Davenport Lyons bullying again

the shadow · 30 Oct 2008 at 13:15

The plight of Gill and Ken Murdoch has highlighted the case of innocent bystanders being caught in the war between the entertainment industry and those who flout the law by illegally downloading games over the internet.

The Murdoch couple, who run a home-based consultancy firm, have never played a computer game in their lives and yet they have been accused of illegally downloading Atari games - more particularly Race07 - after their IP address was singled out as being part of those involved in illegal filesharing.

London-based Lawyers, Davenport Lyons, who represent Atari have told the couple to pay £525 legal fees or face being taken to court and ultimately pay a more hefty fine.

They have had to go to consumer magazine Which? which then intervened and forced Atari and its lawyers to back-off.

The Murdochs argue that someone could have hijacked their IP address to distribute the Atari games illegally which is even more probable given that they do not use wireless networks.

Which? has criticised the heavy handed approach of Davenport Lyons which could mean that hundreds of others could be facing up the prospects of having to pay fines for crimes they did not commit.

The Murdoch's probably used a little known Which? service which allows individual to have unlimited access to a legal team for a fixed monthly fee on consumer issues.

a1ex2001 · 30 Oct 2008 at 13:20

I find it difficult to believe that they have never played a computer game bettween them in there lives, i mean not even a sneaky game of solitaire when they were bored?

I also expect there is more to the story than meets the eye, do they have kids or employees? We've been given very limited one sided facts so it's hard to reach a decision and certainly no more thread worthy than any other daily mail hyperbole.

B@Th*nG · 30 Oct 2008 at 13:41

i just hope it sets precedent that, if they can't pin down that this person DEFINATELY downloaded the product, they can't prosecute.

B@

a1ex2001 · 30 Oct 2008 at 13:53

B@Th*nG said:
i just hope it sets precedent that, if they can't pin down that this person DEFINATELY downloaded the product, they can't prosecute.

B@

I hope not I hope they decide that the owner of the broadband conection is responsible and if they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that your broadband conection was used to download illegal content then you will have to supply the name of the responsible individual or carry the can yourself.

B@Th*nG · 30 Oct 2008 at 14:01

a1ex2001 said:
I hope not I hope they decide that the owner of the broadband conection is responsible and if they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that your broadband conection was used to download illegal content then you will have to supply the name of the responsible individual or carry the can yourself.

even if someone has done it, like in this case, without the owner knowing?

Also, that's the point isn't it? "beyond reasonable doubt" i mean, that's the law, that's how it is, and what i'm saying is that because there IS doubt that it could be you it makes all other piracy claims very hard to prove as well!

B@

a1ex2001 · 30 Oct 2008 at 14:03

B@Th*nG said:
even if someone has done it, like in this case, without the owner knowing?

B@

Yep, take responsibility for your broadband conection, make it secure or switch it off when your not using it.

lord filbuster · 30 Oct 2008 at 14:07

a1ex2001 said:
Yep, take responsibility for your broadband conection, make it secure or switch it off when your not using it.

So if your car is stolen and used in a robbery, you should be held responsible?
Even using WPA isn't perfect. Besides, what level of security would be the minimum that would let you avoid liability? MAC filtering? WEP?
A different matter would be if you lend someone your car knowing they will use it to commit a crime, which isn't a particularly good comparison, since this is a criminal not civil matter.

fez · 30 Oct 2008 at 14:10

Neither is likely to happen. Think of the number of muppets that go on the internet. You cant hold them all responsible if thier network is compromised due to lack of knowledge. If you did that you would have to take the same tact for everything. If you get your credit card details stolen then its your own fault etc.

Burnsy2023 · 30 Oct 2008 at 14:46

a1ex2001 said:
Yep, take responsibility for your broadband conection, make it secure or switch it off when your not using it.

Why should you? What if you're part of an open wireless project where anyone has net access through your connection? You're not breaking any laws so why have to secure it?

DampCat · 30 Oct 2008 at 15:01

It's not a legal requirement to secure your wireless to any particular standard, or at all. Until it is, the blanket letters to offenders approach should be dropped for a more sustainable investigation.

a1ex2001 · 30 Oct 2008 at 15:03

Burnsy2023 said:
Why should you? What if you're part of an open wireless project where anyone has net access through your connection? You're not breaking any laws so why have to secure it?

Beacuse I'm sick to the back teeth of the bleeding heart stories I have to put up with everytime anyone mentions that piracy is illegal. I'm sick of downloading addicts and there 100GB a month of pron and TV shows they never watch clogging up the web while they real off there endless excuses. I'm not interested in the civil V's criminal thing anymore I can't listen to the try before they buy mob any longer and the next person who blames there piracy habit on the movie and music industry should be throttled.

This is just yet another excuse for tight thieving gits to use to defend there ways and get out of taking responsibility for there actions.

I just want it all to go away.

Abraham · 30 Oct 2008 at 15:04

Also everyone seems to be missing the point that they don't have a wireless network in this instance and think they've fallen foul to someone hijacking their IP

Pilky01 · 30 Oct 2008 at 15:04

An I.P address alone isn't enough to stand up in court is it?

Abraham · 30 Oct 2008 at 15:05

a1ex2001 said:
Beacuse I'm sick to the back teeth of the bleeding heart stories I have to put up with everytime anyone mentions that piracy is illegal. I'm sick of downloading addicts and there 100GB a month of pron and TV shows they never watch clogging up the web while they real off there endless excuses. I'm not interested in the civil V's criminal thing anymore I can't listen to the try before they buy mob any longer and the next person who blames there piracy habit on the movie and music industry should be throttled.

I just want it all to go away.

And because you dont want people giving crap excuses as to why they should be allowed to illegally download you think this company should be acting in an improper and illegal way, that's like me saying that because I'm fed up of people moaning about where they can park we should use cowboy clampers rather than traffic wardens.

Abraham · 30 Oct 2008 at 15:07

Pilky01 said:
An I.P address alone isn't enough to stand up in court is it?

No, Davenport Lyons have no case and are well aware of this, it is just a bully tactic to try and get people to settle their fabricated figure out of court. I couldnt care less about the legalities of people downloading things, it's irrelevant, Davenport Lyons shouldnt be sending these letters, it's as good as fraud as far as I can tell.

DampCat · 30 Oct 2008 at 15:08

Yes, and the police should arrest and imprison people based on their appearance rather than wait for them to commit a crime or listen to any defence they may have to the contrary.

B@Th*nG · 30 Oct 2008 at 15:16

a1ex2001 said:
Yep, take responsibility for your broadband conection, make it secure or switch it off when your not using it.

listen son, in the real world, where people have better things to do than fanny around with their network/internet security, people aren't just made culpable for all the wrongs in the world based on your bizarre sense of accountability.

B@

Pilky01 · 30 Oct 2008 at 15:18

a1ex2001 said:
Yep, take responsibility for your broadband conection, make it secure or switch it off when your not using it.

a) A lot of people dont have the knowledge to make it secure. For example my grandparents have a wireless network and they would have no idea how to make it secure.

b) It is very easy to hack a wireless network.

B@Th*nG · 30 Oct 2008 at 15:30

a1ex2001 said:
Beacuse I'm sick to the back teeth of the bleeding heart stories I have to put up with everytime anyone mentions that piracy is illegal. I'm sick of downloading addicts and there 100GB a month of pron and TV shows they never watch clogging up the web while they real off there endless excuses. I'm not interested in the civil V's criminal thing anymore I can't listen to the try before they buy mob any longer and the next person who blames there piracy habit on the movie and music industry should be throttled.

This is just yet another excuse for tight thieving gits to use to defend there ways and get out of taking responsibility for there actions.

I just want it all to go away.

Is this you?

B@

Dano · 30 Oct 2008 at 15:34

a1ex2001 said:
Yep, take responsibility for your broadband conection, make it secure or switch it off when your not using it.

If ISP's start offering fully detailed network security courses with a guaranteed pass to every client then maybe, up till they do that then no.