Unencrypted modems - beware

not read all the posts so not sure if this has already been mentioned...

but that davenport lyons was on watchdog the other day for sending out these letters, they showed someone in a car sat outside someones address where they just log onto a wireless network , thus using the ip address of that network, download/upload what they like then drive off leaving the owner of that network possibly liable...

sure its on iplayer if anyones interested as it was on this weeks watchdog

I had a stupid letter back from them, insisting that my bloke was responsible and saying that their client is still deciding whether to sue him. I'm not bothering to reply.

Incidentally the flick in question is 'Furious F*ckers Final Retreat' - or something like that. I'm in Liverpool today so can't check the file.

sounds good!


off to google....

Originally Posted by Dappa D

sounds good!

off to google....

I have the .torrent somewhere still...

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Dappa D

not read all the posts so not sure if this has already been mentioned...

but that davenport lyons was on watchdog the other day for sending out these letters, they showed someone in a car sat outside someones address where they just log onto a wireless network , thus using the ip address of that network, download/upload what they like then drive off leaving the owner of that network possibly liable...

sure its on iplayer if anyones interested as it was on this weeks watchdog

I said this MUCH earlier in this thread...
Sheesh - unless its on the Beeb they dont listen

[timwilky]

There is a lot of information about the tactics of Davenport Lyons.

rule No 1) Do not ignore their letters, that is how they win their cases by getting a default judgement against the person they accuse of copyright breach.

The method/company they use to monitor P2P networks is very suspect, it is/was a swiss company that was ordered by the Swiss courts to stop breaching privacy laws.

Many European counties courts have also dismissed their monitoring as a breach of privacy. However, until a test case hits the British courts D.L. will continue to harass innocent individuals.

They send requests to ISPs asking them to identify the users of IP addresses ans then go after that user. They cite a German case as proof that it would be accepted in an English court. However, they seem to forget the basic tenant of English law of innocent until proven guilty. You do not need to prove you are innocent, as I said they go after the owner of the account that was used not who actually did the deed. Simply tell them you do not know who was using a computer on your network at the alleged time etc.

Lots of info about them on the web. The worse sort of legal scum there is. They give genuine dedicated legal proffessionals a bad name. Not even fit enough to be ambulance chasers

I have wireless disabled on my modem - eversince I saw that people can sit outside your house and use you connection

Originally Posted by timwilky

There is a lot of information about the tactics of Davenport Lyons.

rule No 1) Do not ignore their letters, that is how they win their cases by getting a default judgement against the person they accuse of copyright breach.

The method/company they use to monitor P2P networks is very suspect, it is/was a swiss company that was ordered by the Swiss courts to stop breaching privacy laws.

Many European counties courts have also dismissed their monitoring as a breach of privacy. However, until a test case hits the British courts D.L. will continue to harass innocent individuals.

They send requests to ISPs asking them to identify the users of IP addresses ans then go after that user. They cite a German case as proof that it would be accepted in an English court. However, they seem to forget the basic tenant of English law of innocent until proven guilty. You do not need to prove you are innocent, as I said they go after the owner of the account that was used not who actually did the deed. Simply tell them you do not know who was using a computer on your network at the alleged time etc.

IIRC, the monitoring company was in Germany for the case Ed is helping with. Not 100% sure, so will check the paperwork when the kids are in bed.

Agreed about the innocent until proven guilty - which was my initial take on it, unencrypted network in a block of flats - could of been anyone. There may still be a case of liability for the account holder though, but that's yet to be tried in a court.

NIPs first require the vehicle owner to determine who was driving the vehicle, so I fail to see why copyright should be any different to road traffic.

[timwilky]

DL work with Logistep to gather IP addresses of P2P users. Logistep is registered in Switzerland, although it is based in Germany. That is the reason I said a Swiss company.

Until Logistep reveal to a court how they obtain the IP addresses they claim to be used to breach copyright, there is no way that thier evidence can be considered proof of any activity. Most european ISPs now refuse to work with these organisations. But at present in the UK it is all to easy to convince a judge to sign an disclosure order.

Stupid as they should only do this for a criminal activity. These allegation of breach of copyright are civil cases and the disclosure orders to the ISPs are not valid. But who is going to risk the rath of a judge by challenging his order for the sake of protecting a customers privacy in this country?

Originally Posted by timwilky

Until Logistep reveal to a court how they obtain the IP addresses they claim to be used to breach copyright, there is no way that thier evidence can be considered proof of any activity. Most european ISPs now refuse to work with these organisations. But at present in the UK it is all to easy to convince a judge to sign an disclosure order.

Stupid as they should only do this for a criminal activity. These allegation of breach of copyright are civil cases and the disclosure orders to the ISPs are not valid. But who is going to risk the rath of a judge by challenging his order for the sake of protecting a customers privacy in this country?

From the paperwork Ed sent me, it's quite obvious how the IP was obtained. As I believe the letter is worded, they were authorised by the copyright holder to obtain a copy of the works using the torrent network. Whilst doing this, they monitored IPs within the network that were also actively sharing the file(s).

As for the court order, I was honestly shocked by how little it costs. Not including taxes etc, DL paid just short of £8 to BT for the IP to name/address lookup.