The letter makes reference to sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It seems that they have embellished on what the Act actually says to add more crap-your-pants factor to the letter.
The problem I have with what DL have written (please be aware I am not a lawyer but have south some legal advice) is firstly how they have interpreted sections of the Act and secondly the inclusion of words in brackets which do not appear anywhere in the Act. In fact there is a section of the Act that contradicts their interpretation.
Please excuse my vagueness. I’d love to publicly challenge their arguments but I would be very surprised if DL aren’t monitoring these discussions regarding their ‘work’ in order to mask the gaping holes in the next batch of letters. It would appear from earlier letters I’ve seen they are now covering a lot more ground.

If law states it is the responsibility of the internet subscriber to secure the wireless network and they are liable for the wrong doing of others through that service (in the cases of network hijacking etc.) why is free public wi-fi so readily available? Have corporations such as Starbucks not done their homework? Is local government flouting the law by making the internet freely available in public libraries? I’d say unlikely.
I suppose what I’m trying to say is without DL knowing who actually carried out these alleged acts (as opposed to who subscribes to the internet service) how can they bring a case to court?

The lawsuit was based on evidence obtained by the swiss Anti-piracy outlet Logistep, which provided rights holders with the IP address of the defendant. A law office working for the rights holder used the IP address to start a criminal complaint. Prosecutors requested the name of the defendant from a major German ISP and shared it with rights holders, who then started another civil lawsuit against the defendant – a controversial but common practice in Germany that has led to tens of thousands of lawsuits as well as completely overwhelmed prosecutors.

The court now found that the ISP wasn’t allowed to give out the name of the defendant because file sharing doesn’t count as a serious criminal offense. Handing over the name and address of the defendant violated his constitutional right to privacy. There is no common law in Germany, so this decision won’t immediately affect other pending file sharing lawsuits, but it’s quite possible that other defendants will get inspired by this decision to also try their luck in court, and that sooner or later we’ll see one of those cases in front of the German Supreme Court.

I don’t know what to do now, do I bury my head in the sand or pay the £758.72 which they are requesting

any advice will be appreciated

But keep the advice coming its always welcomed :D

I’m trying to stay calm, but am reading more and more reports telling people to reply to the letters. If you dont then they can get a default win against you without you even having to go to court because it’s a civil case and not a criminal.

Not too sure what to do about it to be honest. My biggest concern is that they win by default, sell the debt to a collection agency who then send some thugs round to take the the TV…

if you search google on the company DL used (Logistep) and their court cases you’ll see they’ve not been too successful :)

Legal firm Davenport Lyons sent the demand to one PC Pro reader, after claiming it had “forensic computer analysis” that shows he downloaded the game Two Worlds using BitTorrent. Davenport Lyons is acting on the behalf of German games distributor Zuxxez, which last year employed the firm to target file sharers.

The PC Pro reader was given no prior warning to stop file sharing, unlike the usual “three strikes and you’re out” approach adopted by the music industry, which gives users two warnings to stop sharing before legal proceedings are instigated.

The legal demand claims that “given the extent of the damage that file sharing is causing to our client’s business, our client is left with no option but to adopt a policy of enforcing its rights in an attempt to stem the wholesale misappropriation of its property.”

The letter goes on to claim that its “client is prepared to give you the opportunity to avoid legal action” provided it receives compensation of �600 plus �8.18 to cover the costs of obtaining the user’s details from their ISP.

The letter insists payment must be made within 14 days or else “our client will be seeking as a minimum from you an interim payment of �1,200 and will request the Court to determine the level of total damages and costs which should be awarded against you”.

Wrong postage paid

The PC Pro reader, who has asked not be to named, says he can find no trace of the Two Worlds game he is alleged to have downloaded on his home PCs, although can’t rule out the possibility that his teenage children

ADVERTISEMENT

may have downloaded the game.

Nevertheless, he feels the �600 “settlement” is “highly disproportionate” for the download of a single game.

“To add insult to injury it [Davenport Lyons] didn’t pay enough postage on the letter and I had to collect it from the sorting office at a cost of �1.30,” he says. “This also used up most of the two weeks that it allowed for a response.”

A spokesman for Davenport Lyons told PC Pro that it was investigating why the letter was sent out with the incorrect postage, but refused to comment further on the matter. The game’s distributor Zuxxez was unavailable for comment at the time of publication.

Hundreds targeted

This isn’t the first time Davenport Lyons has targeted British file sharers. The firm last year sent out hundreds of similar letters on behalf of Zuxxez for the game Dream Pinball 3D and Codemasters for Colin McRae Dirt.

Many of those targeted claim they didn’t download the game they were accused of illegally sharing, according to multiple posts on internet forums.

Several of those have challenged Davenport Lyons to produce their “forensic” evidence in court, although we can find no reported cases of successful prosecutions.

We have just released my debut album as a FREE HQ Mp3 download.

It was a tough decision for us to make because of the vast amounts spent on the album. We had two of the biggest record producers in the world work on it…. at Peter Gabriel’s Realworld studio and at Abbey Road studio in london.

Despite all that, we recognise the massive potential the internet and free albums in particular offers. We launched last friday and have already had 1000’s of DL’s all over the world.

Come over and download for FREE.. it takes 2 minutes to DL because we have a dedicated server.

http://www.jackrubinacci.com
Thanks
Jack

Their response, assuming current copyright law, was along the lines of the IP/copyright owner would only be entitled to claim the value of their actual loss plus nominal costs. Say the retail cost of a game is £30, the retailer and distributor will take margin, the actual value to the publisher will vary but will only be between £10-20. This is the maximum they can claim from you in an English court. The value of their costs are limited as well, the two IP lawyers said the maximum you would have to pay would be around £100.

This is why DL have not taken anyone to court. Their letters are a complete scaremongering scam. My Solicitor friend’s professional advice was to ignore the letter completely