It has been reported that Zuxxex, a German games distributor, has hired Law firm Davenport Lyons to pursue around 500 British file-sharers. Davenport Lyons will (apparently) use this case to launch a new specialist practice in "volume litigation".
File sharers were reported under court orders served on eighteen ISPs at Davenport's request after computer forensic experts associated their IP addresses as sources for downloaders of Dream Pinball 3D, an unreleased (in the UK) game that goes on sale here in June.
The full story on The Register tells a tale (that if true) borders on bullying on the part of Davenport Lyons. The tale of one user Harry Bilbao, suggests that he was an innocent victim of a trojan horse who has been told by Davenport Lyons "In relation to your claim that your computer was hacked into, we regret that the security of your computer is not our concern. It is your responsibility to ensure that your computer is protected at all times."
Last time I looked at s.16(2) of the CDPA it stated "Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright." This requires to be proven by the Copyright Holder, something Davenport's seem to have forgotten in their rush to claim £250 legal fees from each "infringer".
Let's see £250 x 500 = £125,000 for sending out 500 letters and then bullying recipeints (who have been shown no evidence) - see Nick Farrel's report for The Inquirer.
My advice, if you get a letter don't pay. Spend your £600 on a lawyer.
Thursday, 29 March 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Do you know any lawyer that would take £600 and can defend this case properly? I can definitely see more money coming in from a counter-claim though, but £600 in legal fees wouldn't get you too far these days. This is exactly how Davenport Lyons manage to extort so much money - compared to the £350 penalty, legal costs are so big it doesn't make it worthwhile - many people have paid just to avoid the hassle not because they're guilty
No, obviously no lawyer is going to defend the case properly for £600, but it may perhaps be worth finding a reputable lawyer anyway as there are two low-cost scenarios which may follow. Scenario 1 is that for the cost of a lawyers formal letter (about £250-£400) Davenport Lyons may decide to drop the case against you. They have such tight margins on this (remember they are only getting £250 per claim) that to pursue defended claims aggressively is uneconomic. The second scenario is that one legal firm offers a class defence and splits the costs between respondents (as Davenports are doing).
I think the first scenario is more likely (actually quite likely) as Davenports are relying on the fact most people will pay to avoid the hassle (as you say). Their margins are so tight defended actions are not in their gameplan.
Hey Andrew,
Why would an objective person credit the unproven claim that a virus/trojan caused someone's PC to download and distribute a copyrighted video game? It sounds very far-fetched to me. It also sounds like a terribly convenient excuse for a defendant that has been caught red-handed.
The 'innocent victim' here is undoubtedly the German games maker. The firm is trying to launch a new product and it is stolen at least 500 times before the games maker has even released it to the market. Davenport Lyons is simply helping their client recover their losses. They should be praised not criticised.
Take care (and great blog!),
Russ
OfcomWatch
Hey Russ,
Nice to see you dropping in.
I guess I'm just doing what I always do and am playing devil's advocate (you should be familair with this approach).
I accept that copyright infringment has clearly occured and that the service offered by DL is a way for thecopyright holder to enforce their rights, it's just the unresponsive attitude of DL that bugs me. I realise they have to (1) protect their staff from reprisals and (2) make their sevice economical, but issues such as wireless hijacking (elsewhere on this blog) and zombies may occur and many people would be unaware of this happening until its too late - I accept you may have to (as with occupier's liability) accept responsibility for your network being abused but this strikes me as bullying the little man.
I would like cases like this to come with evidence from the pursuer not just bare claims.
Andrew
Post a Comment