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…