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."
I'll take "Barratry" for $1000 Alex.
Now if firms responsible will actually be punished for false claims, we might be going somewhere.
Sent from my PDP-11
Double tap to the body, then the kill shot to the head.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
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.
-- Let's go Viridian.
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.
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.
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!
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
... 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.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
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
Getting an advert for a $99 DMCA takedown notices in a RIAA article...Priceless!
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
we blow your tweeters
Man, I need to brush up on my British slang. Sounds quite naughty though.
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.