It's not written that way but look at the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act under Chapter VI "Remedies for Infringement" (97)
"award such additional damages as the justice of the case may require."
So in effect it seems they can.
Being Sued by Atari/Davenport !
- Thread starter lakitu
- Start date
It's not written that way but look at the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act under Chapter VI "Remedies for Infringement" (97)
"award such additional damages as the justice of the case may require."
So in effect it seems they can.
That only works if you don't do due diligence and check that the IPs claiming to be part of the swarm actually have the material. Supposing they do check (and in the light of that research I can't believe they wouldn't), where's your argument then?
Associate
Since they're trying to nail them for uploading rather than downloading it doesn't actually matter if the OTHER clients in the swarm have the file, just that the accused was connected to the swarm and has the file. BUT how would you prove that the accused himself has the file apart from ordering his computer to be confiscated as evidence? (can they actually do that in civil cases?) Just checking the filename titles is proof of nothing as there's no guarantee the content of the file is what the filename says it is.
Soldato
Well as I posted in the other thread, the DMCA does not apply to Europe, what happens in the US will not happen the same way here...
hiya guys, i replied back to Davenport Lyons claiming my innocence with having my router's security enabled at the time (which what ive read is pretty flakey to bring up in court) i genuninly didnt download this game they are talking about.
My second letter basically said that ive now enabled my security and dont condone piracy and that i wanted a copy of the evidence they have on me.
They have now got back to me saying basically they have ready my letter and the first letter is all the evidence they neeed to present as well as claiming they have more than one peice of evidence on me and it only needs one and if i do NOT pay they will proceed with court receedings.
I am 100% prepared to goto court about this because our familiy solicitor has dealt with something similar before and beleives we will win the case.
Has anyone else received a letter like and can anyone give any advice on this?>
My second letter basically said that ive now enabled my security and dont condone piracy and that i wanted a copy of the evidence they have on me.
They have now got back to me saying basically they have ready my letter and the first letter is all the evidence they neeed to present as well as claiming they have more than one peice of evidence on me and it only needs one and if i do NOT pay they will proceed with court receedings.
I am 100% prepared to goto court about this because our familiy solicitor has dealt with something similar before and beleives we will win the case.
Has anyone else received a letter like and can anyone give any advice on this?>
Soldato
I have never understood why they don't sue GAME, they must be costing companies millions.
Adam goes and buys Sonic made by Sega for £20. Sega in this case makes £20 and Adam has had enjoyment of the game.
Adam gets bored so trades Sonic back to game for a different one.
Bill goes and buys adams copy of Sonic from Game, Sega makes no money. Adam and Bill have enjoyed from the game.
Bill trades it back to game, and Fred buys it.
Adam, Bill and Fred have enjoyed the game and Sega have only made £20 as opposed to £60 because three people have enjoyed it.
Adam goes and buys Sonic made by Sega for £20. Sega in this case makes £20 and Adam has had enjoyment of the game.
Adam gets bored so trades Sonic back to game for a different one.
Bill goes and buys adams copy of Sonic from Game, Sega makes no money. Adam and Bill have enjoyed from the game.
Bill trades it back to game, and Fred buys it.
Adam, Bill and Fred have enjoyed the game and Sega have only made £20 as opposed to £60 because three people have enjoyed it.
you should never of replied with any information that could incriminate yourself
dont reply to any other correspondance unless its a summons
Soldato
The only cases that Davenport have won in this respects are cases where the defendant has failed to turn up to court. You wont lose. Also, the ISP exception isn't flakey- it's rock solid. It's an absolute defence to any infringement claim and does not require you to have any formal user policy (unlike the US version).
Soldato
Can you explain that?
Section 28A of the CDPA 1988 provides an exception to infringement where such infringement is
If you have a router (like most people) then data will be transiently stored as it is passing through your router. If anyone connects to your router and downloads/transfers a file their IP (from an external view) will be the IP of the router (or rather everyone connecting through your connection shares the same IP). When they come and say you've infringed you thus say 'ahh I see that's my IP, but anyone could have connected to my router so it wasn't actually me. Under s28A I'm not liable as it was just transiently going through my router. I'd love to tell you where it ended up, but my router doesn't log connections - sorry!'. You're then effectively immune from being sued.
at the end of the day i honestly didnt download it, but i have so many people using the (at the time 3 computers) in my house its hard to keep track. I basically beleive someone was using my unsecured router as my mrs computer actually had a couple of requests about sharing its network with funny names etc as well as some strange behavior on our pcs!!
what i wanna know really is, do i take responsiblilty for someone in the house or someone using my router without permission to have done what they claimed and is it worth paying the £505 and having it over and done with
or do i risk calling there bluff and having them take me to court where im going to have to pay a solictor to defend me, possibly pay court bills and thousands more on something simply due to not understanding my router ?
what i wanna know really is, do i take responsiblilty for someone in the house or someone using my router without permission to have done what they claimed and is it worth paying the £505 and having it over and done with
or do i risk calling there bluff and having them take me to court where im going to have to pay a solictor to defend me, possibly pay court bills and thousands more on something simply due to not understanding my router ?
Soldato
LOL can anybody please explain why its a crime for knock off nigel to raid his own fridge? If he works and brings home the bacon then why cant he raid his own fridge when he likes?
And can anybody seriousley believe people would steal from a pub whiparound? The advert is a joke and there are more serious crimes in this world than selling a hookey copy of dark knight.
And can anybody seriousley believe people would steal from a pub whiparound? The advert is a joke and there are more serious crimes in this world than selling a hookey copy of dark knight.
so fini, your saying that basically im not liable for this under section 28a then ?
how will that stand in court ? because despite claiming im not responsbile in my last letter davenport actually said that this alone is a breach of my isp contract and that i should have my router secured ??
how will that stand in court ? because despite claiming im not responsbile in my last letter davenport actually said that this alone is a breach of my isp contract and that i should have my router secured ??
Soldato
But, it's better not to reply with the above - until a summons?
i understand this, but "WHAT IF!!!" they do actually send a court summons ? that means ill definitley have to goto court, meaning potentially i could be paying out £3,500 plus, depending on the strenght of the case and evidence they have against me ??