Davenport Lyons

[Matthew]

Dear All
Have been with f2s for avery long time and this morning received a letter from Davenport Lyons asking for £500 and a undertaking to not download any atari software in the future.
This is mindboggling as we have absolutley no knowledge of this, but they appear to have an extract from Pipex Internet records with our IP address on it showing that some time last year (middle of the night in Oct 2007) we apparently got this game file.
I have spoken to F2S support who said this is the second phone call about this in as many days, and saying it is probably a scam.
I am unsure what to do as
1.How did they get this record from Pipex
2.Cannot speak to anybody at Pipex or F2S who can tell me that this is real or a scam.
They have enclosed a lot of documentation about this and even a payment form.
Have any other users received this or know anything about this process.

Matthew

[SkyUser]

Was it addressed to you by name and full address? Or to the householder?

[Matthew]

We are a very small business and it was addressed to the name that our f2s account is registered to. In this case it was addressed to the owner of the company.

Matthew

[SkyUser]

Have a quick read of this

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...formation.html

[stephenc]

DL have such a widespread net here they seem to be fishing for people to respond. I'm not interested whether you did or didn't download, upload or share something that could be legally challenged as infringement of copyright.

IMHO opinion do not even reply. Some people will get scared by such letters and respond and pay up. If they send 100 letters and anyhwere between 1% and 5% pay up on these pre-formatted acceptances then it's a lucrative little business.

Whether they could successfully defend this against you in a court, certainly reading through the multitude of interent postings on it, is questionable at best.
http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-lega...inst-file.html

[Antonio_f2s]

Hi Matthew,

If you PM me with the account name and a copy of that letter I'll check for you.

[Matthew]

Antonio

I've PMed you with our account name.
In the last couple of days I have read just about everything on the internet to do with this issue and it appears that no one has a definitive answer on whether this is indeed a scam and can be ignored or whether ISPs such as BT, Cable Internet, Easynet, Eurisp, KCOM, Opal Telecom, Orange Home Uk, Pipex Internet, PlusNet, SupaNet, Thus, Tiscali and Virgin Media (Listed as Respondents in The Supreme Court of Judicature against Applicant "Atari" before Cheif Master Winegarten on 30 May 2008) have been forced to give out IP addresses and acount details to Davenport Lyons who then have authority to pursue "claims". The evidence provided to us in this letter is basically just an IP address, the name of some p2p client, a GUID, a file ID, a file size and a file name (RACE 07 PC-DVD Multi5 toptorrent), the rest appears to be a court judgement against ISPs, as mentioned, a badly photocopied code of practice (for pre-action conduct in intellectual property disputes), an undertakings form and a payemnt form.
If anyone has any telephone contact details for someone at Pipex (our ISP) that should be made aware of this, I would be greatful for their assistance.

Matthew

[Antonio_f2s]

Hi Matthew,

Please check your inbox as you should have a PM from me.

In the last couple of days I have read just about everything on the internet to do with this issue and it appears that no one has a definitive answer on whether this is indeed a scam and can be ignored

I cant give you much info here, but be aware that this is not a scam.

[Matthew]

Antonio

I will send you over some of the documentation, but could you tell me exactly why you say this is not a scam. Your technical support said it was probably a scam, so are you saying you have evidence to the contrary.

Matthew

[stephenc]

Most likely the guy in technical support doesn't keep up with European p2p legal claims - but Davenport Lyons certainly do.

They got a ruling in London and successfuly got damages in, very importantly, a civil and not criminal case, but while you'd think that would open the floodgates by way of a precedent it does NOT.

They got a damages ruling in this civil case because the 4 muppets who were summoned never bothered their backside turning up to defend themselves and so none of Davenports alleged "evidence" was legally or technically tested. So, then, DL give the judge some more of their unchallenged "evidence", this time the size of the software company's supposed loss, and the court has no evidence to the contrary, and no-one to argue against it and then Davenport, and the software company, get the damages they asked for - case closed.

And although the interim damages of £750 plus costs looks mad next to a £10 game I'll guess that this figure was carefully judged by DL so it puts other "part time" leechers off, but is not so high as to almost guarantee a turn up of the alleged downloaders in a court given, if they lost, they would have the costs too. It's also clever because it's not a massive award so kind of goes under the radar but it is big enough that it will have a few mummies and daddies worried enough to start asking their kids what the heck they are up to.

It's not a scam but, like I said, whether they could successfully defend this against you in a civil case is a totally different question.

[Matthew]

From what I can ascertain DL must have sent out thousands of letters and I can only assume either most people have paid up or not paid up are not saying anything for fear of the heads popping up on the radar.
Our computers are switched off at night and only our SBS server is on, so I am at a loss to understand how we alledgedly p2ped some file at the alledged time (middle of the night).
I have sent some pdfs to f2s and are awaiting a response.
After having re-read one of the documents it appears that the ISPs maybe receiving costs for releasing information about accounts. Also this RIPE data was captured in Switzerland and must therefore need to come under some international jurisdiction.
I may need to dig some more.

Matthew

[Ferret42]

Davenport Lyons use a Swiss based firm called Logistep to track the downloads of certain files and obtain the downloader's IP address.

Logistep have already been banned from operating in several other European countries already.

[JeffG]

Are Davenport Lyons in the same sort of league as the much-loathed "claim for your stubbed toe - no win no fee" ambulance-chasing American-import class of lawyer?

Having said that, my view is that anyone using p2p/torrents etc. is laying themselves open to all sorts of similar problems. Always steered well clear of that sort of thing, meself.

[segedunum]

Matthew,

This *is* a scam regardless of what you've been told. Get your MAC code and leave *now* for an ISP that doesn't tolerate this crap, and don't answer the letter. It's not proof of *anything*.

The major ISPs in the UK, including Tiscali and Sky, have signed up to a scheme at the behest of the film and music industries. What they've done is created a situation where you don't know whether a letter is a scam or not, nor where they are obliged to prove what has been downloaded and where. It has huge moneymaking potential. All they do is use some automated system that sniffs for suspicious downloads, gets the IP address, matches it to an ISP and a warning/extortion letter is sent out automatically. In reality, all they have is an IP address and no circumstances whatsoever. Any ISP who cooperates with this has no clue at all.

If you really are suspicious Matthew, you might want to check any wireless etc. networking you might have for suspicious activity. Be aware though that IP addresses can be spoofed and used elsewhere, so just because somebody happens to have your IP address it doesn't mean that it has originated at your site.

I have never seen one of these letters where there is a form for payment, and the Atari game file thing is a tad suspicious and esoteric, but for Antonio to then come back and say this is *not* a scam is beyond ****ing belief. From what you're saying, the letter isn't even from F2S, but Tiscali and F2S have handed over your details anyway! I am flabbergasted that an ISP is cooperating with a known scam operation in this way beyond just sending out their own warning letters.

I am seriously glad I am out of there.

[aos101]

Freedom2Surf probably received a court order and had to hand over the details regardless of what they thought of it. If they refused to follow the court order, they would get themselves into trouble, and I doubt they are willing to do that. segedunum, do you really expect F2S/Pipex/Tiscali to ignore a court order for you?

[SkyUser]

From what I understand about the BPI - If Tiscali or Sky as part of their deal send out letters regarding alleged illegal downloads, these take the form of a friendly warning and advise not to continue doing so. And all of the Six ISP's that have signed the MOU are at liberty only, to send out 1000 of these per week. Or in layman's terms between the Six of them, 6000 per week until October.

The fact that this letter has come from Davenport Lyons, means, that Tiscali must have had a court order served on them, and that it is not a scam. If it was to do with the DPI and the MOU - It would have been sent from Tiscali and not from a solicitors office.

It would not be a good idea to just ignore it.

[segedunum]

No, this is still complete lunatic bull****. A court order isn't mentioned by the OP, and I find it mighty suspicious that a court order would be given for this even given an average court's lack of knowledge about these things, and even given the complete contempt for the Data Protection Act. Court orders I have seen do not work like this.

For F2S not to contest it and not to inform the customer in advance what it means and what they have cooperated with, nor to give them details of the evidence and proof used to arrive at the conclusion absolutely stinks to high heaven and is mighty, mighty suspicious. F2S have basically said "We handed over your details to a scammer. You deal with it the way you think best". This is quite clearly a case of trying to extort money, as they are banking on people handing over £500 rather than getting worried about the legal costs. Reading around, it looks as if my suspicions are correct:

Pinball software in P2P legal row - The INQUIRER

Apparently ISPs are charging £50 to hand over personal data without a court order and in breach of the Data Protection Act. Some of those who have received the letter have reported firing their ISPs for doing this.

I'd want to see the court order in question.

CAB lawyers are advising people who receive the letter to request that Davenport Lyon actually show some specific evidence before handing over money. So far such requests have been met without a reply.

In short, don't hand over the money and don't panic into doing anything about it. Then seek some legal advice about what you can do about this, but don't break your wallet doing it. As soon as you start asking questions I'll bet that Davenport Lyons will go very quiet anyway, because they're only sure bet was on you sending off the £500. They've already pulled this stunt in Germany, and been sent packing:

You’re caught Downloading “Dream Pinball”, Settle Now or go Broke | TorrentFreak

In each English case it’s likely that Davenport Lyons will have obtained what is known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order, which relates to the obtaining of information regarding infringements from parties who may not themselves be involved in the infringement..................Apparently, such an order should not be granted where it’s clear that the plaintiff is 'fishing' (phishing) for information and is attempting to discover something that will form the basis of a court action. As the law firm is very obviously making a 'phishing' attempt to obtain the name of a possible infringer other than the account holder, this should be something that anyone accused should take up with their lawyer.

Not only are they doing some court order jiggery pokery, it also appears that some ISPs are charging them a nominal sum to hand over information so they can just wash their hands. That is..........................dodgy. To suggest that F2S are an innocent party here is utterly laughable, because they are quite clearly not, and for them to come here and say bare faced that it isn't a scam is so unbelievable it isn't even funny. Trying to defend them is even more unfunny. What is funny, however, is that I very much doubt any of us will have heard of Dream Pinball 3D or whatever else they're coming up with (Atari?!).

[SkyUser]

In short, don't hand over the money and don't panic into doing anything about it. Then seek some legal advice about what you can do about this, but don't break your wallet doing it. As soon as you start asking questions I'll bet that Davenport Lyons will go very quiet anyway, because they're only sure bet was on you sending off the £500. They've already pulled this stunt in Germany, and been sent packing:

Good advice, and in essence, the original response of do nothing is definitely a bad bit of advice.

It is documented on the internet that Davenport Lyons have won a round of court cases, purely on the basis that the defendants did not turn up to court to defend themselves. Therefore Davenport Lyons would win by default.

I still reiterate, to do something, even as you suggest. Ask for the proof, to see what you are up against.

[segedunum]

Originally Posted by SkyUser

Good advice, and in essence, the original response of do nothing is definitely a bad bit of advice.

Well it's not actually because there's no court order mentioned (I'm just assuming from information gathered). You can't just spring into legal action because someone has demanded £500 from you to stop the pestering. An alleged court order cannot be used to extort money. The lunacy has to stop there.

However, if you seek some limited advice (Citizen's Advice etc. etc.), and then ask formally for definitive proof I'm betting there will be no response and that will be the end pretty much. I'd be most interested if any actual court order was involved to obtain the information in question and what implications this has, which is why I'd be most interested in seeking legal advice.

Whatever you do don't pay and don't sign anything though, otherwise you effectively admit guilt and are agreeing to be held to something that is totally unnecessary.

It is documented on the internet that Davenport Lyons have won a round of court cases, purely on the basis that the defendants did not turn up to court to defend themselves.

I find that exceptionally suspicious in itself. Everything about this is very, very, very smelly and it has to be brought to a very abrupt halt sooner rather than later.

[aos101]

Originally Posted by segedunum

No, this is still complete lunatic bull****. A court order isn't mentioned by the OP, and I find it mighty suspicious that a court order would be given for this even given an average court's lack of knowledge about these things, and even given the complete contempt for the Data Protection Act. Court orders I have seen do not work like this.

Originally Posted by Matthew

The evidence provided to us in this letter is basically just an IP address, the name of some p2p client, a GUID, a file ID, a file size and a file name (RACE 07 PC-DVD Multi5 toptorrent), the rest appears to be a court judgement against ISPs, as mentioned, a badly photocopied code of practice (for pre-action conduct in intellectual property disputes), an undertakings form and a payemnt form.

I took that to mean there was a court order. I agree the whole thing stinks and companies shouldn't be able to do this (essentially saying pay up or we'll make your life hell with more legal crap), but if a court order does exist I don't see what else F2S/Tiscali can do other than hand over the information.

[segedunum]

Just because there is an official looking piece of paper sent along with a demand for payment, it doesn't mean that it is genuine. Given everything else about this, I would question it and seek some legal advice purely to see if such an order exists. I'm suspicious of F2S's sheepish response about it not being a scam.

Even if there is a court order, as an organisation you have to be careful about what you hand over because that can expose you to more risk. You can't just hold confidential information and then hand it over to anyone who waves a piece of paper in your face. This is quite clearly a scam that is breaching the terms of any court order, and F2S should have been aware of that.

Whatever, it's a very, very good reason to leave, and a very, very good reason for anyone not to sign up to F2S/Tiscali/whatever. An ISP with any cahonas knows how to deal with this.

[stephenc]

BBC NEWS | Technology | Game sharers face legal crackdown
Game sharer gets £16K fine | The Register
Hundreds sued for sharing video games - Times Online
Woman caught in file-sharing swoop - Latest News - MSN Tech & Gadgets UK


First of all, I don't condone piracy, but I also don't condone companies and corporations using their size and strength to brow beat people into submission.

I also agree with almost everything you say but it might be risky defining this complete thing wholly as a "scam". That said, however, it is undoubtedly 100% highly dubious with extremely questionable methods between finding people and getting them to court (namely a "give us money to make sure this goes no further" letter) but there is absolutely no doubt they have got names from ISPs and taken action and now they have more than default judgements.

Wether anyone agrees with the methods, the judgement or civil law - where this is being contested. They have a successful judgement.

Would be interesting to see if this is on the Courts Service website to see how far their "methods" and "evidence" was tested.

All that said, regardles what anyone thinks. This is not going away.

[stephenc]

Originally Posted by aos101

I took that to mean there was a court order.....but if a court order does exist I don't see what else F2S/Tiscali can do other than hand over the information.

This aint anything new so i agree with you Adam
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Music | Music firms win 'pirates' ruling 2004
High Court orders ISPs to name file-sharers | The Register 2005
BBC NEWS | Technology | UK court to unmask 'file-sharers' 2006
Irish ISPs ordered to disclose file sharers' names | The Register 2006

If they are ordered to do so they are ordered to do so. They can't ignore the order.

[wfnuk]

This article is in the Times Online this morning. Davenport Lyons is a genuine Law firm.

[Ferret42]

Letters from DL detailing the some of the court submission


http://www.giuristitelematici.it/mod...gistep_doc.pdf