Porn Court Letters
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
everyone's got to make a living. seems like a good idea to me, people are much more likely to pay this pronoto than the letters received about games
There was an interesting case I read about in the news recently where some old couple got a Davenport Lyons letter accusing them of downloading some racing game. Thankfully common sense prevailed and they got let off as they had no interest in computer games - but how do you prove that you aren't interested in pr0n?
Pron on the net or scamming people for looking at pron on the net?
Both, definitely both!
Yes, they are definitely blood suckers for wanting to claim the money they should have go in the first place.
The bloodsuckers are definitely not those who leech copyrighted material. No, certainly not. How dare they encroach on the illegal activity of sharing copy righted media! DARN THOSE PESKY LAWYERS!
The point about people paying up because of the embarrassment factor reminds me of this story from years ago.
It was for something which appealed to the middle aged/elderly at a bargain price advertised in the back of national papers for something like £20 when it should have been £50.
The advert stated that they were "in limited supply" especially at the knock down price.
This was the pre days before switch was common and people posted cheques made payable to a normal company.
People would then get a cheque back with an apologetic letter saying the items had all been sold.
The refund cheque was from its sister company and the cheques had something like "S&M Bondage, rubber and ***** Supplies Ltd".
Surprisingly, when investigated, it transpired that less than 30% of the refund cheques were ever cashed as people were too embarrassed to go into their local bank and pay it in over the counter.
Wouldn;t work nowadays but as a scam, I always thought it was a good one.
It was for something which appealed to the middle aged/elderly at a bargain price advertised in the back of national papers for something like £20 when it should have been £50.
The advert stated that they were "in limited supply" especially at the knock down price.
This was the pre days before switch was common and people posted cheques made payable to a normal company.
People would then get a cheque back with an apologetic letter saying the items had all been sold.
The refund cheque was from its sister company and the cheques had something like "S&M Bondage, rubber and ***** Supplies Ltd".
Surprisingly, when investigated, it transpired that less than 30% of the refund cheques were ever cashed as people were too embarrassed to go into their local bank and pay it in over the counter.
Wouldn;t work nowadays but as a scam, I always thought it was a good one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Personally I would have thought that people pirating so much would have been a clue to record companies et al, that they can no longer charge the same prices they were.
So instead of wasting money on legal action why they don't come up with better strategies to make people buy their goods?
So instead of wasting money on legal action why they don't come up with better strategies to make people buy their goods?
I'm not condoning the actions of the pirates who are making "copies" but it does seem that quite a few people have been falsley accused according to the BBC article.
Also the people involved than this are less than reputable (it seems on both sides).
Why can't we just say "free porn for all" and be done with it?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
There's that argument of course and if you're going to take copyrighted material then you definitely can't take the moral highground or be entirely surprised if it comes back to haunt you. However Davenport Lyons do appear to be a complete bunch of chancers so I can understand why they would be called a bunch of blood suckers.
Incidentally Davenport Lyons wouldn't have received the money in the first place, they're simply claiming for (or on behalf of) other parties who are or were the copyright holders - I'm assuming they've been hired to do so but I don't know the workings of their arrangement in any real detail.
The majority do not due to the speed decrease.
Bobby's Bits and then Arse Ticklers Faggots Fan Club
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,499
Young Harlots In London
checks hardrive....phew i'm ok
though intrigued at title
checks hardrive....phew i'm ok
though intrigued at title
Anyone who has received a demand from Davenport should read this......
Media expert Michael Coyle at Southampton-based solicitors Lawdit, is fighting on behalf of individuals who have received the letter from Davenport Lyons.
He questions the amount demanded and methods used to identify computers alleged to have downloaded material. He believes the sum demanded is out of all proportion to the alleged injury. "In one case, Davenport Lyons wanted £500 for a £20 game. The alleged file-sharing would have cost only about £50 - the rest is legal costs."
"All they do is find the internet connection, demand the service provider reveal the name and address (not all do) and then send out a letter demanding cash. But the technology is flawed. It is easy to hijack a wireless router especially in a built-up area or a block of flats, so it is never clear who used what," says Coyle.
Coyle offers a £50 service for those who refuse to cave in to the demands as he believes some of the firm's successes are due to consumers paying up because they cannot afford the legal costs of defending themselves.
"They have won court cases including a high-profile £16,000 on a games download. But these have not been defended. My advice is to deny file sharing to any such request," he adds.
Media expert Michael Coyle at Southampton-based solicitors Lawdit, is fighting on behalf of individuals who have received the letter from Davenport Lyons.
He questions the amount demanded and methods used to identify computers alleged to have downloaded material. He believes the sum demanded is out of all proportion to the alleged injury. "In one case, Davenport Lyons wanted £500 for a £20 game. The alleged file-sharing would have cost only about £50 - the rest is legal costs."
"All they do is find the internet connection, demand the service provider reveal the name and address (not all do) and then send out a letter demanding cash. But the technology is flawed. It is easy to hijack a wireless router especially in a built-up area or a block of flats, so it is never clear who used what," says Coyle.
Coyle offers a £50 service for those who refuse to cave in to the demands as he believes some of the firm's successes are due to consumers paying up because they cannot afford the legal costs of defending themselves.
"They have won court cases including a high-profile £16,000 on a games download. But these have not been defended. My advice is to deny file sharing to any such request," he adds.