal finding both Gore and Miller guilty of professional misconduct on all six counts presented. The fate of the pair, which could range from monetary penalties to being disbarred, will be announced next month.

As reported earlier this week, Andrew Crossley from the now defunct ACS:Law will also face the tribunal later this year.

In advance of that hearing, last week Crossley asked the Solicitors Regulatory Authority to cover his costs in the upcoming tribunal, even though they are the body that sent him there.

He is said to be concerned that without being able to compete with the £85K the SRA has set aside for his prosecution, he’d suffer an “inequality of arms”. On the same cost-cutting grounds (Crossley is now a declared bankrupt) he requested that all expert evidence be excluded from the Tribunal.

Crossley’s demands were denied across the board. His tribunal will be heard in October, see you there.

Source: Anti-Piracy Lawyers Found Guilty of Professional Misconduct

The case, which turned out to be something of a damp squib, was the metaphorical head-on-a-pike the company needed to kick-start a new scheme.

The plan was simple enough. Capture IP-addresses of alleged file-sharers, discover their identities through the courts and send them letters demanding money to make non-existent court cases and huge fines go away. Profit.

However, with the help of online forums and consumer groups like Which? and BeingThreatened.com, letter recipients mounted an impressive fight back. Instead of continuing ahead unhindered, Davenport Lyons found themselves the subject of a Solicitors Regulatory Authority investigation. The SRA later referred the case to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

That hearing will go ahead in May next year, but thanks to papers seen by the Solicitors Journal, today we have a sneak preview of the claims being made against partners David Gore and Brian Miller.

According to the SRA, Gore and Miller – who have since left the company – were responsible for litigating against thousands of Internet users they claim were illegal file-sharers, even though they were aware that they had no reliable evidence to support their claims.

“Each of the respondents knew that in conducting generic campaigns against those identified as IP holders whose IP numeric had been used for downloading or uploading of material that they might in such generic campaigns be targeting people innocent of any copyright breach,” says the SRA’s statement.

Interestingly, although Davenport Lyons and their copyright-holding partners in this business such as Topware, DigiProtect, CodeMasters, Reality Pump, Techland and Atari were all in these schemes together and knew precisely how they operate, the SRA has decided that Gore and Miller put the interests of Davenport Lyons before the interests of their clients.

By sending out letters to people they knew could be innocent, Gore and Miller disregarded the harm their actions could have on their clients’ reputations. This constituted a breach of the Solicitors Code of Conduct say the SRA. For those familiar with how these schemes operate, the irony here is overwhelming.

Furthermore, as has become apparent in recent months through various leaked documents, around 20 to 35% of letter recipients paid Davenport Lyons the money they asked for. The SRA claims that Gore and Miller encouraged litigation in order to secure revenue for their company.

Referring to a letter Davenport Lyons sent to one of its clients where it was discussed how money would be shared, the SRA statement says: “The reference to ‘revenue share’ indicates that the respondents were regarding the scheme which they were operating as a revenue generating scheme.”

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing will go ahead in May 2011 and will last for 7 days. ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley will be watching more closely than most – the date when he has to face the Tribunal is yet to be decided.

Source: Anti-Piracy Lawyers Knew They Targeted Innocent Victims

“The damages and costs ordered by the Court are significant and should act as a deterrent,” said David Gore, a partner at Davenport Lyons who pioneered the “pay up or else” schemes multiplying in the UK and elsewhere.

Had the UK gone mad? £16,000 for sharing a single game? Why hadn’t we heard about this case in advance? Surely this wasn’t a ‘proper’ defended case? According to the “independent” IP barrister David Harris quoted by the BBC, it was just that.

“This is a proper Intellectual Property (IP) court that has made this judgement,” said Harris. “The previous ones were default judgements where defendants never turned up.”

So who exactly was this David Harris and who prompted him to make this announcement to the BBC? We don’t know, but one thing is certain – something felt wrong with his comments.

The hearing in the IP court meant the case had been rigorously analysed and the law properly understood, said Mr Harris, as quoted by the BBC. “It’s a much more interesting case in that respect,” he said.

It was indeed interesting, but for all the wrong reasons. It has long been suspected that far from it being a contested case, Miss Barwinska never turned up to defend herself and we now know for sure that she didn’t. Contested case? Not at all Mr Harris, whoever you are. There was absolutely zero defense.

Nevertheless, in common with Davenport Lyons before them, ACS:Law used the Barwinska ‘precedent’ in their ‘marketing’ to show what happens to people who choose not to settle for a few hundred pounds and cases end up in court.

But far from being a perfect illustration of a successfully litigated case, according to an advisor to ACS:Law’s Andrew Crossley the entire process was built on perilously weak foundations that only stood up because there was no defense. How do we know? From the emails that ACS:Law accidentally published on their website last week, of course.

In an email dated 19th August 2010, Adam Glen, who advises Andrew Crossley at ACS:Law, explained to him in no uncertain terms how weak the Barwinska case was.

He began with a statement that we have known to be true for a long time – it is almost impossible to prove damages to a copyright holder beyond an infringer making a single copy of a work on his hard drive. Under UK law, this is a big deal as damages awarded must reflect a proven loss.

“Unfortunately, except for Barwinska, there have been no cases involving P2P based infringement, except for those involving statutory damages, which provide some direction as to the method of calculation,” wrote Glen to Crossley.

“I have always been [of] the view that Barwinska is a difficult judgement and should not be relied upon for a number of reasons.”

The Barwinska case has always been completely shrouded in mystery, but Glen clearly knows it inside out. The reasons he gives for not relying on it are listed below and make quite remarkable reading:

a. The claim was not defended so there was no challenge to the submissions by Davenport Lyons

b. The court accepted the Davenport Lyons quantum calculation without challenge

c. The model submitted by Davenport Lyons was based upon, in my opinion, an extremely poor understanding of the underlying technology of P2P interaction

d. The Davenport Lyons model, in my opinion, failed to apply accepted and fundamental mathematical principals in its calculation, including queuing theory, and would have difficulty in passing an applied mathematics assessment if submitted in an “A level” statistics paper.

e. There are a number of factors in any model for calculation of the quantum of damage resulting from a making available via P2P which it is impossible for the monitoring software to establish and the model relies upon unsubstantiated, and in some cases erroneous logic, assumptions.

f. There are a number of factors in any model for calculation of the quantum of damage resulting from a making available via P2P which, for technical and commercial reasons, that the monitoring software fails to record and the model relies upon unsubstantiated, and in some cases erroneous logic, assumptions.

g. There are a number of factors in any model for calculation of the quantum of damage resulting from a making available via P2P which, for commercial reasons, means that legal disclosure has not been requested that could substantiate the multipliers and the model relies upon unsubstantiated assumptions based upon seriously flawed logic, to complete other assumptions necessary for predictive analytics and the quantum is predicated on the results of all these assumptions.

h. The Davenport Lyons model was developed by a person with no academic qualifications or experience, of a technical or mathematical nature, that would be accepted by the courts as being of a standard sufficient to be classified as “Expert”.

And Glen’s damning assessment goes even further.

“I believe that Barwinska should not be used as a reference to justify a quantum of damages as, it is my opinion that, a first year undergraduate learning applied statistics could easily challenge the model to a level which would create sufficient doubt in the court’s mind that the court would ignore or substantially discount the Davenport Lyons model. This may also risk the courts view of other evidence,” he told Crossley, adding:

“Barwinska might make nice headline reading but it has, in my opinion, about as much legal force as a Sun newspaper headline regarding the licentious behaviour of a D list celebrity.”

Glen then goes on to explain in detail that it is hugely problematic to prove any damages to rightsholders other than the single copy an infringer has on their machine and being made available on BitTorrent.

“Even this is problematic as the monitoring software was the agent of the rightsholder and therefore no damage can be established,” he notes.

“Because of all of these factors I believe that it would be extremely difficult to establish with any accuracy that there has been sharing except with the monitoring system which is an action by the infringer for which no damages can be accrued.”

Just in case you missed that – “no damages can be accrued.”

“Therefore, it is my belief that the rights holder can only rely on the damage resulting from making a single copy of the work in infringement of the rights granted to the rightsholder under s16(a) of the CDPA 1988.”

So, while Andrew Crossley talks of people making available his clients’ copyright works to “potentially thousands” of other people, according to his advisor he can’t even prove a single filesharing-related infringement which results in a loss.

Furthermore, while he also endlessly speaks of taking cases to court (but never does), we now know why. It’s just too damn risky, costly and for what best result?

Recovering the price of a single DVD or music track.

Source: High-Profile, High Damages File-Sharing ‘Conviction’ Was a Farce

Often when people are wrongfully accused there is speculation that the individual’s wireless router could have been compromised and used to carry out an infringement. However, many other instances of wrongful accusations go unexplained.

Understandably fingers then get pointed at the quality of evidence being gathered. How foolproof are these systems? How much time and effort has gone into their creation? Do they live up to their ‘forensic-quality’ claims?

In the vast majority of cases these questions go completely unanswered, since the innards of such software and systems are never opened up for public scrutiny. This is naturally a concern for those trying to protest their innocence.

Many times here on TorrentFreak we’ve covered the activities of ACS:Law, the lawyers making a huge noise in the UK right now as they chase BitTorrent users for hundreds of pounds each. One person involved heavily in this work at ACS:Law is Terence Tsang, who previously worked on similar file-sharing cases with lawyers Davenport Lyons.

Tsang is also involved in other online businesses, including Japanese car sales and other computing-based projects and regularly requests work from freelancers, as can be seen from these examples on his Freelancer.com page.

One of these – Nonpublic project #245939 (account required, screenshot) – is of particular interest.

“Create a bit-torrent client for me which will obtain details about file sharers of certain torrents. Server is Linux. The torrent client just needs to monitor IP addresses and take information which is then placed in a database,” writes Tsang in his request.

“The information needed is as follows: Host IP, Hit Date and time (GMT time), Provider network name (i believe whois search will help with this – can you think of a better way?), P2P Client, File name, File size, MD5 of file,” he adds.

“So we need to get the software to monitor a number of specific torrents it needs to create a database of the above information. The database needs to be able to import into a database file like csv. I am only interested in UK IP addresses. Easy job if you have the skills,” he concludes.

We cannot confirm if Tsang bought this code on behalf of DL, ACS:Law or indeed himself for some kind of lone operation. Since no information is ever offered about the tracking systems used to gather evidence, we cannot say which cases, if any, this code was used for either. What we do know is that there were 4 bids for the work and the job was eventually awarded.

The average settlement from a single letter recipient is $900, so how much was paid for this valuable piece of code which must clearly perform perfectly?

Between $250 and $750.

Source: Code To Track BitTorrent Users Bought For $750 (Max)

We’re used to receiving these type of emails – we’ve been having them in one shape or another since Davenport Lyons (DL) started sending them out in 2007, and more recently from recipients of letters from ACS:Law.

Founded in 1841, Tilly Bailey & Irvine (TBI) are a law firm based in the North East of England and from what we’ve seen thus far in respect of this business, their modus operandi appears to have much in common with those of DL and ACS.

On January 27th/28th 2010 in the name of Media & More GmbH & Co, TBI successfully obtained a court order against ISP BT who, as usual (and unlike ISP TalkTalk which refuses to comply with these orders), simply rolled over and complied, handing over the personal details of their customers to TBI in super-quick time and charging £12,500 for the service.

In common with ACS, Tilly Bailey & Irvine are in bed with pornographers.

One outfit confirmed as a client of TBI is Golden Eye (International) Ltd, a company connected with the Ben Dover porn brand in the UK and one that has already been pursuing alleged file-sharers in Germany for the movie “Fancy An Indian – Five Spicy Dishes Covered In A Hot Creamy Sauce.” Media & More GmbH & Co have disputes in Germany with the movie “The Babysitter # 8 Cute Cock Craving Girls!”

Unusually for these type of cases, TBI send their letters by recorded delivery, an expense avoided by DL and ACS. TBI want more money than their counterparts too – £800 – but like Davenport Lyons threaten to enforce the debt against a non-payers property. They also suggest they have criminal remedies open to them which is typical of the usual heavy-handed and disproportionate psychological warfare tactics we’ve come to expect in these cases.

Those who choose to pay up are asked to sign ‘undertakings’ that they will refrain from certain things in future, one of which is to keep the terms of any settlement “secret”.

The claim letters also contain selected pages from a 160 ‘expert report’ created by
Projective Expert Group on behalf of Media Protector GmbH, the company whose ‘FileWatch‘ system was used to capture evidence used in the claim. In all cases we’ve seen thus far the allegations are connected to the eD2K network. The system appears to differ somewhat from those used previously to log alleged BitTorrent infringers and will be dissected in a future article.

TorrentFreak contacted Amanda Mitten, a lawyer in the ‘Intellectual Property Team’ at Tilly Bailey & Irvine dealing with these cases. In addition to asking how many letters the company intends to send out and a request for a list of movie titles to be claimed on, we asked some other key questions, including;

- Will TBI really “commence proceedings” within 14 days if people don’t pay up? [ACS has claimed the same but thus far has taken no-one to court]
- Can we have a full copy of the ‘expert’s report’ on the FileWatch system?
- How will the evidence identify an infringer behind an IP address and not just a bill payer? How does TBI justify claiming against a bill payer when they’re not certain he or she is an infringer?
- How do those accused go about proving a negative, i.e they didn’t carry out the infringement TBI claim they did? [this point was raised by the Lords recently]
- The letters being sent out by TBI are similar to those sent out by ACS and very, very similar to those sent out by Davenport Lyons. We earlier asked ACS if they were connected to DL – they said “NO”, but that wasn’t exactly true. We asked TBI if they are in anyway connected to either ACS or DL.
- Taking into consideration that when operating almost identical schemes both ACS:Law and Davenport Lyons became the subject of SRA investigations, coupled with the Lords labeling this type of scheme “legal blackmail“, are Tilly Bailey & Irvine concerned about tarnishing their hard-earned reputation?

After emails back and forth, mostly spent talking about TorrentFreak and the nature of this website, Tilly Bailey & Irvine refused to answer any of our questions.

Nevertheless, as expected their activities haven’t gone unnoticed and are already the subject of discussion by the Lords in the Digital Economy Bill debate, with Tilly Bailey & Irvine being mentioned by name yesterday. Lord Clement Jones labeled them, ACS:Law and the Logistep data-gathering outfit “an embarrassment to the rest of the creative rights industry.”

Baroness Howe of Idlicote said that the problem “has to be dealt with and is disgraceful,” adding, “If these firms really are law firms, they are bringing their whole profession into disrepute.”

Lord Lucas gave a very accurate overview of the schemes noting that they “must not be allowed to continue.” His contribution is detailed in its entirety over on our sister site, FreakBits.com.

We will follow this post up in due course with a closer look at the companies, people and tracking system involved in this business model, so if you have any information and would like to contribute (German contributors and eD2k specialists especially welcome), please contact us in the usual manner.

Worried letter recipients can visit BeingThreatened for more advice.

Source: Anti-Piracy Lawyers “An Embarrassment To Creative Rights Industry”

DL then wrote to the individuals demanding several hundred pounds to make the threat of a lawsuit disappear. Some paid up, but many did not, and the only cases DL took to court were against those who didn’t defend themselves.

Generating revenue from porn proves controversial

Then the law firm overplayed its hand and got into bed with DigiProtect, the German piracy exploitation outfit with a catalog of hardcore porn titles to its name. The rights were signed over to the company by the copyright holders so that DigiProtect could use them to generate revenue – lots and lots of revenue.

After mountains of bad publicity, DL withdrew from this business model. In May this year, the exact same scheme reappeared with UK lawyers ACS:Law. TorrentFreak asked company owner Andrew Crossley about the connections between ACS and DL – his reply: “NONE”. However, it was crystal clear that there were many links, not least that staff from DL were now working at ACS:Law directly on these cases – known cyber-squatter Terence Tsang as one example.

We’ve known all along that if those threatened put up a spirited defense and refused to be cowed they were never taken to court, but we had no proof as to the mechanism employed. Then, out of nowhere, months ago someone from inside either Davenport Lyons or DigiProtect leaked lots of sensitive documents to German news outlet Gulli.

Having remained secret until now, the documents made very interesting reading and along with a helping hand from TorrentFreak and armed with the leaked personal details and email addresses of some of the letter recipients, Firebird77 at Gulli was able to confirm the authenticity of the documents.

Document 1 – Ranking alleged infringers in order to decide who to pursue

The first document reveals how the targets are ranked based on an estimation of how likely it is that they will pay up. Each alleged infringer has their details filled in on a form (download here from WikiLeaks). The document shows that despite the claims that an IP address alone is irrefutable evidence of an infringement and will lead to being taken to court, the reality is rather different.

Letter recipients are given a ranking based on many parameters. Does the law firm want to continue to pursue the person? What are the chances of success? A zero would mean “no action” up to ten which would mean the respondent is ripe for maximum pressure. One letter recipient hired Michael Coyle at Lawdit Solicitors to defend him and this earned him a “three”.

One part of the form is entitled “Circumstances” and this is a very surprising section indeed. Despite the “fact” that the law firms supposedly already have solid evidence of infringement that they say will lead to court action if recipients don’t comply, the section seems to show that they make their decisions on who to pursue based on the recipients’ personal circumstances.

One circumstance is labeled “impecuniosity”, i.e the letter recipient is flat broke. Another is whether the recipient is on state benefits – this is expected to be proven by way of copies of benefit books and/or letters. TorrentFreak has evidence that one gentleman was asked to prove that he was indeed disabled in order to make the claims go away. Other circumstances include whether the recipient is a pensioner, a student or a child.

One other circumstance is an eyebrow-raising “out of jurisdiction” (no rightful claim could be made the against the recipient) along with whether or not the individual was aware of that fact.

The form also lists possible defenses that recipients rely on, including the breach of their wireless router, a virus infected PC, not being at home when the infringement occurred, no knowledge of infringement or the possibility that someone else in the location carried out the infringement.

Document 2 – Letter from lawyer Dr Kornmeier from Kornmeier & Partner to Brian Miller at Davenport Lyons

The 14 page document (download from WikiLeaks) details the agreement DigiProtect enters into with rights holders in order to exploit their copyrights for profit.

Included is a section which confirms that the original rights holders sign over the rights to DigiProtect so that they are legally allowed to make the works (hardcore porn movies) publicly available on P2P networks such as BitTorrent. Dr Kornmeier asks: “Does this constitute any problem under UK law?”

According to page 2 of the letter, when the recipient of these letters pay up, the spoils are divided up as follows – 51% to DigiProtect, 37.5% to Davenport Lyons and 11% to DigiRights Solutions. The remaining pages detail the exact business arrangement along with a list of the hundreds of porn movies covered by the agreement.

TorrentFreak discussed the documents with staff at the excellent BeingThreatened.com, a site set up to support and inform those targeted by Davenport Lyons and ACS:Law in the UK.

“These documents confirm what we have long suspected,” they told us. “This scheme is not about getting justice for the rightsholders at all; it is there to fill the pockets of companies like DigiProtect by exploiting many innocent people. Everyone with an IP address has reason to be worried about becoming a victim of these exploitative practices, whether they use P2P networks or not.”

Indeed, John Stagliano, boss of porn company Evil Angel which also worked with DigiProtect, admitted to earning less than £50 from each infringement and told the BBC the scheme “…was completely misrepresented” to him.

Uk consumer magazine Which? earlier reported Davenport Lyons to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority for alleged “bullying”. It will be interesting to see how these documents develop that case.

Thus far just two documents have been made public. Stay tuned for further updates.

Source: Leaked Documents Reveal Anti-Piracy Cash Operation

The next phase was to write to the individuals and threaten them with legal action, unless they paid several hundred pounds. Some panicked and paid up, most did not. Only a handful of these cases actually went to court and DL won them all, because the individuals didn’t defend themselves.

After masses of bad publicity peaking in a controversy over gay porn, Davenport Lyons appeared to have had enough, and withdrew from this business model to limit the damage to their brand and reputation.

In May, new kid on the block ACS:Law appeared and promptly took over where DL left off, and again, hundreds – maybe thousands – of threatening letters went out, demanding cash payment from alleged file-sharers. But this time things wouldn’t be quite so easy for the lawyers and their clients.

The scheme wasn’t new anymore and various support structures for letter recipients flourished, including forums and dedicated sites such as the excellent BeingThreatened.com. Due to the increased knowledge and awareness brought about through news articles such as those read here on TorrentFreak and on the aforementioned platforms, pay-up rates from those accused fell to as little as 15%, as it became clear that the chances of actually being taken to court were minimal.

But now, after months of being told to “put up or shut up”, it seems that ACS:Law are, if they are to be believed, about to flex their legal muscles and actually litigate against certain individuals. They need their symbolic “head on a pike” to ensure the overall pay up rates make the scheme worthwhile.

“The first batch [of] claims have been prepared and were filed at court on Friday, 4 September 2009. Service of the proceedings will be made by first class post and will be with defendants by Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at the very latest,” the company said in a statement, adding, “The second batch of defendants will be selected on Monday, 14 September 2009.”

While many recipients may have ignored previous correspondence from ACS:Law or DL, individuals receiving documents in the post today or tomorrow (presuming the threats actually come to something) are strongly advised not to ignore them, especially if they are court documents.

Failure to respond to court documents could result in a default judgment being issued in the future and this could prove very costly indeed – possibly mounting to several thousand pounds.

So what should recipients of court documents do? Firstly it would be prudent to seek legal advice – Lawdit Solicitors can offer advice and guidance since they have been assisting people against these claims for some time now, but any lawyer with a sound knowledge of copyright issues will prove invaluable.

For those individuals who maintain they are innocent, a vigorous defense can be mounted against any allegations. In the majority of cases, all ACS:Law will have as evidence is an IP address harvested by an untested system in a foreign country, and that may not be enough to prove their case.

Indeed, the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) recently told Which?, “We’re not convinced of the efficacy of the software and not confident in its ability to identify users.”

However, ACS:Law will select potential defendants very carefully and will likely focus on individuals with the weakest cases, have compromised or damaged their defense in some way, or have chosen not to respond to previous letters.

If you receive court documents in connection with an ACS:Law case during the next few days, do not panic. Please feel free to get in touch with us here at TorrentFreak in complete confidence. Your privacy will not be breached and we will point you in the right direction.

Source: UK Lawyers Promise First Court Action Against File-Sharers

The hypocritical law firm – who were recently shown to be copyright infringers themselves – partner with Swiss anti-piracy tracking company Logistep (and another company DigiProtect) in order to demand settlements of around £665. However, time and time again there have been allegations against individuals who have absolutely no idea why they are being accused of copyright infringement.

Last year, in the most prominent case of mistaken identity and when Davenport Lyons were working with porn companies, they incorrectly accused a retired 64 year-old man of sharing the hardcore movie ‘Euro Domination 5′ via BitTorrent. The man received an apology and the demands for money ended.

Eventually the actions of Davenport Lyons, Logistep and DigiProtect attracted the attention of consumer group Which? who made a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Although that action is still ongoing, Davenport decided – at least on the surface – to withdraw from the business.

But of course, ACS:Law were waiting in the wings and they are now conducting business with Logistep in much the same fashion. Unfortunately for them, Which? is now on their case too.

In their most recent print edition, Which? published an article which casts an even darker shadow over the issue. They say they have been contacted by 20 individuals who say they have no knowledge of the games in question – Dream Pinball 3D and Two Worlds.

Which? quoted hospital ward clerk Deborah Hughes who said: “It’s distressing to receive such a letter. I’ve never heard of this game and I’ve no idea how to share it. I’ve searched my computer but it’s not there.”

Of even greater concern and embarrassment to ACS:Law are the accusations they leveled at Colin Dixon, Technology Director at a UK software developer. “My wife and I are middle aged (51 and 49) and work from home, and the computers here are owned by our employer, and are strictly controlled for pirated software – that’s my job!”

Which? also spoke with the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) about the issue. They replied: “We’re not convinced of the efficacy of the software and not confident in its ability to identify users.”

Up to now, this hasn’t worried Logistep, DigiProtect, Davenport Lyons or ACS:Law since they say in their claims letters: “We do not claim that your computer was used to commit the infringing act (although we do not exclude this possibility), nor do we claim that you downloaded our client’s work. Our claim is that your Internet connection was used to make our client’s work available via one or more P2P networks. The file may not, therefore, be on your computer.”

So, in a nutshell, they admit that the people named in their letters may not have carried out any infringement. Absolutely priceless.

Neither ACS:Law nor Davenport Lyons have ever won a contested case against a UK file-sharer, despite all their bluster. Hundreds of people are “let off” after simply digging in their heels, denying the accusations and refusing to pay.

Thanks Hickster

Source: ISPs Doubt Accuracy of Anti-Piracy Evidence

The next step was to write to the individuals and threaten them with legal action, unless an amount ranging from £450 to £700 was paid. Somewhere between 40 and 60% of recipients panicked and paid up, while the rest engaged in ‘letter tennis’ with Davenport, corresponding back and forth and getting nowhere – literally – those who stood their ground have not been taken to court.

Of course, due to the weakness in their system and poor evidence gathered against alleged file-sharers, it wasn’t long before Davenport accused the wrong people of file-sharing, including pensioners erroneously accused of downloading gay porn. One of Davenport’s clients, Atari, found it all too much, and withdrew from chasing file-sharers through the company. The mountain of bad publicity continued to grow culminating in the respected consumer magazine Which? reporting Davenport Lyons to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. Then everything went a little quiet. Until this week.

During the last few days more letters, almost identical to the ones sent out by Davenport Lyons, have been dropping onto doormats around the UK. The claims go through all the usual legal jargon but amount to the same – give us between £550 and £750 or we will take you to court.

The letters are sent out by a company called ACS Law, who can be found on the web via their website. According to the site, the partners at ACS Law are Andrew Crossley and Nicola Beale. Many specialties are listed for the pair, but copyright law is not one of them.

Some of the company’s clients are listed on the site – games publishers Reality Pump, Techland, Topware and German ‘porn-protectors’ Digiprotect – and all of them are previous (or maybe even existing) clients of Davenport Lyons. The titles being ‘protected’ by ACS Law on behalf of these companies are the exact same titles previously ‘protected’ by Davenport Lyons. One could be forgiven in thinking these companies are connected, particularly since much of ACS’s documentation sent to the public and listed on their website is ‘cut and pasted’ from Davenport Lyons documentation. They even have a Microsoft Word document entitled Notes on Evidence, which was created on a version of Word actually registered to Davenport Lyons.

During our research some interesting things came up. Andrew Crossley, a partner at ACS Law (who recently defended the Dubai ‘sex on the beach‘ case), lists his email address on most issues unconnected to these anti-piracy cases as andrew.crossley@acs-law.co.uk – note the .co.uk part in the domain.

However, ACS-Law.co.uk as listed on the Law Society website is not the website address given to anti-piracy cases – that is ACS-Law.ORG.UK - and it was registered just weeks ago. Delving into the WHOIS information for the site reveals that the domain is not registered to ACS Law, but to one Terence Tsang. This same Mr Tsang is a known cyber-squatter who has previously locked horns and lost domain disputes with Morgan Stanley and others.

Of course, we sent Andrew Crossley at ACS Law an email (to both the .co.uk and .org.uk addresses) and gave him an opportunity to respond. We asked several questions (listed in summary below) but as yet we’ve received no response. When (if) ACS Law respond, we’ll publish their answers. In the meantime, recipients of letters should not worry and certainly shouldn’t feel hurried in responding to these allegations. Good starting advice can be found here along with a discussion thread here.

1. What is your connection with Davenport Lyons?
2. Why are you servicing so many (ex?) Davenport Lyons clients?
3. Why does ACS Law have two web presences – ACS-Law.co.uk and ACS-Law.org.uk?
4. Why is ACS-Law.org.uk owned by a known cyber-squatter and not your company?
5. How many of these cases against alleged file-sharers do you intend to pursue and who is on your client list?
6. These cases got hugely messy for Davenport Lyons and it’s only a matter of time
before ACS Law accuses a pensioner or child of downloading porn, or makes other errors. Are you concerned that you, your partner and/or your company will be bought into disrepute by taking these cases on?
7. If your client’s aim is to reduce copyright infringement (rather than simply generating revenue from it), why not give us a list of all the titles you ‘protect’ and we’ll publish them, to warn people away from downloading them?
8. Around the web, the specialties of the ACS Law partners can be found, but copyright law is not listed as one of them – why is that?
9. Considering your approach to these cases is almost (if not) identical to that of Davenport Lyons, do you anticipate contact from Which? and the Solicitors Regulatory Authority in the coming months? If not, why not?

Stay tuned for updates!

Source: ‘New’ Anti-Piracy Lawyers Chase UK File-Sharers

If you have received a letter from lawyers Davenport Lyons (or indeed any other law-firm operating the same business model) accusing you of illegally sharing games, videos or music, this article will provide serious food for thought and give you the tools and knowledge to make your voice heard at a government level. It is unacceptable that people are being wrongfully accused. We believe that your names and addresses should not have been handed over to these lawyers in the first place, and that you should not have received a threatening letter.

This is a guest post from Michael Coyle of Lawdit Solicitors who is currently defending many of those accused in the Dream Pinball, Colin McRae Dirt, Call of Juarez and more recently, the various porn titles cases brought by DigiProtect in the UK. (Intros, links, editing and letter template added by TorrentFreak/Penumbra)

Alleged File-Sharers: Why the Information Commissioner Has Let You Down

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is a non-departmental public body reporting directly to Parliament. It is the office dealing with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 in England and Wales.

UK ISPs were ordered earlier this year [and in 2007] by the High Court to disclose information relating to its customer’s data, based on information provided to them by amongst others, video games companies. The information sought was based on the customer’s IP address. Pursuant to CPR 31.18, lawyers applied for an order that the ISPs disclose the full name, postal address and telephone number of the subscriber of each of the IP addresses supplied.

The game plan was to match each IP address with an individual and write to them with a hefty threatening letter and a request for £500-600. If this sum was not paid, court action was threatened, costing tens of thousands of pounds. It all seemed fairly conclusive. The ISPs complied and the Lawyers [Davenport Lyons] commenced the enormous task of writing to over (so we understand) 25,000 potential infringers.

However it was only when responses started to flood in – many in their hundreds to Lawdit Solicitors – did it become clear that while IP addresses could reveal a name and real-life address, it did not reveal the culprit. It proved very little. It certainly did not prove that any copyright infringement had taken place, far from it. Only by inspecting the hard drive of the customer’s computer could you do this. If there were any other evidence to sit alongside the IP address, for example a user name or password of the file sharing software you could sympathize with the rights holder.

But to rely on the IP address alone is wholly disproportionate and has resulted in untold misery to many thousands of individuals. This whole affair sums up in my view how little the Information Commissioner (IC) is really concerned with an individual’s data. I am not aware of any publicly quoted concerns from the IC about this issue and he has remained silent as the forums and bulletin boards crackle with the indignation and invasion of individual’s data. You cannot blame the ISPs. As a Court Order was in place, why would an ISP go out on a limb for a few thousand customers?

But the IC ought to have been keeping a watchful eye out and at the very least issue a press release to offer individuals some comfort. The silence is even more deafening in that on 29 January 2008, the ECJ held that Community law does not require member states to oblige ISPs to disclose details of suspected file-sharers to enable a copyright owner to bring civil proceedings.

Personal data is protected generally in the EU by virtue of the EC Directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data (95/46/EC) (Data Protection Directive). Member states may provide exemptions to protection in order to conduct criminal investigations or safeguard national or public security or to protect the rights and freedom of others (Article 13(1), Data Protection Directive).

In the UK such an exception can be found under section 35 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 which provides that ‘Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.’ This exemption does not contain any further considerations for a Data Controller before making a disclosure in these circumstances.

The EC Directive on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (2002/58/EC) (E-Privacy Directive) provides that national authorities may only lift the protection of data privacy in order to safeguard national or public security or to conduct investigations into criminal offences or the unauthorised use of an electronic communications system, where this is a “necessary, appropriate and proportionate measure” (Article 15(1), E-Privacy Directive).

The ECJ reached its conclusion(.pdf) following a Spanish case concerning Telefonica. The Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 5 de Madrid decided to stay the proceedings and referred the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

Does Community law, specifically Articles 15(2) and 18 of Directive [2000/31], Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive [2001/29], Article 8 of Directive [2004/48] and Articles 17(2) and 47 of the Charter permit Member States to limit to the context of a criminal investigation or to safeguard public security and national defence, thus excluding civil proceedings, the duty of operators of electronic communications networks and services, providers of access to telecommunications networks and providers of data storage services to retain and make available connection and traffic data generated by the communications established during the supply of an information society service?

The ECJ, responded that the answer must be that Directives 2000/31, 2001/29, 2004/48 and 2002/58 do not oblige Member States to ensure effective protection of copyright in the context of civil proceedings to communicate personal data. A fair balance needs to be struck between the various fundamental rights and in particular the principle of proportionality. In Advocate General Kokott’s opinion she considered that it was compatible with Community law for member states to exclude operators of electronic communications networks and services from having to make available personal data relating to connection and traffic information in the context of a civil, as distinct from criminal, action.

While the decision is not binding on the ECJ it will generally follow the Advocate General’s opinion. For the vast majority if not all of the 25,000 recipients, this decision ought to have been interpreted as a request for information relating to a non criminal offence (i.e. any copying/file-sharing was non-commercial) and the request for the personal data ought to have been refused.

If you have received a letter accusing you of illicit file-sharing and you are innocent then please write to the Information Commissioner with your story and complain that the release of your personal data was a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, while urging them to carry out a review of all subsequent releases.

The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

For your convenience, a TorrentFreak reader Penumbra has created this template in order to streamline the complaints procedure: (Link)

Update: You may petition the government online by following this link.

Source: Accused of Illegal File-Sharing? Complain to the Government

When we broke the news on 18 November we noted that things would be very different this time, particularly when the frailties of the evidence gathering were exposed by the wrongful accusation of innocent parties.

It didn’t take long. On 29 November The Guardian reported that a couple in their sixties were horrified that they had been wrongfully accused of illegally sharing the gay porn movie Army Fuckers.

Many people have commented on these developments, and now it’s the turn of a sex writer. Placed by Forbes in their Web Celeb 25 and named by Wired in their Faces of Innovation 2008, Violet Blue is, amongst seemingly a million other things, sex columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle and a best seling author. She also lectures cyber-law classes at UC Berkeley and is a Geek Entertainment TV reporter.

Writing in her blog, Violet Blue headlines her article “The New Face of Porn Racketeering?” Pointing out that this isn’t just any old porn, but “a Nazi gay male hardcore flick”, she goes on:

It’s sort of like if someone came up to you on the street and said, ‘hey I think you slandered me in a way that could be really embarrassing to you if anyone found out — but if you give me a couple hundred bucks, I won’t take you to court [where you’d lose even more money].’

Having enjoyed the work of writer Roald Dahl in both written and TV form (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach and the genius of Tales of the Unexpected), Violet’s description of how she sees this operation reminded me again of something i’d mused upon earlier.

In 1987, Playboy published a short story by Dahl, entitled The Bookseller. The story features a gentleman called William Buggage who ran a rare book shop in London with his secretary Miss Tottle. Their business model was a little unconventional. Every day the pair read the newspaper obituaries looking for the deaths of married men who had left a wife behind. Armed with this information, they would send invoices to the grieving widows demanding payment for books their husbands had supposedly ordered. The books contained European hardcore pornography and ‘sexual deviance’. Rather than face the ruination and humiliation of being named in court or the press, the widows would quietly pay up.

Those familiar with Dahl’s work will know that this master story teller is famous for the ‘twists’ revealed at the end of his stories, and The Bookseller is no different. In the end, Mr Buggage and Miss Tottle were found out when they tried to get money from a widow who revealed that her husband – far from quietly titillating himself with porn – was in fact, blind.

While most people acknowledge that Davenport Lyons have made some pretty big mistakes, no-one is suggesting that they or their clients simply make things up. However, for every set of allegations they get right (around 50% admit infringement and pay up), they absolutely get some wrong. They wouldn’t have expected that their allegations of sharing Atari’s Race 07 would’ve landed on the mat of a pair of pensioners and we will see if they choose to withdraw the allegations that the other pair of pensioners shared Army Fuckers. At the moment they find themselves in the position of the blind man – in receipt of a sordid accusation against them and absolutely no way of defending themselves.

In a statement to The Guardian, Davenport Lyons said: “We allow ample opportunity for the recipient to respond, and if they have done nothing wrong they have no reason to be concerned.”

The truth is much less straightforward. No matter how people defend themselves in the face of these allegations, Davenport Lyons continually argue that they are right, and the accused is wrong. When I pointed out the Dahl story to someone involved in the cases, this was the reply, which is an adaptation of a real response to those who try to plead their innocence:

It’s a shame for Mr. Buggage and Miss Tottle they didn’t have the knowledge and expertise of messrs Davenport Lyons. They could have easily argued in that case that “it is irrelevant for the purposes of our clients evidence how the European books of pornography and sexual deviance (“the Work”) came to be acquired in your blind late husband’s name. What our client’s evidence shows is that the Work was made available from an Internet connection registered in your late blind husband’s name on a certain date and time”

But while there are certain similarities with Dahl’s story, one point appears entirely mirrored. While the widows in The Bookseller pay up to avoid appearing in the press, those wrongfully accused by Davenport Lyons are going to the press for protection. Those that don’t have age on their side don’t find the going quite so easy.

Source: Sexpert Uncovers Shades of Dahl in Piracy Witch-Hunt

Recently their efforts to make money from alleged pirates was picked up by the mainstream press, because an elderly couple was incorrectly accused by them of pirating an Atari game, Test Drive Unlimited. It is of course a stereotype to think that people over fifty don’t play games, but with the help of consumer magazine, Which? Computing, the lawyers were forced to drop the case.

If anything, this suggests that the evidence they gather for use against alleged sharers is not as strong as it should be. In fact, this is not the first time that a case has dropped before it went to court. Apparently, the lawyers that represent the various copyright holders will only make their case when they have a sure win – that is, when the defendants fail to show up. Others who dig in their heels and refuse to pay learn that the consequences aren’t nearly as bad as the law firm would have everyone believe.

Meanwhile, thousands of UK citizens are receiving letters in which they are accused of downloading music, games or more recently, adult entertainment. In these letters, they are asked to pay a few hundred pounds, or else they are threatened with the prospect of being dragged through court, where the fine – if the law firm is to be believed – will be multiplied several times over.

There aren’t any precise figure on how many alleged pirates have paid up, but based on earlier comments from the law firm itself, it’s believed to be between 40 and 60%. It’s not unthinkable that some copyright owners are making more from this type of pirate-chasing than they do from sales of their actual products. Quite an innovative business model actually, especially since in many cases it guarantees a revenue stream for sub-standard products that otherwise simply wouldn’t sell.

But now, according to The Register, computer game manufacturer Atari has had enough, as they have canceled their collaboration with Davenport Lyons and Logistep. Exactly why is open to speculation, but it is difficult to find a single positive article about the activities of these companies, particularly when recent and rather more potentially embarrassing actions are taken into consideration. It’s not surprising that they choose to distance themselves from the operation.

In a comment to El Reg, Atari said that it will “always retain and reserve the right to protect our intellectual property from illegal copying and piracy.” An interesting comment, since cashing in on alleged piracy happens after the offense, and has nothing to do with protection. However, this statement seems more of an attempt to show that this withdrawal doesn’t indicate that Atari is going soft on piracy.

Of course, copyright holders have every right to protect their material, or even make up for the losses they claim to suffer. Whether it is the right thing to do is questionable though, especially when the tactics are as aggressive as they are in these cases.

The complete lack of transparency in respect of the evidence gathering techniques just makes matters worse, and every negative aspect is compounded when people like Simon Davies of Privacy International speak about facets of the operation in very unfavorable terms. “This is appalling, it breaches a number of fundamental human rights,” he said. “They risk bringing the law into disrepute – just because lawyers can do something it doesn’t mean that they should.”

A great example of where copyright has gone wrong has emerged recently. In a leaked contract between DigiProtect (copyright protection outfit) and Evil Angel (content producer), the copyright was actually transferred in order for DigiProtect to make it available on filesharing networks.

“LICENSOR grants DIGIPROTECT the exclusive right to make the movies listed in Appendix 1 worldwide available to the public via remote computer networks, so-called peer-2-peer and internet file sharing networks such as e-Donkey, Kazaa, Bitorrent, etc. for the duration of this agreement.”

So, DigiProtect makes the files available to cash in on the people who attempt to download the files, but not to protect their intellectual property in a way copyright law was put in place for. In fact, this has nothing to do with copyright protection, they are simply exploiting the system. Probably a good thing that Atari got out before it all falls apart.

The question now is how are the other publishers feeling now that Atari has had enough? Since they are based in the UK, the focus now falls on CodeMasters, who are still pursuing people over Colin McRae Dirt, but does the return on the project cancel out the mountains of bad PR it generates? Time will tell.

Source: Atari Cancels Anti-Piracy Witch-Hunt

The latest development is one that file-sharing commentators have quietly been expecting. While some 40-60% of those threatened over video game sharing in the UK appear to pay up, there are other ways of increasing this amount substantially via social leverage. Unsurprisingly, Davenport Lyons are now going down this road which is likely maximize compliance rates.

According to recipients of fresh letters this weekend, the lawyers have now expanded into movie ‘protection’ – a gay hardcore porn movie to be precise. Set on a farm in the former Czechoslovakia, Gestapo officers apparently hand out ‘forced’ punishment in ‘Army Fuckers‘, a 2006 movie originally released by Dutch porn outfit Dream Logistics BV, on the ‘Eurocreme‘ label.

Strangely, however, Dream Logistics BV aren’t the rights holder anymore, or the ones that hired Davenport Lyons. It appears the new rights holder is German anti-piracy company DigiProtect, who managed to get this High Court order for disclosure of alleged file-sharer’s identities, based on evidence provided by lesser-known anti-piracy tracking company DigiRights Solution, of Darmstadt, Germany. Indeed, DigiRights Solution GmbH appear to have no obvious Internet presence.

Davenport Lyons are demanding £500 compensation, plus the costs from the ISP for disclosing the alleged infringer’s personal details. Recipients of the letter are given 21 days to pay up and are threatened with huge court costs and damages if they don’t, which is no different to all the other threats made by Davenport on other media they ‘protect’. It is worth noting that of a claimed 25,000 threats of legal action, no more than half a dozen have gone to court and of those, none were contested, meaning that Davenport Lyons won default judgments on them all. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone has ever contested a case with many people simply refusing to pay up.

Those accused and deciding to settle are asked to sign an undertaking that they will never infringe copyright on any media owned by DigiProtect in the future, which might be easier than you think – considering the number of titles they own the rights to. As previously pointed out by P2P-Blog, DigiProtect seem to be acquiring the ‘P2P Rights’ to many titles (including those of US porn company ‘Evil Angel’) and gathering their money via P2P tracking and subsequent legal threats.

However, most worrying is the leaked contract between DigiProtect and Evil Angel, as it contains the following paragraph, which one would believe applies to these UK cases too:

To achieve the purpose outlined in clause 1, LICENSOR grants DIGIPROTECT the exclusive right to make the movies listed in Appendix 1 worldwide available to the public via remote computer networks, so-called peer-2-peer and internet file sharing networks such as e-Donkey, Kazaa, Bitorrent, etc. for the duration of this agreement

This destroys claims that these actions are for strict anti-piracy purposes, this is a clearly a money-making operation, designed from the ground-up.

Since most people will want to avoid lining the pockets of DigiProtect and friends, here is a list of titles that include those that appear to be now owned by DigiProtect and ripe for IP harvesting.

Although not DigiProtect titles, the eagle-eyed reader will notice the inclusion on this list of Dream Pinball 3D, Colin McRae Rally and Call of Juarez – all titles targeted by Davenport Lyons. According to the list, DigiProtect also owns the rights to Atari’s dire ‘Alone in the Dark 5′.

Of course, we live in a world that has become much more liberal in recent years, so the stigma attached to porn of all flavors has diminished significantly. However, the damage that will be done to a family will be considerable if someone is incorrectly accused of sharing porn that doesn’t ‘fit’ the acceptance levels in that household.

There is a firestorm coming, there can be little doubt, and a simple apology from Davenport Lyons following an incorrect accusation won’t be enough.

Source: Anti-Piracy Lawyers Start Protecting Gay ‘Gestapo’ Porn

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.

Source: Lawyers Forced to Drop P2P ‘Wireless Defense’ Case

However, the thought of Miss Isabella Barwinska picking up a £16,000 bill from the civil courts recently for sharing one £10 game is outrageous too, but maybe even more so. Miss Barwinska didn’t turn up or defend her case, no-one seems to know why, but for a lot of people facing similar actions, the prospect of facing a legal system they don’t understand and can’t afford to participate in, financial issues are at the forefront of doing nothing about the threatening letters.

These people simply cannot defend themselves and this is why it might make sense to criminalize personal-use file-sharing. In a criminal case if you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you by the state and you get the benefit of proper justice at least, a right of reply within a proper structure, not grubby threatening letters designed to wear people down.

I’ll let you into a little secret. When people say file-sharing is “as bad as shoplifting”, in the UK that comparison is pretty ridiculous. Many shoplifters are let off with a simple caution and even the most persistent would have to be uniquely unlucky to get fined £6,000 (plus £10,000 costs) for a £10 game. If Miss Barwinska had been caught physically stealing it, a police caution would be likely, or perhaps a very small fine. In the ‘real-world’ she’d need to smash through the storefront with a truck to end up with a fine the size of the one she got.

The other reason why there might be benefits in bringing file-sharing out of the civil domain and into the criminal is because even fairly large-scale commercial piracy on and off the Internet is treated with extreme leniency in the UK.

Last week we reported that the UK’s Hull city council said it had such a massive piracy problem at its biggest market in Walton Street, it had to ban legitimate traders too in order to stamp it out. Well, it seems that a part of this ‘problem’ was one Robert Guiness.

Mr Guiness had been using the Internet to download movies, music and computer games which he then burned onto DVD and CD and sold them at Walton Street market. When the police searched his van and raided his house, they found over 10,000 pirate movies, more than 600 audio CDs, a couple of hundred DVDs filled with MP3s and 283 computer games. He was a commercial pirate and his long-term considered actions certainly contrast nicely with Miss Barwinska’s civil tort involving a £10 game uploaded for one second.

So, taking Miss Barwinska’s punishment as a guide, presumably Mr Guiness should enjoy a minimum fine of 283 games at £6,000 each? Plus the movies and music. Oh boy, Mr Guiness would be in some big kind of trouble if Davenport Lyons had got to him first. Luckily for him, he got arrested by the police instead and had the good fortune of having a criminal trial.

Due to the “exceptional circumstances” in the case (“i’m but a small cog in a big machine guv’nor”), he was given a suspended sentence and walked out of the court a free man. No fine.

Just to be clear, I don’t really want file-sharing criminalized and I certainly don’t want the UK courts jammed full of petty file-sharing cases. For their part, the police don’t even have time to come to household burglaries or car thefts, so we could never waste their time on non-profit file-sharing issues. However, I wonder how many of the UK’s ‘pinball pirates’ would wish they could be labeled a criminal in order to be excused a massive fine, picking up a criminal record in the process but walking away a free person instead? Desperate people will do desperate things – people have committed suicide over smaller debts than this. No-one in financial difficulty should ever have to aspire to criminal status in order to mount a defense, or aspire to a criminal conviction like that of Mr Guiness, in order to be treated with leniency.

But hold on just one moment. What about the OiNK users that are currently the subject of police criminal action for uploading ONE album each. Has petty file-sharing already become a criminal offense? The Crown Prosecution Service seems to think so.

In a country like Britain, which prides itself on its sense of justice and fairness, it can’t be right to have such a huge imbalance in the legal system, where an ordinary single mother of two making a single mistake is treated more harshly than a for-profit criminal like Mr Guiness. Equally, how can one set of file-sharers be the subject of a simple ISP ‘warning letter‘, another pick up a £16,000 bill and others get hauled off to the police station for interrogation, fingerprinting, DNA sampling and subsequent trial, for the same offenses?

It’s crystal clear – to the man in the street the legal system to deal with file-sharing right now in the UK seems just about as clear as mud and maybe, just maybe, it’s time for the government to step and decide once and for all. Should file-sharers be warned, bankrupted or jailed? Don’t forget Mr Brown, there are an estimated 6 million of them. Choose wisely.

Source: Is it Time To Make File-Sharing a Criminal Offense?

According to Samknows, BT, one of the UK’s largest ISPs and like many, currently caught up in the middle of a Davenport Lyons versus P2P battle, confirmed it had been ordered to hand over details of alleged copyright infringing file-sharers. It could not confirm whether they had already handed over the details or not. However, BT was surprised at the “strong arm” tactics being employed by the games industry, in contrast to the fairly civilized warnings currently touted by the BPI, which were toned-down under duress.

“It does seem a much more strong arm approach compared to the music industry,” said the BT spokesman. “However, it is only one company pursuing a limited number of miscreants at the moment. I doubt the music industry will follow suit as the potential numbers are too great, but who knows.”

Virgin Media was a little more slippery in its response but reading between the lines it seems obvious they are involved too. While noting that they take the privacy of their customers very seriously, if faced with a court order to hand over names and addresses, they simply have to comply. Virgin Media also indicated that it prefers the ‘educational’ approach, i.e the compromise reached between ISPs and the BPI recently. Virgin media spokesman told Samknows:

“We certainly prefer the education route we pioneered with the BPI because you can’t assume people are guilty of anything, so we don’t, we let them know of what might have happened and give information on how to ensure they enjoy legal downloads. This would definitely seem to be a very different approach from a different industry.”

I’m sure it’s just a slip by the Virgin spokesman but the entire ‘games industry’ isn’t taking this aggressive approach against alleged file-sharers. It is actually just Topware Interactive, and in the other active cases, Atari, Codemasters, Techland and Reality Pump, just a handful of developers.

As a gamer of more than 25 years I agree with the boss of EA Sports, Peter Moore, that it’s not particularly clever to start taking legal action against your customers. In a superb article, Rob Fahey over at GamesIndustry.biz says that he believes the losses claimed by the industry are a ‘complete crock‘ and he’s not on his own.

In any event, if you take a look at the games being ‘protected’ in these actions, with the possible exception of Codemasters titles, they’re mostly second rate and didn’t sell many anyway. The developers would have everyone believe this is due to file-sharing but people know otherwise. The suspicion in the file-sharing community is that this isn’t about protection of copyright at all, but a way to make poor games pay. Any revenue stream in a storm, eh?

Source: ISPs Hand Over Details of ‘Several Thousand’ Pirates

According to reports, any minute now lawyers Davenport Lyons will send out up to 25,000 further ‘pay up or get sued’ letters, demanding around £300 in compensation on the back of their so-called ‘landmark ruling’. Unfortunately, those accused of infringement have had limited choices up to now. Pay around £200-£250 for a few minutes with a lawyer and maybe get him to send a solitary letter, or go it alone, maybe with limited help from the UK’s Citizens Advice service. Either way, it’s pretty much guaranteed to cost more than £300, in time and/or money.

Until now.

Michael Coyle is a Solicitor Advocate, which means he is entitled to represent clients in the High Court and has frequently done so. He is also a Director at his company Lawdit Solicitors and leads the company’s Commercial and Intellectual Property legal section. He’s says he’d like to help those file-sharers wrongly accused, so we caught up with him to find out more.

TF: Please introduce yourself Michael, and tell us about your company. What do you specialize in?

MC: Lawdit Solicitors was formed on 3 September 2001 by me, Michael Coyle. Almost seven years later we are a busy commercial law firm with close connections in Marbella and Rome. Lawdit’s team consists of five Solicitors and support staff. While Lawdit is a commercial law firm a large part of its client base is concerned with intellectual property and copyright of course.

TF: What inspired you to start the firm?

MC: I wanted a law firm which was fair and would not price anyone out of securing at the very least a right of response when either the client’s intellectual property has been infringed or they are defending a claim for intellectual property infringement.

TF: Please tell us a little about Lawdit’s track record, relevant to this matter.

MC: Over the years I have advised clients in many aspects of copyright infringement from both perspectives, i.e the rights holder and the copier. In relation to P2P there is a paucity of legal case law largely due to lack of funds and the lack of defences. We have advised a retired gentleman and a 14 year old child, both threatened with lawsuits and both issues seem to have gone away.

TF: Why do you think they have gone away?

MC: It may be because the rights holder does not wish to take the case further as they now know legal representation is in place or they do not want the publicity. We will never know. Litigation can often be described as a game of poker. You have to always show a willingness to commence a legal action even if this is not your intention. At the same time you always need to show you will defend. At the time its usual for a ‘without prejudice’ exchange of correspondence to be maintained.

TF: Let us know what first got you interested in these Davenport Lyons cases.

MC: I have some clients who watch with interest all these developments and either they let me know or we are generally very good at keeping in touch with copyright laws

TF: What is your opinion of the ‘settle up now or we sue’ letters?

MC: It can make sense to ‘settle up now’ if you have no defence to the claim and are almost certainly going to lose. It’s back to the poker game analogy. Will they sue? etc. It seems they will commence legal action as the recent case shows, however I would need to know more about each case. If there is no defence and you are sure that a claim will follow then perhaps a penalty is worth paying. If they have no defence and it is a case of ‘its not me guv’ then perhaps not. If you have a valid defence then you should fight it.

TF: What is your opinion on how these ‘default judgment’ cases have been selected and prosecuted and the blanket media coverage of a ‘landmark case’ ?

MC: The individual would have ample opportunity to deal with numerous letters from the Lawyers. Equally once a claim has been issued the defendant has over a month in many instances to provide a defence. So the individual really ought to deal with it as the ostrich approach is not helpful. Lawyers will generally want to shout about their success and I am no different. A default Judgement is still a win although a fairly one sided win!

TF: So what exactly are you and Lawdit offering?

MC: I think it’s important that individuals do have a voice in this matter. There will be some defendants who are infringing copyright with their use of the P2P software. But at the same time there will be others who may not be. I am willing to offer Lawdit Solicitors services as the law firm to represent these individuals. I will do so for free. Obviously we are a small firm and there may be limitations to this offer. That is 5 offers for help will not be a problem. 5000 may pose me a problem, but yes, we’re willing to be on the end of an email for sure.

TF: How would you like people to contact you, bearing in mind that at the moment there are a few hundred people receiving demands and this may increase to tens of thousands shortly, or so they say…..

MC: Email is best. I am often in court but the Blackberry is on and happy to help as much as I can email is michael.coyle[at]lawdit.co.uk.

TF: Thank you for your time.

Readers contacting Michael are strongly advised to be very clear and concise in their initial correspondence. A lot of people will be interested in this offer and Michael and his team are a limited resource. Make their job as easy as you possibly can, so they can help more effectively.

Update: Already Michael is reaching capacity. If any other law firms wish to step up to get involved, please contact us here.

Source: Alleged UK Pirates Offered Free Legal Representation

Let’s get something clear. The defendant, Isabella Barwinska, didn’t turn up in court – that’s according to Simon Perry over at Digital Lifestyles: “The text [in the article] was from the official comment that I received from Davenport’s PR company Bell Pottinger,” he told us. And here it is:

The initial default judgment was made against her was at the London County Court on 27 May. Subsequently the Patents County Court in London handed down damages of £6,086.56 plus costs and disbursements of £10,000.

For those still unconvinced, this Channel4 news report states clearly that Miss Isabella Barwinska, the recipient of this huge penalty, did not defend herself, she did not respond to letters and her side of the story has never been heard. Thankfully, not every news outlet fell for the ‘landmark victory’ line.

Just in case this still isn’t clear (please forgive me for this reiteration but it’s vital): It was impossible for her to win her case so this defeat (default judgment) means little for the other people facing these accusations who actually have a defense.

Davenport Lyons picked on six individuals who didn’t mount a defense, and so far, they have default judgments from four of them at least. Many of those that responded and denied the claims, just as we previously reported, have been left alone.

It seems likely that yesterday’s announcement that Davenport Lyons will now go after 25,000 other alleged sharers was perfectly and deliberately timed to ride on the momentum from the news of this ‘landmark’ win, which in reality, was the legal equivalent of shooting a dead fish in a barrel.

Evidence and Damages

So what do Davenport have in their evidence arsenal? Well, not enough to take on someone who is prepared to defend themselves, or so it seems. Also, how do they calculate these crazy damages? Well, they claim damages of whatever they like and with no-one there to challenge them, its simple to get stupid amounts awarded. TorrentFreak has received information which lay everything bare and of course, we share it with our readers.

Let’s start with what Davenport Lyons don’t know, because their highly controversial (1, 2, 3, 4) anti-piracy tracking company Logistep can’t tell them:

Davenport doesn’t know if the defendant copied the work to his hard drive or allowed someone else to do it for him. They have no idea (and admit it) how many times the game was uploaded to 3rd parties on P2P networks, or even if it was at all.

They admit to not knowing how long the defendant made the work available and actually admit that it may have been only made available for a second, which is interesting since we have seen documents where Davenport claim that Logistep download a full copy of each game in every case. At the time, we thought that to be completely unfeasible and it now seems that was indeed the case. This adds weight to the theory that Logistep didn’t even verify that the file offered for download was the actual file in question.

Based on information provided by Logistep, they say they can prove one second of ‘making available’. However, they multiply this out to a whole day of ‘making available’ for the purposes of damages calculation, while insisting on the one download = one lost sale argument. Interestingly, defendants don’t have to be seeders to get logged since Davenport state that by default, every downloader is also an uploader, a mistake we have reported on before.

Davenport’s damages formula

The calculation for damages is entirely based on the data provided Logistep after they recorded users sharing Dream Pinball 3D during the monitoring period between 24th September 2006 and 6th November 2006, a period of 43 days.

The calculation for damages is made as follows:

(A) Estimated number of days file was uploaded by the Defendant x (B) Estimated number of downloaders Defendant made game available to per day x (C) Profit lost per download = total damages

It is assumed by Davenport that one download equals one lost sale.

In the case of Dream Pinball 3D, Logistep monitored for a total of 42 days (1 day of the 43 was discounted on database issues), gathering around 22,500 IP addresses. Logistep logged all the countries of people in the swarm and added up all the IP addresses over the monitoring period. It then singled out the IP addresses located in the UK (around 800), but when Davenport went to court to force the ISPs to hand over the details of the alleged sharers, they discovered that due to dynamic IP addresses, less than half were ‘unique’ users. This means that all the headlines of Davenport nailing 800 so-called pinball pirates were actually inflated by 100%.

Interestingly, it’s also been revealed that some ISPs couldn’t supply the information Davenport asked for, so these cases were dropped.

As only around 50% of the IP addresses were unique, for the purpose of damages calculation the number of IP addresses collected during the monitoring period was cut in half. This amount is then divided by the number of days monitored (42) to get the number of daily downloaders. It is claimed that the profit lost on each game is 10 Euros.

So the formula for calculating damages is: Estimated total days file was uploaded by the defendant multiplied by the average number of downloaders defendant (could have) made work available to per day, multiplied by the profit it claims to have lost on each download (10 euros). Note that the first two variables are estimates, not backed by any evidence. It’s unclear whether or not a user logged for multiple ‘seconds’ on multiple dates would incur more damages, but the size of the damages element awarded against Miss Barwinska – more than £6000 ($12,000) – raises a few questions.

The final claim is for the damages, plus interest, plus costs, which can come to around £16,000 ($32,000) if you don’t bother to defend yourself, as Miss Barwinska has discovered.

For all the other recipients of these letters, little has changed as a result of this default judgment. None of the evidence has even been contested in court, which considering its nature is probably a good thing – for Davenport at least.

Andrew Murray, senior lecturer in Law at the London School of Economics earlier referred to Davenport’s tactics as “bullying“. Now it seems that the people Davenport picked on for these cases never tried to defend themselves, the word “bully” seems more appropriate than ever.

Source: UK Game Piracy: Propaganda, Evidence and Damages

Let’s imagine for a moment that these anti-piracy tracking companies operate 100% flawless systems (I know, I know…) That they have opened up their systems for scrutiny, and that they can correctly identify an infringing IP address 100% of the time. Surely if we reached this point, there can be no further dispute? Well, not quite. Although the identification of an infringing IP address should be possible, in the absence of spy cameras it is absolutely impossible to identify the user sitting at the keyboard at the time of the alleged infringement. Add a wireless router into the mix and the infringer on the network could be just about anyone within its range. Add an unsecured wireless router in a densely populated area, and it’s happy hour at lawsuit hotel.

However, this doesn’t put off lawyers from sending out compensation claims as they only target the bill payer. Since the UK law firm Davenport Lyons are leading the chasing of alleged file-sharers in the UK, we’ll look at their cases. Davenport acknowledge in their compensation-demanding letters that the bill payer may not be responsible for the infringement – but nevertheless, that doesn’t stop them from threatening them anyway. So what happens when a bill payer is accused of an infringement he knows he did not commit?

Recently, we covered the story of a German case where the Regional Court in Frankfurt declared that if an infringement takes place on a wireless network, it is the responsibility of the infringer, not the network owner. Of course, for Davenport Lyons this was quite a problem due to the fact that for over a year now they’ve been saying that German law would be echoed in the UK, and that wireless network owners would be found liable for activities carried out on them.

Now, Struan Robertson, a technology lawyer with prominent law firm Pinsent Masons (the company behind the well respected Out-Law.com) has confirmed what we’ve suspected all along – that a UK court would not hold the bill payer responsible if it’s clear they weren’t responsible for the infringement:

“The onus is on the party bringing the action to convince the court on a balance of probabilities that the person being sued is responsible for the infringement,” he said. “The legal wrong isn’t that you left your network open, it’s the file-sharing.”

In a civil case in the UK, this phrase “balance of probabilities” is very important and roughly means “is it likely the defendant carried out the act, based on the evidence provided?” It’s worth noting that higher levels of proof (as in a criminal case) are not required, as Robertson notes: “The trouble is, if you use the Wi-Fi defense, absent of any computer evidence to back either party’s case, the judge might simply think that you’re lying. That’s one reason why you’re asking for trouble by leaving your Wi-Fi network open to the world.”

Noting Robertsons comments, in preparing a wireless defense, evidence from a router showing that others have accessed the device (multiple MAC addresses in the logs, for example) could prove vital in tipping the scales in the favor of the defendant. Presuming that the case ever gets to court, that is. There isn’t any requirement to hand this evidence over beforehand, but indicating that it could be produced in court would be helpful. As Logistep provide their data to the court in spreadsheet format, that should also suffice when offering evidence in defense.

Information received by TorrentFreak further indicates that some of those who have robustly denied Davenport’s allegations, have found the law firm backing down. Now it appears that in some cases they seem to be backing down when faced with a strong “wireless defense”. This is quite a turning point since up to now, Davenport have insisted the bill payer is always responsible for what happens on his connection. Interestingly, according to documents shown to us, Davenport state that although they won’t take any further action now, they would take action if the user’s IP address is seen infringing in the future, and that proceedings would be made against the bill payer for failing to secure the network against 3rd party access. Back to Mr Robertson’s comments:

The legal wrong isn’t that you left your network open, it’s the file-sharing.

Moving on…..

The dangers of mounting a weak or non-genuine “wireless defense” were outlined earlier by Mr Robinson, so this is a clearly a very serious issue. However, there are also other areas where infringement could’ve been carried out by someone other than the bill payer, not from outside but from within the family unit – by children for instance. Out-Law has kindly clarified the position in the UK:

“Both Scots law and English law provide that a parent generally is not liable for the actions of their child, and that a civil judgment is as binding on a child as it is on an adult. There are, though, some circumstances in which a parent can become responsible for the child’s actions. That can happen when a child causes injury to others or where a parent has previously authorised or subsequently ratified the child’s unlawful act.”

There is little doubt that at least some of the people accused by Davenport have committed some sort of infringement. Equally we have seen lots of evidence that shows that many have not. Many bill payers are wrongfully accused due to the actions of others and since the Logistep tracking company (and others like them) won’t open up their software to outside scrutiny, it’s impossible to say how many others are being wrongfully accused simply through errors in the system.

Whatever the truth, one wrong accusation is 100% unacceptable.

Source: UK File-Sharers and the “Wireless Defense”

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: Court Hits BitTorrent Users Who Failed to Appear

In their letters, Davenport Lyons adopt a very serious tone, as they threaten to take people’s homes away, should they be unable to pay their ‘fines’. Of course, not many people like this tone, and they can get very indignant in the face of it. Needless to say – guilty or not – some people are sufficiently annoyed and simply refuse to pay. Others refuse to pay for different reasons – TorrentFreak is in touch with a few of them.

The reasons for non-payment vary, but some simply don’t have the money. ‘Tania’ told us: “I’m a single mom and my son must’ve done this but I don’t have £600 ($1200). I can’t pay it, I don’t have that sort of money.” ‘Paul’, who works a 70 hour week on two jobs explained that he is massively in debt with credit cards and the demands for cash from Davenport just go “on the pile with the others.” None of these people have been taken to court.

Others are refusing to pay because they are innocent. Even though Davenport insist that its anti-piracy tracking partner ‘Logistep‘ is faultless in its data-gathering, it’s generally accepted that anti-piracy companies are using systems which can produce bad data. Only last week researchers managed to get infringement notices sent to printers, devices incapable of committing such an act. Davenport insists – rather like BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor – that if the High Court thought the evidence was compelling enough to order the ISP to give up the personal details of the alleged sharer, then the data must be accurate. If that is the case, how come Davenport haven’t taken anyone to court or asked Logistep to take up the offers they received to have their system independently audited? That would surely boost their credibility. Or not.

TorrentFreak spoke with many people who are obviously wrongly accused for various reasons. We’re pretty sure that ‘Lucy’, a 67 year old grandmother of 8, had no interest in Colin McRae Dirt, and that ‘Peter’, a 21 year old student who used to have a game-loving flat-mate, is completely innocent. What about ‘Jason’, a father of four who was in the Middle East at the time of the alleged infringement, or ‘Joanne’ who had probably been running a wide-open wireless router for the best part of two years – in a building of around 60 residents? As with the other group, none of these people have been taken to court.

One man, ‘Stuart’, has been corresponding with Davenport Lyons for many months now over claims his uncle with whom he lives, infringed copyright on Colin McRae Dirt. The Internet account is in his uncle’s name, but his uncle never uses the computer, so the wrong person was accused immediately and Stuart vigorously denies all accusations too.

After many letters sent to Davenport last year, where Stuart (on behalf of his uncle) denied all allegations, with Davenport duly ignoring most points and reiterating that if he didn’t pay he’d be going to court (each time giving only a few days to stop the court action), everything went dead. Then a couple of months ago, déjà vue kicked in as a letter dropped through the door which seemed to start from the beginning again, essentially stating that if he didn’t pay, court papers would be prepared and he would be incurring huge costs, etc.

Stuart wrote back, re-iterated his total innocence, and reminded Davenport that endless correspondence was getting them nowhere while they insist he is guilty, and he insists he is not. They wrote back and reminded him (again) that they were going to start court proceedings if he didn’t pay. He hasn’t paid and they have not taken him to court. Again.

Stuart is not unique in receiving lots of letters, lots of threats and then – nothing. TorrentFreak is in touch with nearly 40 people accused in these cases and not one of them has been taken to court, in some cases more than 15 months after these people apparently had 14 days to pay up or else.

It’s not clear if Davenport Lyons has completely given up on taking anyone to court, they may still surprise us. It’s believed they did ‘win’ one case when someone they accused didn’t turn up in court but all the indications point to a stalemate on the outstanding cases, including those of Stuart, Lucy, Peter, Jason, Joanne and countless others.

It’s thought that around 40% to 50% of people who received letters have paid up, and maybe that’s enough for the operation to be profitable for Davenport. Taking people to court in the UK for such a small infringement is definitely unprofitable. Maybe this is the greatest indicator as to where these cases are going to end up when the defiant, penniless and innocent refuse to pay.

Source: BitTorrent Users Refuse To Pay Copyright Fines

Currently there are hundreds of people in the UK being threatened due to the data Logistep gathered for the Two Worlds, Dream Pinball 3D and Colin McRae cases. Having heard nothing for 12 months after receiving their initial threats through the post, people accused of sharing the pinball game are now being threatened again – and some are getting more worried that this isn’t going to go away. Or is it?

We mentioned in a previous article how P2P tracking companies are seen by some to be breaching privacy laws. It seems Logistep has come to the attention of the data protection commissioner in Switzerland (EDÖB -Eidgenössische Datenschutz- und Öffentlichkeitsbeauftragte). He believes there is a problem with Logistep handling personal data, when it’s far from clear that the person being spied on has even committed an offense.

TorrentFreak spoke to Christian Solmecke, a lawyer defending five hundred file sharers in Germany, for more details. He told us: “In my eyes we have a similar problem here in Germany. The data protection commissioner is of the opinion, that collecting data (which is against telecommunications secrecy laws in Switzerland) is only allowed in the context of a criminal prosecution and not in private [civil] law.”

Lawyers Davenport Lyons acting for the copyright holders in the UK show the court ‘evidence’ from Logistep, saying they need it for a criminal case, so that they can obtain a court order. Once they have the order to force the ISP to hand over the alleged file-sharer’s personal details, they pursue a purely civil action to get compensation.

So what happens next? Christian told us: “The EDÖB suggests that Logistep should stop collecting data about P2P users. Logistep now has 30 days to comply, otherwise the EDÖB will bring the case to the Federal Administrative Court of Switzerland.”

Adding further momentum to the IP address/privacy issue, the European Union’s data privacy regulators said on Monday that IP addresses should be considered personal data. Germany’s data protection commissioner, Peter Scharr, told a European Parliament hearing on data protection that when an individual is identified by his IP address “then it has to be regarded as personal data.”

A court in the UK would no doubt be interested in the questionable legality surrounding the data harvesting carried out by Logistep, should a UK file-sharer in these cases ever see a court room. Up to now, there’s not been much more activity, other than threatening letters. However, Davenport Lyons has implied it gained a court ‘victory’ on December 17th following ‘Final Warning’ letters it sent to people in the ‘pinball’ case recently. However, this appears to be a ‘victory’ against someone who just didn’t bother to turn up in court. Some precedent.

Christian Solmecke works as a lawyer in Germany at the Cologne Chambers of Lawyers Wilde & Beuger.

Source: Anti-Piracy Company Breaches Privacy, Ordered to Shut Down

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: Anti-Piracy Outfit’s Business Model On Life-Support