UK Law Body Targets RIAA-Style Settlement Letters

PerformanceDude writes "The Register reports that a major UK law firm knew it sometimes had no reliable evidence of unlawful filesharing when it demanded hundreds of pounds in damages from internet users, according to the solicitors' watchdog. London-based Davenport Lyons threatened thousands of people with legal action for alleged copyright infringement between 2006 and 2009. They were told that by quickly paying around £500 damages, plus costs, they could avoid court. Following complaints to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Davenport Lyons now stands accused of deliberately ignoring concerns over the standard of its evidence."

Comments

Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take "Barratry" for $1000 Alex.

Re:Jeopardy

[Pharmboy]

According to Wikipedia, "In England and Wales the offence was abolished in 1967."

excellent

[mirix]

Now if firms responsible will actually be punished for false claims, we might be going somewhere.

Re:excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

To bad this hasn't happened on the other side of the pond... yet.

I honestly don't know what's worse here. The lack of ethics in a field which purports to have some level of authority, for justices' sake. Or, the level to which greed will strip so many individuals of some semblence of conscience. Since, essentially, they're willing to ruin average peoples lives financially.....

Alas, my faith in humanity retains its below normal level.

Re:excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe much will change even if they're punished this time, if press coverage is needed for someone to take action it won't do any good in the long run. The Register's report wasn't a shocker, everyone knows claims like these aren't backed up by solid evidence. Everyone knows who the corporate mafia is and what it does, but nothing is done.

Re:excellent

[zmollusc]

Yes, we will be going along the happy-sunshine road in make-believe-land.

Re:excellent

[kegon]

Don't get your hopes up. This is regarding some action being taken by a watchdog body. We don't know what the outcome is yet, we don't know if they will take any action or how strong any reprimand, if any, will be given. Furthermore, this won't be enshrined in law or necessarily have any relevance to future cases. I believe there is a very high chance they will get a light slap on the wrists and a don't do it again.

Re:excellent

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Over many years I have spent much more time with various lawyers than I ever wanted. One of the most valuable things I learned is that when a lawyer sends you a letter saying something like "In our opinion XYZ..." you should pay very close attnetion.

XYZ usually involves some sort of claim to back up a demand and not only is XYZ frequently untrue but it would be almost impossible for a practising lawyer to believe XYZ is true. That is why it is presented as an opinion rather than as a fact from an expert [the lawyer] ... so that when Mr. ABC goes before a judge he can't say "Boondoggle and Co. claimed it was illegal for me to not pay them..." then Boondoggle can defend themselves with "that was just our opinion at the time, we made no claims as to its accuracy and Mr. ABC is responsible for obtaining his own legal advice." Boondoggle and Co. are simply hoping that Mr. ABC will assume a lawyer would not outright lie or that he can't afford a lawyer of his own, or both, and will pay up without determining the truth.

This just sounds like more in the same vein but they stumbled a wee bit far over the line - smarter lawyers would have done it in such a way as to be beyond meaningful discipline.

Re:excellent

[jimicus]

One assumes there comes a point where if a solicitor's (UK term equivalent to "lawyer") entire business plan is based around sending out letters that begin "In our opinion..." - while making a statement that cannot possibly be the opinion of a qualified solicitor because there's no evidence to favour that opinion and plenty of evidence against it - it becomes an issue.

Of course, what TFS doesn't say is that solicitors are essentially self-regulating - the SRA is just another bunch of solicitors.

Re:excellent

[91degrees]

the SRA is just another bunch of solicitors.

This is true. They o have an incentive toact if the entire profession is being brought into disrepute though, and threatening hundreds of people for filesharing is such a small part of the overal profession's income (which is presumably mostly property, wills and small business contracts) that there's not a lot of harm to putting a stop to it.

Re:excellent

[commodore64_love]

>>>The lack of ethics in a field which purports to have some level of authority, for justices' sake. Or, the level to which greed will strip so many individuals of some semblence of conscience.
>>>

"Ambition and avarice... when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effect." - Benjamin Franklin was discussing government when he wrote those words. - "And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters?"

"It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government, and be your rulers."

Re:excellent

[jabuzz]

The partners of the firms in question are significantly at risk of being disbarred.

Re:excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on how hard you punish them, if you debar every one of their lawyers who were involved in this circus, fine the firm out of existance and forbid the owners from operating/owning/controlling any sort of business endeavour for the next 20 or so years it will get press coverage and it would give others who are tempted to do something similar a serious chill effect.

Even if you can't punish the companies hard enough, you can stop this shit if you punish all the involved lawyers hard enough and often enough that no lawyer would ever want to be involved in this sort of scheme again for fear of forever loosing his livelihood.

It's all just about hitting em hard enough where it really hurts and keep doing it until they stop or perish, thats what the MAFIAA is trying to do to everyone they can get a shot at for filesharing etc wether they are guilty or not, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

Excellent advice

[$RANDOMLUSER]

(UK Law) (Body Targets) (RIAA Style Settlement Letters)

Double tap to the body, then the kill shot to the head.

Re:Excellent advice

[rts008]

Double tap to the body, then the kill shot to the head.

LOL!
That took me back 30+ years, to Urban Warfare training.
*Big Scary Drill Sergeant® yelling at us*
"Two in the chest, and one in the head,
and even the Jolly Green Giant will fall down dead!"

Re:Excellent advice

[AnAdventurer]

Known as the Mozambique drill, invented for close quarters combat (CQB) by Mike Rousseau (added/refined with moden combat drills by Jeff Cooper) for use against the highly drugged opposing force at the time of it's "invention".

Still a long way to go

[Toy G]

Davenport-Lyons was the legal firm who started this racket, which was then relaunched under ACS:Law; Gallant-Macmillan was the third entity to try it.
Only the first group of evildoers has been obliterated; the second has been damaged, but it's still in the game; the third one is still cranking out letters, although in a fairly restrained manner (in this case, it's really their customer who is pushing hard). And, eventual enforcement of the Digital Economy Bill, currently expected for late January 2011, will probably open the floodgates to hordes of copycats.

There's still a long way to go for the legal situation around UK filesharing to get back to anything resembling sanity.

Re:Still a long way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

And, eventual enforcement of the Digital Economy Bill, currently expected for late January 2011, will probably open the floodgates to hordes of copycats.

Don't worry. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats promised to fight against the DEB. I think we can rely on them.

Re:Still a long way to go

[Grumbleduke]

The Digital Economy Act has been in force since June. However, the Initial Obligations Code (the first step to cutting people's Internet connections) is now set to be finalised in April (due to the Government being slow, not due to concerns over a lack of consulting or research time).

However, before it comes into force it needs to be approved by both Houses of Parliament and the European Commission. There's a slight chance that any one of these might kick up a fuss about it. Having read the draft code and spoken to Ofcom and other lobbyists, they do seem to be making it as ridiculous as possible...

Re:Still a long way to go

[L4t3r4lu5]

I have a letter from my local MP (Lib Dem) stating she would tow the party line and vote against the DEB when it was introduced during the wash-up.

She didn't turn up.

When the local elections come around again, I'll be sure to send her a copy of the letter with a copy of the list of those in attendance, and a scrap of paper saying "Lying politicians lose votes."

Re:Still a long way to go

[Gordonjcp]

Only the first group of evildoers has been obliterated; the second has been damaged, but it's still in the game;

It's worth pointing out that legal firms that are *not* currently involved in this nonsense are scurrying around trying to consolidate their position of "Too hot, wouldn't touch it with someone else's stolen ten-foot shitty stick". If *lawyers* are prepared to stay away from a money-making scheme because it's too dirty...

Re:Still a long way to go

[tehcyder]

In five years time (after the next election), LibDems will be extinct like the Dodo, except in their case it will be entirely their own fault. I

I wouldn't vote for a LibDem now if the two other names on the ballot paper were Rosemary West and Myra Hindley.

Re:Still a long way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

The Digital Economy Act is up for judicial review right now actually - it's hard to say what will come of that, but at least it's one more hurdle for the bastards.

Re:Still a long way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

God, that election couldn't have gone better for Labour. They manage to torpedo a leftist coalition, sit in opposition for five years while necessary cuts are made, all the while squawking about how the Lib Dems are traitors, and utterly destroy the only credible third party, much more of a threat to them than the Conservatives.

I voted Lib Dem to get election reform. By entering a coalition, they got a referendum on election reform. That's a fucking success. If doing that destroyed their political careers, they're fucking heroes and should go down in history as such. I rue how public opinion is dominated by shortsighted partisan bastards like you.

Re:Still a long way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted lib dem for everything else they said they would deliver and the lines they would never cross. Shortsighted one-issue bastards like you make me sick. Fuck you - if you say you'll stand against higher tuition fees to get elected then don't make that stand once you are elected you're a lying twat. You got your little one issue and you're happy. The rest of us got raped, so fuck you for supporting them still.

Expensive legal defense

[BadAnalogyGuy]

As long as an effective defense is more expensive than out of court settlement, this type of harassment will exist. Even though Davenport Lyons may have known that some of the recipients of the letter were not guilty of anything, it would have been time consuming to figure out which ones they were. And with the state of the courts these days, it was more effective to take a wide view and hit everyone they could.

Until the government provides basic defense in all cases, this type of thing will continue.

Re:Expensive legal defense

[pookemon]

"harassment"

I'd call this "Black Mail" or "Extortion". Even if the person is involved in the file sharing, and there is evidence as such, this is still black mail.

Re:Expensive legal defense

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the government not provide grounds for such imaginary property in the first place? Let them sue for actual physical things stolen, then it's hard to fabricate evidence in the first place.

Re:Expensive legal defense

[sjames]

Yes, in much the same way it's more effective if I just steal what I want. There are minimum standards to how sure you need to be before you demand settlement under threat of lawsuit. While that standard falls well below absolute certainty, they were nowhere near meeting it. Unfortunately, a rule with no enforcement is no rule at all and there are always bottom feeders out there ready to take advantage of it.

Re:Expensive legal defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the government provides basic defense in all cases, this type of thing will continue.

I think you're wrong. This kind of thing will continue until there are actual consequences (i.e. hard prison time) for deliberately falsely accusing someone.

Re:Expensive legal defense

[mpe]

As long as an effective defense is more expensive than out of court settlement, this type of harassment will exist. Even though Davenport Lyons may have known that some of the recipients of the letter were not guilty of anything, it would have been time consuming to figure out which ones they were. And with the state of the courts these days, it was more effective to take a wide view and hit everyone they could.

Whilst this may be the case in the US it probably isn't the case in the UK. For the amounts involved courts would use the "small claims procedure" which is specifically intended to favour litigants in person. Whilst either side in such a case can operate through lawyers they do so entirely at their own expense. IIRC the only court cases Davenport Lyons/ACS:Law/whatever they are calling themselves currently have "won" have been as "judgment by default". i.e. the defendent didn't reply to the summons or show up to the hearing.
Sending out what amount to invoices is cheap. Issuing a court summons costs money. If the defendant disagrees that they owe the money you need to produce some actual evidence they can also countersue you. At least in the UK if one party is an individual and the other is not then the former has the choice of where any hearing will be held. This means that if someone used a London law firm to sue someone in Newcastle they'd potentially have to pay the cost of sending someone from that firm to court there with no chance of recovering the cost of travel and possible hotel stay.

Re:Expensive legal defense

[jimicus]

Thing is, the legal system sees itself as an independent arbiter of disputes - which, indeed, is its purpose in civil cases. It's not meant to be the hired thug for some big company. (We'll let the fact that this is frequently exactly what corporates use the legal system for slide...)

Therefore, as far as the system is concerned, writing a letter containing legal threats is broadly equivalent to writing a letter saying "I think you've done this thing, and I'm happy to take this to an independent arbiter and we'll see what he says. If you'd rather avoid all the hassle that's likely to entail, we may be able to reach some agreement".

This means it's very difficult to argue that a legal threat constitutes blackmail or extortion.

Re:Expensive legal defense

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Are you sure about all of that? I've been looking into a small claims action recently, and the form you put in does have a box for fees for the lawyers, for example. I get the feeling it's more of a cultural thing, where if an individual is up against a company and the company shows up with £10,000 of lawyers to defend a £100 case then the court is unlikely to award costs. I'm not sure your description of where the case would be heard is entirely consistent with what I've been reading either.

Re:Expensive legal defense

[uglyduckling]

Yup. A different, but similar vein, is that a lot of debt collection agencies have been buying up old [alleged] debts and trying to collect on them. I've had a couple of letters over the past few years demanding payment + interest for a phone bill I allegedly didn't pay years ago. Both times I've written a polite letter back asking for copies of the bill and stating that I would happily pay on sight of those copies - both times the company backed down. If I ever had a Davenport Lyons letter I think I would do the same thing - politely write, asking for IP addresses, times, and the exact details of the alleged infringements and state that I would look into all the users of my internet connection.

One interesting thing is that, AFAIK, under British law you have to prove the person not just the address for an alleged crime. For instance, more than a few people have defended a speeding ticket by stating something along the lines of "I own the vehicle, four of my family members are insured to drive it, I wasn't driving it that day and wasn't at home, and I cannot tell who was the driver". Unless the photos clearly show the driver's face or other distinguishing feature, you can't prosecute. In my grandparents' town there were notorious twin brothers about 50 years ago who dressed identically and wore the same hair style etc.. One of them would go out and commit robberies, the other would sit in plain view in the village pub drinking beer. Both would deny the crime, and neither could be prosecuted despite a positive ID. There's still photos of them on the wall of that pub. Anyway, I digress...

Re:Expensive legal defense

[stupid_is]

One interesting thing is that, AFAIK, under British law you have to prove the person not just the address for an alleged crime. For instance, more than a few people have defended a speeding ticket by stating something along the lines of "I own the vehicle, four of my family members are insured to drive it, I wasn't driving it that day and wasn't at home, and I cannot tell who was the driver". Unless the photos clearly show the driver's face or other distinguishing feature, you can't prosecute.

That loophole is now closed for speeding tickets - if the registered keeper can't say who was driving, then they still get slapped with at least the fine and, in this case, all 6 points. I've seen other articles where the fine and points were divided between potential drivers (in the case where they said "it was a long journey and we alternated, but can't say who was at the wheel at the time"). There's been quite a few cases of this nature getting thrown out.

Re:Expensive legal defense

[tehcyder]

"harassment" I'd call this "Black Mail" or "Extortion". Even if the person is involved in the file sharing, and there is evidence as such, this is still black mail.

No, there is a different question if the person is, in fact, involved in file-sharing, namely if they were sued and found liable, what would a UK court actually make them pay? Has this been tested in court yet? Someone like the Pirate Bay should fund a test case.

One thing is for sure, it wouldn't be the tens of thousands of dollars that you get in US cases.

Re:Expensive legal defense

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that not exactly black mail? I know something you don't want others to know and I'm going to tell them if you don't X is the text book definition of black mail. What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously? Thats not black mail to you? What is? I hate to write so many short questions like that, but damn son, I'm flummoxed.

Re:Expensive legal defense

[tehcyder]

Bollocks, in the UK the registered keeper of the vehicle is responsible for crimes committed by/in it unless he can prove otherwise. Otherwise everyone would just say "oh, that morning I actually let some bloke in the pub borrow my car, so you can't do me for speeding, but no I don't know his name or anything."

Re:Expensive legal defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus. It's not "I know something you don't want others to know", it's "I have a case against you in a court of law". Say your kid throws a ball and breaks your neighbour's window. He could sue you. Is he entitled to just ask you to pay up and forget about it? Of course. It's his choice whether to take you to court or come to an agreement, his choice to make that offer, your choice to take it or go to court. Disregarding the whole massively important evidence and absolutely ridiculous damages issues, that's exactly what's going on here. There's nothing wrong in principle with offering private settlement.

In these cases, it sort of is blackmail, but that's nothing to do with the framework of the offer. It would be perfectly legitimate if the hearings were fair and the damages were sane.

Re:Expensive legal defense

[uglyduckling]

No, that's not true, although you're right that the loophole is gradually being closed. The registered keeper is obliged to provide information about who was driving the vehicle at the time. If they genuinely don't know (e.g. a company car shared between several employees) then they can't be prosecuted for a crime they didn't committ. They can be prosecuted for failing to give information - so you're not responsible for crimes commited by/in your vehicle, but you are responsible for providing information about your vehicle. No law in the UK makes a person guilty of a crime "unless he can prove otherwise".

Re:Expensive legal defense

[sorak]

This is what tort laws are for. These people weighed the benefit of following the law against the benefit of breaking the law, with fines, penalties, and lawyers fees being just variables in an equation (and the moral implications of trying to shake down innocent people possibly included as a PR expense). They then decided that they were better off violating the law.

Strong tort laws exist not to reward people for falling down or burning themselves, but to punish those who would ignore the law because of a cost benefit analysis, like these people did.

I don't know if UK tort laws work like US tort laws, but I hope someone sues for lawyers fees and "pain and suffering", presenting this as evidence. It may not stop them from suing the guilty, but it may make them much more cautious about who they sue.

How about "Treble Damages" for Wrongful Settlement

[syntap]

Seems fair for their side, triple refund plus an apology in the Daily Mail if the victim wants it.

A pro for ACTA?

[wrencherd]

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the law here, but this may actually be a plus for ACTA since it would require legitimate, gov'tal authority to investigate infringement.

Re:A pro for ACTA?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how much would that cost the taxpayer, law enforcement resources are already low, what will happen if they have to investigate 10000 prioritized copyright violations every day?

Re:A pro for ACTA?

[tehcyder]

Why would law enforcement agencies be involved? These are civil cases.

This has nothing to do with the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

It's purely greedy lawyers who decide to put profit over doing the right thing. These are the ambulance chasers and injury fakers of the world, and how they act has nothing to do with any merits the RIAA may or may not have.

They'd be doing the exact same damn thing if they could get money from the GPL, from Ponzi Schemes, or deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge.

It is OK if you can get away with it ....

[Alain Williams]

and don't get caught: was how a legal person explained to me about lying in court. Basically some solicitors will do anything to line their pockets.

How to know?

[niBee]

How would the recipient know that the firms hold or do not hold any evidence against them? And because of that uncertainty most would just pay up rather than risk a court hearing. This is under the assumption that at least the people here at least once in their life did participate in illegal file sharing

Re:How to know?

[tehcyder]

How would the recipient know that the firms hold or do not hold any evidence against them? And because of that uncertainty most would just pay up rather than risk a court hearing. This is under the assumption that at least the people here at least once in their life did participate in illegal file sharing

As someone has mentioned above, the first thing you do is write to them asking for details/proof of the alleged copyright infringement. After that, even if you have done some file sharing, you just spin it out as long as possible and hope they give up. Just before finally going to court, they will probably make an offer, at that stage it might be cheaper than actually going to court (for example, is it worth having to take a day of work to avoid a £50 fine?). Although even if you do lose in court, the judge will surely only make you pay minimal damages.

Re:How about "Treble Damages" for Wrongful Settlem

[Anonymous Coward]

And oral sex from the best looking secretary! That's about as likely to happen.

I wish we did that here.

[laughingcoyote]

Apparently, English civil courts require real evidence when you bring a case before them.

It's kind of a neat idea. Here, it's "Well, we have an IP address that we think the defendant used around that time!" We should adopt that standard here in the good old US. Actual, hard evidence. What a great idea!

Re:I wish we did that here.

[Mouldy]

That hard evidence is not actually that hard. It doesn't have any weight behind the idea of who committed the act using the IP address. Consider this scenario;

A teenager, Bob, downloads a few albums off the web. Bob's dad, John, is the account holder with the ISP. When lawyers go poaching and tell John's ISP that xyz IP address was used to download copyright content, the ISP gives them John's details. After getting a letter from the lawyers, John, denies downloading the content. Because he didn't. Or maybe the letter asks John who was downloaded the material x months ago at 20:32. John says "How tf am I supposed to know?" - maybe he has a few kids. Maybe he has a wireless network that isn't properly secured. Maybe the time in question is so long ago that it's unreasonable for John to know who was using what.

Saying an IP address downloaded something illegally is one thing. Pinning the crime onto an actual person is a very big leap and leaves lots of room for reasonable doubt imo. I'd love to hear of one of these cases going to court and someone tries the "I'm sorry, but I don't know who was using the computer then" defence.

Re:I wish we did that here.

[FatLittleMonkey]

I'd love to hear of one of these cases going to court and someone tries the "I'm sorry, but I don't know who was using the computer then" defence.

Wilful negligence is generally not accepted as a defence. In most cases, laws only allow specific listed types of defences. As the primary account holder, the dad takes responsibility for whatever happens on the account that he could "reasonably" control. (Reasonable in the eyes of a 70 year old judge.)

(IANAL, IANYL.)

Re:I wish we did that here.

[uglyduckling]

I don't think that's true. I think negligence would only be an issue for something that someone could reasonably be expected to control, e.g. if you owned a gun and left it lying around you might have some culpability if a murder was committed using it (though you probably wouldn't be guilty of murder). I don't think you could be expected to control something that has both legal and illegal uses where it's difficult to tell what use is being made of it.

Re:I wish we did that here.

[Drakkenmensch]

Pfffffffft. Everyone knows that copyright lawsuits have nothing to do with evidence!!!

Re:I wish we did that here.

[tehcyder]

It's a civil matter, the court doesn't need evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" only on the balance of probabilities

Trying to get clever and saying that, yes that was your IP address at the time and oh look there's the file on your computer, but it was possible that a tramp sneaked into your house and downloaded it that night, won't get you very far.

Nothing less...

[JockTroll]

... Than civil death will do. Have all the lawyers involved permanently disbarred, charge everyone down to the cleaning lady with being accessory to blackmail and extortion. Permanent mark on their criminal record, so they will have to struggle mightily even to get a job flipping burgers. Let's see how those crooks like it, having to say goodbye to their fine houses and expensive cars and having to move to cheap flats while their kids say goodbye to Eton and become shank fodder in the mean streets of Old Blighty.

Re:Nothing less...

[rts008]

...charge everyone down to the cleaning lady with being accessory...

While I agree with rest of your comment, I feel this might be over-reacting by including the 'cleaning lady'.

Most likely, the cleaning staff is an employee of a cleaning service company that was hired by the law firm.

You would be better off recruiting them as spies.

1. They usually have, or can get access to most areas of a building, mostly unsupervised!- a lot of fun can be had here!
2. You would be amazed at what they can find in the trashcans they are emptying!- a veritable goldmine of data/info
3. People ignore them and act like they are part of the furniture...they overhear things, a lot of things!

But, on the other hand, they are prime suspects when the shit hits the fan, because of those very same three things.

Re:Nothing less...

[mpe]

3. People ignore them and act like they are part of the furniture...they overhear things, a lot of things!

Cleaning staff might overheard even more if they talk amongst themselves in a foreign language.

We blow your tweeters

[tepples]

Are you sure it isn't "treble damages" as in "you 'steal' our music, we blow your tweeters"?

Re:We blow your tweeters

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a legal term, use teh googl3s

Re:We blow your tweeters

[EdIII]

we blow your tweeters

Man, I need to brush up on my British slang. Sounds quite naughty though.

Re:We blow your tweeters

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a joke, use t3h sense of humour, m8t3.

Re:We blow your tweeters

[Anonymous Coward]

> Man, I need to brush up on my British slang. Sounds quite naughty though.

I rather should gen up on my banter, old chap. Sounds quite naughty though.

FTFY

Wow, that's just like this story...

[scdeimos]

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/11/19/1339220

Anti-Piracy Lawyers 'Knew Letters Hit Innocents'
Posted by Soulskill on Sat November 20, 0:31
from the collateral-profit dept.

nk497 writes "A UK legal watchdog has claimed lawyers who sent out letters demanding settlement payments from alleged file-sharers knew they would end up hitting innocent people. The Solicitors Regulators Authority said the two Davenport Lyons lawyers 'knew that in conducting generic campaigns against those identified as IP holders whose IP numeric had been used for downloading or uploading of material that they might in such generic campaigns be targeting people innocent of any copyright breach.' The SRA also said the two lawyers lost their independence because they convinced right holders to allow them to act on their behalf by waiving hourly fees and instead taking a cut of the settlements. The pair earned £150,000 of the £370,000 collected from alleged file-sharers. Because they were looking to recoup their own costs, the lawyers ignored clients' concerns about the negative publicity the letter campaign could — and eventually did — cause, the SRA claimed."

Re:Wow, that's just like this story...

[SleazyRidr]

You must be new here.

A rose by any other name

[Capsaicin]

Though I can't speak with authority on English law, the fact that 'barratry' per se was abolished doesn't mean that courts are necessary left without remedy against vexatious litigants. For example here in NSW 'rape' was similarly abolished. That doesn't mean you can get away with raping anyone, you'll simply be charged with 'sexual assault,' instead.

That being said this isn't really barratry (which is not generally as profitable). It is, especially as it is being conducted by a firm of lawyers, something much worse. Perhaps closer to 'extortion' (which they also abolished around the same time as barratry). One hopes the SRA spanks their joint and several botties!

Re:A rose by any other name

[nosferatu1001]

Mainly this is lawyers not acting under direction from a client. Which is entirely against the rules that lawyers are supposed to operate under.

Fingers crossed ACS Law will also get rapped, as they were doing the same using "assets" from DL

Re:A rose by any other name

[rtb61]

There is also 'The intentional infliction of mental harm' under tort which covers things like invasion of privacy and the threat of being sued, including your court costs and the penalties even when you are innocent.

So clearly in the case of the threatening letters there was an intention to inflict mental harm upon the victims and thus extort a payment from them, under tort law this should enable a class action lawsuit to be brought against the attorneys for the harm they have inflicted, where evidence was insufficient for actions to be brought against the defendants.

Re:A rose by any other name

[Anonymous Coward]

A suitably draconic response would be to debar any and all of their lawyers who participated in any such lawsuit or threat thereof and then fine the firm out of existance and ban the owners from from starting or leading any sort of organization for the next 20 or so years. And then fine their clients(if they instigate or knowingly participated in these extortions) for 10% of their annual income.

That should be setting enough of an example to discourage any future attempt at this

Re:A rose by any other name

[Anonymous Coward]

A suitably draconic [sic.] response ...

Why not just nuke London instead? That'll get em!

Thankfully we don't have punishments meted out by judges who make the penalties up as they go along and don't even know how to spell existence.

Re:A rose by any other name

[Capsaicin]

Mainly this is lawyers not acting under direction from a client. Which is entirely against the rules that lawyers are supposed to operate under.

Yes, that's very close to what was happening here. Now the copyright holders were clients of the firm, and presumably instructed the lawyers at least in some vague way to protect their interests in the works under question.

However in sending these notices to specific persons the firm was implying that they were under instruction from their clients to take action against those persons. Clearly they were not and such monies as they did collect were collected by deception. A deception founded on the fact that they were lawyers.

This is why I compared it to extortion, which was the wrongful taking of money or valuables by a public officer under colour of their office. And it is also why I noted that it was wrong, especially as this was a firm of lawyers. A collection agency doing this would merely be kite flying (and their prey would likely know it).

Though lawyers are not actually public officials, I believe in the UK, as here, they are officers of the court with a primary duty to the court (ie. justice and the due administration of law) and a secondary duty to their clients. They are in any case, invested with their status by the proclamations by public bodies (including the court), charged with regulating the admission of lawyers to practice.

As far as their duty to their client is concerned ...we cannot know, nor will we, what specific instructions the clients did give, however in the usual course of events the cost of sending letters &c. would only be incurred once specific instructions were received to pursue any given person.

Re:A rose by any other name

[Capsaicin]

There is also 'The intentional infliction of mental harm' under tort which covers things like invasion of privacy ...

Are you certain such a tort exists at English law?

Re:A rose by any other name

[rtb61]

Do you think I could make up something like that, I picked it up at a internet law reference site.

Re:A rose by any other name

[Capsaicin]

Do you think I could make up something like that,

No, I think you could be confusing torts (or species of damage) actionable in US jurisdictions with those available elsewhere in the common law world.

I picked it up at a internet law reference site.

A US internet law reference site, or a British one? More to the point, do you have any English curial authority relevant to the tort of "intentional infliction of mental harm."

When I was at Law School the only "mental harm" recognised in English or Australian law was nervous shock, which requires a diagnosable mental illness to present. And that was as a category of damage actionable under the tort of negligence. Psychological distress, in general, not being actionable.

If you could give me the citation for the case which has changed this at England law, I'd be most interested.

Re:Mor On

[sumdumass]

Just remember, when hanging out there, it's better to be more on then more off.

re Priceless!

[jelizondo]

Getting an advert for a $99 DMCA takedown notices in a RIAA article...Priceless!

You know what they say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Two in the chest and one in the head,
Always leaves the target dead!

Re:Mor On

[Zaphodox]

actually blackmail is a concocation of black and mail so either is correct. Just as couldnt and shouldnt are merely the concocation of Could/Should and Not. Check up the root of the word and why black mail is called black mail before you berate people.

Re:How about "Treble Damages" for Wrongful Settlem

[Scarletdown]

How about adding on a free weekend at Castle Anthrax as well?

Or is that too perilous?

Re:Mor On

[Plombo]

Concocation? You mean concatenation?

tempting moral rectitude

[S1ngularity]

I am nephew of most glorious king of Nigeria. We have on good authority that by electronic means you having received illegal copy of wedding video featuring your music stars performance of Britney Spears. Wire $1,000US to account now to avoid embarrassing expensive litigation.

Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealing is OK if you're on Slashdot.

Re:Of course

[dave420]

Not knowing the meaning of the word "stealing" is OK if you're in Kindergarten.

Re:Of course

[mcgrew]

Maybe he means the record labels' extortion of thie customers? That most certainly is stealing.

Re:Of course

[dave420]

Surely their extortion would be extortion?

Britain is not America

[91degrees]

In fact one of the regular concerns in British civil law seems to be being too American. The heavy litigation culture in the US is generally seen as a warning.

As mentioned in the article, a law firm is required to act in the best interests of its client. I'm sure this is the case in the US as well, but in Britain it's taken very seriously. But there are other factors to consider.

There are no statutory damages in English copyright law (as far as I'm aware. IANAL). The damages that can be claimed are the ones that can be demonstrated on court. Litigation should in general be avoided. After a settlement letter, it would be quite reasonable for the recipient to request a justification of the charge. Since legal fees can not be claimed for small claims, this would have to be based on actual losses. Now, assuming you want to accept responsibility (perhaps you actually did share the file) presumably offering to pay the actual retail cost of the infringing file would be a reasonable counter offer. If they reject that they'll need to justify the amount they're charging. £500 for writing a letter does not look like a reasonable cost.

Generally

[dugeen]

Without reference to any particular case, it is good to know that cases where demands have been made in bad faith are being properly investigated.

Re:Mor On

[Tim C]

Couldn't and shouldn't are contractions, not concatenations (and the word is concatenation not concocation which isn't a word at all), and black mail most definitely is one word - unless you are literally talking about mail that is black in colour.

Ladies who do!

[AliasMarlowe]

You would be amazed at what they can find in the trashcans they are emptying!

And this was the core strategy of a trader in "Ladies who do", a 1963 comedy http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0057241. He collaborated with a group of cleaners to make a fortune in which they all shared, based on access to inside information.

Re:Mor On

[dave420]

You should have concononocnononcncncononcnccccnoonnnccconnated a better excuse. Yours didn't work.

Re:Mor On

[tehcyder]

Holy crap, you have won this week's "Slashdot Fucktard" prize and it's only Monday.