I agree with both of you, but even though the file-sharer is still in the wrong I'd still take his side in this case because, in my subjective and non-factual opinion, bullying someone for £800 is the worse crime here.
Davenport Lyons going against file sharers
- Thread starter Mr.X
- Start date
I agree with both of you, but even though the file-sharer is still in the wrong I'd still take his side in this case because, in my subjective and non-factual opinion, bullying someone for £800 is the worse crime here.
I suspect most of the £800 is legal fees, which can't be claimed in this instance since it would be a small claims hearing..
It could be, but you have to remember that the actions of DL are a follow on from the actions of the OP (or someone using his pc/internet connection). At no point does the OP claim he didn't do the action he is accused of, he's simply claiming that DL's ability to prove it is lacking and that is the reason why he's not going to pay.
As DL are acting in a reactive capacity, and the OP hasn't at any point claimed he hasn't done what they have accused him of, I'd say DL's position is rather reasonable, with the exception that their evidence gathering techniques need work. I wonder how the OP would react if they could clearly and in a court of law prove he has done that which he has never denied?
It's cheaper than sending you to court though, which is what they should be doing.
If they could prove it and take him to court he'd probably still cry about it, but they're not even trying to.
dont get me wrong im not condoning piracy far from it
if someone has infact downloaded a cracked copy of the latest game ,gets caught and it is proved in a court then fair enough and they deserve to pay the fair amount
Davenport Lyons are just trying to bully vulnerable people who will **** themselves into paying well over the odds
Offering an out of court settlement based on evidence likely to be presented is a very common situation in all sorts of cases.
You can't convict someone on hearsay or opinon. You have to provide the evidence to the court.
This is just another example of McCarthy witch hunts (watch "Good Night and Good Luck").
There's also the other point - if you comply woth DL's request to pay legal damages you have basically said "I did knowingly downloaded X". So next time they wish to point an 'infringement' they have grounds for it because you have a history (by your own admission)..
It is up to them to demonstrate infront of a court your guilt. They are not the law they are mearly people peer to you - they still have to go to the independent judge to hear the case.
Last edited:
Only in this case because there's no hope of them winning in court.
That said the moral of the story here is download your pirate material in a way that's legal.
Last edited:
What happens, though, if that evidence is flaky and wouldn't stand up in court if it ever got that far? Is it morally right for them to offer an out of court settlement in the hope that the recipient isn't going to realise the evidence is unreliable?
Thanks - will check it out... I don't tend to watch films very often. Maybe I'll download it via bit torrent
Only in this case because there's no hope of them winning in court.
That said the moral of the story here is download your pirate material legally.
Out of court settlements are an option offered, they don't have to be taken if you don't think the evidence will stand up and is flimsy enough that you'll be awarded costs against the other party.
As for the morality, it's no worse than piracy, it's both chancing your arm on the basis that you won't get caught out or punished
I've dealt with some dubious corporations who always refused (including two nationally known names) settle out of court and admit their wrongdoing, so this isn't exclusive to individuals...
Heh, yeah, good pointAs for the morality, it's no worse than piracy, it's both chancing your arm on the basis that you won't get caught out or punished
Soldato
er, what legal fees? Davenport Lyons are just being greedy.
DL are using evidence that is flaky at best, and likely to be insufficient for use in a court of law. Imo they're operating illegally, as the letter is arguably coercion.
Man of Honour
I guess you haven't seen a solicitor's bill then. That's not to say that they aren't being greedy. That's for a court to decide (see also bank charges case).
Associate
That's a good idea, but i wonder which side will they side since both side are a bit....
You send them a letter stating ;
You've no idea what they are talking about and you admit nothing
You are merely the Internet account holder and do not actually own a PC
You leave your wireless connection open
On any given day, several friends/neighbours/family/ninjas/whoever use your connection with their laptops
They send you a letter back saying they are going to drop the case but if they find your ip address again, they will prosecute fully. They make all kinds of accusations about how you can be held responsible for your Internet connection even though the German case they used to like to quote has no bearing on UK law and was overturned anyway.
That's about as far as they've got with people who actually confront them.
You've no idea what they are talking about and you admit nothing
You are merely the Internet account holder and do not actually own a PC
You leave your wireless connection open
On any given day, several friends/neighbours/family/ninjas/whoever use your connection with their laptops
They send you a letter back saying they are going to drop the case but if they find your ip address again, they will prosecute fully. They make all kinds of accusations about how you can be held responsible for your Internet connection even though the German case they used to like to quote has no bearing on UK law and was overturned anyway.
That's about as far as they've got with people who actually confront them.