Davenport Lyons going against file sharers

[WebFerret]

This Davenport Lyons business ‘smacks’ of the Private Parking Company business model, in sending out letters demanding, in my view, unfounded sums of money and if you don’t pay up immediately, threaten to take you to court!

 

Most Davenport demands for money have been for the same sum of £500, or there abouts – how have they arrived at this common figure? – surely each case would vary wildly in the alleged amount of damages Davenport had suffered.

 

Davenport seem to go on at great length in these letters in an attempt to convince/alarm the recipient of these ‘invoices’ that they should pay up now or suffer very grave consequences. (Why do I keep thinking of PPC’s?)

 

Now we’ve all heard of the old-timer retired folk who have never down loaded anything in their lives (and don’t even know how to) but are receiving these threatening letters from Davenport! – This in itself would conclude for me that their alleged "sophisticated tracking IT technology" is questionable, at the very least, to be supportive in a claim they took

to court!

 

I suspect Davenport would have a very tough time proving a case if it were properly defended and indeed they would have to divulge, as Conniff pointed out, exactly what evidence they have, to prove that you caused them to suffer damages (and also justify the cost of those damages) as a direct result of your actions. (The only cases they have won so far, have been by default, as the cases were not defended! – why do I keep on thinking of PPC’s?)

 

I find funkyparott’s post #15 smacks of PPC troll posts, commonly seen in the parking/traffic offences forum, in that it could be viewed that this ‘contribution’ is simply trying to enforce the persuasive nature of Davenports letters to alarm people sufficiently to pay up without challenge!

 

I'm sorry, but I am not convinced in the slightest that these Davenport Lyons letters are anything more than a [problem], jumping on the old piracy bandwagon to dupe people out of large sums of money – a very lucrative business! – and I favour Conniff’s stance, let them take you to court.

 

I wager that as soon as they get wind that you intend to properly defend your case and test their claim – I feel things may go very quiet!?

 

BTW – Bookworm, your post #17 – well said.

[WebFerret]

Thanks Conniff - to add to that:

 

Atari Backs Away From Davenport Lyons, As More Innocent Threat Letters Are Uncovered

 

Techdirt: Atari Backs Away From Davenport Lyons, As More Innocent Threat Letters Are Uncovered

 

"from the ain't-that-called-extortion? dept

With plenty of bad publicity showing up for law firm Davenport Lyons and its ongoing campaign to shake people down with "pre-settlement" letters threatening them with copyright infringement lawsuits if they don't pay up, it appears that things aren't going quite as planned.

 

First, the press has found more people who were apparently falsely accused by the firm -- and this time, it's an elderly couple who are quite horrified that they're being accused of downloading gay porn (this would be the same gay porn where recent reports noted that the publishers were encouraging another company to upload it to many sites, so there would be more people to accuse of pirating it).

 

On top of that, it appears that Atari, which had hired Davenport Lyons (and whose games were part of the original story of falsely accused people) has now stopped the anti-piracy campaign, canceled requests for identification on various IP addresses and apparently dropped Davenport Lyons in the process. It seems Atari realized that the campaign was generating an awful lot of negative publicity. Shaking down innocent people can do that, apparently."

 

So it appears that Davenport Lyons 'money making [problem]' with the Games Companies is drying up - hence the reason we now see them entering the Porn Industry!

 

The Porn Industry being more lucrative due to the fact of embarrassment on the part of the recipient of their threatening letters and therefore more likely to pay-up without challenge!

 

More circumstantial evidence to suggest that what I wrote originally in my post http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/broadband-other-internet-issues/152047-davenport-lyons-going-against.html#post1828499 is indeed correct - that this is nothing more than a money making [problem]

 

 

IMHO - if anyone receives such a letter - one should simply file it immediately in the nearest recycling bin! - lol

 

.

[WebFerret]

For a more light-hearted look at the subject check out this u-tube video:

 

YouTube - Hey Mr. Thompson

 

 

This video tells the story of how everyone started to sue Rockstar Games for the ‘violence’ in their games and how, now the Games Companies are turning the tables and suing their customers - lol :grin:

 

Very funny and extremely well done.

Edited December 6, 2008 by WebFerret

[WebFerret]

Your links not working WF.

 

lol - you must have just been looking as I posted cos I just corrected it - takes a while to check it's OK - lol

[WebFerret]

It's a [problem]!

 

"Copyright holders might prefer piracy now"

 

 

Copyright holders might prefer piracy now | News | TechRadar UK

 

It says:

 

"In a somewhat cynical table-turning exercise, a German anti-piracy body seems to be encouraging illegal downloading of music and other media in an effort to strong-arm money out of lawbreakers.

 

DigiRights Solutions (DRS) from Darmstadt has circulated a presentation to potential clients explaining how they might make more money by pursuing illegal filesharers than from regular, legal sales.

 

No questions asked

 

The key to the DRS strategy is a previously unknown figure suggesting 25 per cent of people who receive a letter threatening legal action prefer to just pay the settlement fee without question.

 

As copyright holders in the DRS model get €90 (£84) of the €450 (£418) damages charge per offense, that can be up to 150 times what a legal download brings in.

 

Weighing the options

 

Clearly, the approach is reliant on simple mathematics – the number of legal sales compared to the amount of threatening letters DRS can send out for a client in any given period.

 

The company says it can currently go after 5,000 illegal downloaders a month so, given the discrepancy between the two monetary values being weighed here, it could find itself with a lot more cash-hungry clients before long."

So now you know - they work on the exact same principle as PPC's - send out enough letters and enough people pay to make this 'business model' a very lucrative [problem] indeed.

 

If you receive one - simply ignore......and they will go away, preferring to chase easier pray!

[WebFerret]

Bullying law firm (Davenport Lyons) complaint pursued

 

source:

[size=2]http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/press/product-press-releases/which-computing-magazine/2010/03/bullying-law-firm-complaint-pursued.jsp[/size]

04 March 2010

Consumer champion Which? today welcomed the news that the solicitors’ watchdog will pursue its complaint about a London law firm, Davenport Lyons*, which accused hundreds of innocent consumers of illegal file sharing.

 

In its complaint, sent to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in December 2008, Which? said it believed the conduct of Davenport Lyons had been ‘bullying’ and ‘excessive’. The SRA agrees that there are grounds to call Davenport Lyons to account and has referred the matter to its disciplinary tribunal.**

 

However, Which? is disappointed that the process has taken so long. At least two other law firms (ACS Law and Tilly Bailey Irvine Solicitors(TBI)) have jumped on the bandwagon since the original complaint and are engaging in volume litigation*** relating to ‘illegal’ file sharing.

 

Deborah Prince, Head of Legal Affairs, Which?, said:

 

“We’re pleased to see some action at last from the SRA and hope the tide is finally turning in favour of consumers. We now want to see some decisive action to stop these bully-boy tactics. We hope the SRA’s decision sends a message to law firms like ACS and TBI that they can’t make a quick buck by accusing people of copyright infringements they haven’t committed.”

 

Which? continues to hear on an almost weekly basis from distressed people who have received letters wrongly accusing them of illegal file sharing and demanding payment for their ‘crime’. It has produced advice for such people on its website.****

 

Which? also has forwarded a copy of the latest letter from TBI to the SRA.

Notes to Editor

 

For further information, or to interview Deborah Prince, Head of Legal Affairs at Which?, contact Martin Chapman on 020 7770 7373 or martin.chapman@which.co.uk

*Davenport Lyons, while acting for its clients, had accused internet users of illegally sharing copies of games, music and films. The alleged file-sharers received letters from the law firm demanding payment of around £500 compensation for copyright infringement.

Which? drew attention to the fact that Davenport Lyons’ letters to alleged file sharers: made incorrect assertions about the nature of copyright infringement; ignored the evidence presented in defence; and increased the level of compensation claimed over the period of correspondence. In addition, the letters threatened, incorrectly, that failing to properly secure an internet connection was grounds for legal action.

 

**On 1 March 2010 the SRA decided to refer the conduct of two of the Partners of Davenport Lyons - Brian Miller and David Gore - to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

 

***Volume litigation is a process whereby the same claims are made against a large number of defendants, using pro-forma letters and documents to reduce the costs of the litigation and maximise profitability.

 

****which.co.uk/campaigns/file-sharing-fears/file-sharing-are-you-breaking-the-law/index.jsp

 

People who have received a letter from Davenport Lyons and believe they have been wrongly accused should contact Which? at whichcomputingnews@which.co.uk. Which? has also produced guidelines which it believes protects both consumers and copyright holders: File sharing: are you breaking the law? - Which? Campaigns

 

So they're not getting away with it after all.