Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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.
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
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!
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
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.
...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.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
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.
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.
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."
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
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.