Game Makers Accusing Innocent People of Piracy In the UK

eldavojohn writes "It's a topic that a lot of game makers like Atari don't want the public hearing: game makers wrongfully accusing clearly innocent people of piracy. From the article, 'According to Michael Coyle, an intellectual property solicitor with law firm Lawdit, more and more people are being wrongly identified as file-sharers. He is pursuing 70 cases of people who claim to be wrongly accused of piracy and has spoken to hundreds of others, he told the BBC.' If only a few are coming forward after receiving extortion letters ('Pay £500 OR ELSE!'), what's the actual number of those out there being wrongfully accused?"

Comments

Lawyers smelt money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyers figured out this is a way to print money. Why am I not surprised?

Its cheaper to pay them off than hire a lawyer and defend yourself. Many have no other choice.

Send out letters, receive money. Such a deal. Par for the course for for lawyers.

Re:Lawyers smelt money.

[Alain Williams]

I work for a law firm and I assure you this stuff is small fry for lawyers

Yes a one off would be small fry, but by the hundred or thousand it is good easy money. Get a senior partner to write a sufficiently blood curdling letter and then a junior legal secretary cut and pastes in the case by case name, address, etc. If there is any correspondence this is paid for by either the ''infringing'' punter or by the game maker.

Whichever way you look at it the legal parasites make money.

Re:The UK

[Kokuyo]

There is also no way that I need to decide which doctor I want to see... beside me liking having a choice.

There is also no way that I need to decide what clothes I want to wear. Someone else could do it for me and I still wouldn't suffer cold or make a fool of myself by walking around in the nude.

The fact that someone LIKES to do something should be enough of a point not have a discussion about who needs to do what. As long as a person, no matter the age, does not influence someone else's life overly negatively, they should be allowed to do whatever they please.

Since we are talking about kids that don't have the same kind of responsibility and rights as adults do, their guardians should be the ones to set the rules. Not the state.

Re:Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

You certainly aren't a lawyer. "Only the CPS can prosecute anyone"? WTF? That's the most retarded statement I've ever heard in my life. The CPS prosecutes on behalf of the state. Anyone else can privately prosecute. You can also be sued. Back to IANAL 101 for you.

-10 points for accusing the BBC of "misinformation" when you're talking total shit yourself and the BBC are accurate. And -5 for everyone who modded you up.

Re:The UK

[ultranova]

As disgusting as I find that (and saying that as someone who is regularly disturbed at night be drunk teenagers), it still doesn't equal a nationwide curfew for everyone.

First, it's for teenagers. Then it's for sex offenders. Then it's for convicted felons. Then you need to carry your identification papers with you at night to prove you're not one of them. Then being seen far from your house at night is grounds for arrest due to reasonable suspicion that you're up to no good. Then far means anywhere outside your front door.

Sometimes, the slope really is slippery.