Being Sued by Atari/Davenport !

IGNORE it. I've been court on a racing offence and believe me pleading guilty does not do you any favours at all. Tell them to bring it to court or stop harrassing you. If it goes to court put up a fight. Grow some balls.
 
Johnnytoxic said:
IGNORE it. I've been court on a racing offence and believe me pleading guilty does not do you any favours at all. Tell them to bring it to court or stop harrassing you. If it goes to court put up a fight. Grow some balls.
Click to expand...
Think I would go with this.

If they fully intend to take you to court, then you're not going to talk them out of it. If they're just trying to scare you into paying, then it would seem best to just ignore them.
 
ive been thinking of writing back with this

Below is a quote from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which shows exception to a case like mine, basically showing that I cannot be held responsible for the actions of people using my router, with or without permission.
“infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable -
(a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or
(b) a lawful use of the work;
and which has no independent economic significance.”
I think this is totally relevant in this case, as this claim you talk about can only have been downloaded/uploaded outside of this household meaning I neither condoned nor was aware of it.
I also recently found out that if somebody outside my household did use my router without my permission that it would still report as being my IP address, which I believe to have happend in this case.

Regarding what you said in your second letter about breaking my terms & conditions with my ISP by not knowing how to enable my routers security at the time well I really cannot understand why this was brought up as this is a separate issue and is between me and my ISP and nothing to do with this claim, you or your client.
Click to expand...
 
I'd be inclined to either ignore them by exercising your right just not to respond, or engage full proper legal advice. If you dabble you could end up digging yourself into a hole you'd rather not be in.
 
Liamb2005 said:
yeah but a lot of the davenport posts actually say if you ignore it they persist
Click to expand...

So they wont take you to court, and they (and other similar companies) are getting royally ass ****ed by the EU. iirc the last lot where disbarred.

Find that news artical and send them a link anonymously?
 
Liamb2005 said:
ive been thinking of writing back with this
Click to expand...

look, take everyones advice and just drop it before you dig a big hole for yourself

some of what you quoted could be construed as you knowing your router is being used for the intent of downloading pirated material

this kind of stuff is incriminating and doesnt help your case at all
 
Athanor said:
I'd be inclined to either ignore them by exercising your right just not to respond, or engage full proper legal advice. If you dabble you could end up digging yourself into a hole you'd rather not be in.
Click to expand...
Sorry, should have added the "or just pay up" option to that.
 
It's very similar to the Tv license. They scare you with letters. But unlike the TV license game companies have never gotten a conviction at court (from what I have read)
 
Athanor said:
Speaking of legally pointless.
Click to expand...
Not sure I completely agree

You kinda need to put that at the top of the post before someone reads it, you can't let someone read something on a forum and then introduce a phrase like "by reading (having already read!) this post you agree..."
Click to expand...
It's conditioning their use of the details in the post not limiting their right to read the post. As such, as they've yet to use the information in it there's no reason why you can't.

Apart from which as a private forum owned and operated by a company I’m not sure you'd be in any position to put any conditions on your post not already part of OCUKs specific forums terms and conditions.
Click to expand...
That makes no difference. If I posted a photo for example that photo is subject to copyright. Yet if I then gave someone permission (effectively a license) to use it as part of their project are you saying just because I've posted it on here I'm not free to do so?

How about if someone writes something hugely offensive or defamatory and then adds a line at the end saying "by reading this post you agree not to be offended or hold me responsible in anyway"? Bit late then really isn't it. ;)
Click to expand...
That clause wouldn't be legally enforceable. You can't exclude liability for defamation.

If seen cases where conditions in e-mail signatures have been held enforceable, it's really no different.
 
Whilst I sort of agree with what you're saying in general, and great that you took the time to help a poster out, my point is you can't "force" someone to agree to something after they've already taken an action they have every right to believe would not force them into an agreement.

Disclaimers are not widely used here so the OP had no reason to believe you'd force him to agree to something just by reading text he had no reason to believe carried any conditions.

Sure, make it clear that your "advice" isn't advice but opinion (lets face it, calling it a novelty post is clearly not the case, you genuinely are offering the OP advice) and not to take any action based on it because you could be wrong/don't know al the facts / whatever. I just don't believe you can in anyway enforce that a reader "agreed" to anything if you don't tell them they are agreeing to something until after the fact.

Ok, in your case it's harmless, it just seems like using legal jargon to bamboozal readers into agreeing to something which they may not have. Perhaps I'm just being sensitive to the "you agree by reading" after the fact which seems a bit off to tell my that I agreed to something when I'd already done it.

By the way, as I have replied to your post, as per my standard terms and conditions (available on request) you have agreed to incur a charge of 3 units of my time equating to a further £3000. This making people agree to stuff when it's too late to disagree is great, I may add this to my sig and be able to retire by October!! :D



*note* I am just kidding, nothing in this post is intended nor given as legal advice. No warranty nor indemnity is given as to the accuracy, suitability or any other facet of this post. By reading this post you agree that I shall not be liable for any and all direct and indirect losses including but not limited to damages and loss of profits as a result of this post. This post is given purely for novelty value and I in no way recommend that anything in it is taken as any sort of advice or acted upon as if it were. In any legal matter I suggest that you seek adequate legal advice. Your mileage may very. Terms and conditions apply. Approval subject to status. The value of your house may go down as well as up. It may rain tomorrow, that's not my fault either. ;)
 
Last edited:
Athanor said:
By the way, as I have replied to your post, you have agreed to incur a charge of 3 units of my time equating to a further £3000. This making people agree to stuff when it's too late is great, I may add this to my sig and be able to retire by October!! :D
Click to expand...
The difference is that you're imposing a duty on me where I'm conditioning the use of my IP. You've not purchased my post - I'm providing it gratis so it's not like you already have some sort of contractual agreement with me over it... Just how if you give someone something for free you can (legally) take it back at any time I can impose conditions on the use of my information at any time (although obviously they only become effective from that moment).
 
wow to be honest the guy was just trying to help the OP, the only reason he put all the legal crud at the bottom was to show that he has some kind of understanding of the law / is a solicitor. And that his advice should be taken heed of and not thrown away.

If he really cared about not being accountable he wouldnt have posted in the first place.
 
You get what I mean about stipulating someone has agreed to something after the fact though don't you?

Anyway just having a bit of a chuckle, I wouldn't take it too seriously. Just pointing out that legalise telling me I agreed to something after the fact, it's a bit of a done deal really isn't it.

Enough derailing from me though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom