Instead of spending your money on solicitors, here is the letter I have send:

Davenport Lyons
30 Old Burlington Street
London W1S 3NL

Date: 3rd March 2008

Ref: xxx/FILS/xxx/xxxx

Dear Sir or Madam:
I am replying to your letter of claim dated 7th February 2008 but received 3rd March 08.

We are IT COMPANY providing Internet connectivity service to many clients. In order for us to investigate this I need further proof.

The information on the statement report by Logistep is easily obtainable by any novice hacker so, nothing special.

Please can you clarify the followings?

You require us to make a payment within 14 day. Why the date on the letter stated 7th February 2008 but it was hand delivered on 3rd March 2008?

You claimed forensic IT expert Logisetp was used to obtain statement report. But you didn’t provided me with any information about Logistep to ascertain expertise of Logistep.

From standard practice there are certain procedures that need to be taken in order to be certain that a specific computer had been uploading copyright works. Please can you provide us that information in details?

Please can you allow us to see the code was used to examine the system, so we can check its accuracy?

In my opinion, it is of paramount importance that Logistep is required to reveal how it gathers such evidence in order to prove its validity to a court, otherwise it’s possible that there would be errors, leading to the wrong people being accused and/or convicted. Do you know if UK Government audited and approved system? Until such an audit takes place, I don’t see how their systems can be trusted.

Until I have enough information and allegations of copyright violations are not proven I cannot pay your demand. I will pass your letter to our legal team. As it almost sounds like a perfect scam I will pass a copy to trading standard and watchdog for investigating legitimacy of the claim.

Yours faithfully

A few things to think about:

Is it illegal to have an unsecure wireless network in UK?

As an example, a person who has had their wireless network hacked, bandwidth stolen, connection used illegally and reputation damaged, is actually a victim of a crime themselves and if companies like Logistep have the ability to identify the criminal who did this, then surely they have a legal obligation to do so.

In addition to the ‘uploading’ claim, one of the claims in the letter relates to the illegal copying of the game to the hard drive. Even if someone in the UK is found responsible for what someone does on their Internet connection, surely they cannot be guilty of copying the game to the hard drive. If this was done by an unauthorised user accessing an unsecured wireless LAN, on a PC outside of their control?

Apparently, such an order should not be granted where it’s clear that the plaintiff is ‘fishing’ (phishing) for information and is attempting to discover something that will form the basis of a court action. As the law firm is very obviously making a ‘phishing’ attempt to obtain the name of a possible infringer other than the account holder, this should be something that anyone accused should take up with their lawyer.

Again turning to Logistep - the company used to track alleged infringers – Is their systems and techniques have been properly tested.

Due to the fact that there is no hard drive available to corroborate the ‘evidence’, this “further demonstrates the unfounded nature of Logistep’s conclusions.”

Also that the letters are not addressed to an individual, just ‘Dear sir or madam’ - this proves that the ‘forensic’ process cannot correctly identify an alleged infringer behind an IP address.

In my opinion, it is of paramount importance that Logistep is required to reveal how it gathers such evidence in order to prove its validity to a court, otherwise it’s possible that there would be errors, leading to the wrong people being accused and/or convicted. Do you know if UK Government audited and approved system? Until such an audit takes place, I don’t see how their systems can be trusted.

So, How do the Logistep get the info, on certain forums I have found this: Logistep uses a software called File Sharing Monitor that targets E-Donkey and Gnutella users. Here is how it works:

* The software connects to a p2p server and requests a filename recording all IP addresses that offer that name
* They request to download the file and if the download is permitted record the following information into a database
* Filename, file size, IP of the distributor, P2P protocol, P2P application, the time and the username
* When this is inserted the application does a automatic whois and is able to send an infringement letter to the ISP

I think it is interesting to note that this is almost an automatic process which leads to some questions. How do they know which archive has the correct size and is actually their product and not a broken archive ? Is not it only possible, to know the exact file size if they downloaded it, at least once to verify that is indeed their product?

Lets assume that they are not stupid and that they filter out every file below a certain size to prevent that users who do share mods or patches get sued. Let us further assume that a file that is labeled a certain way (with group tags) and shared among many users is the right program. Does this mean that the user that they are suing is responsible ? They will always sue the account holder which could or could not be the person who shared the files.

Can you think of anything else left to say ?

ISP are giving inforimation out based on High Court Orders and any information requested in accordance with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 - please see these links.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_1

http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/about-ripa/

Because ISP are now giving out your details then another way to contest the allegationg is, if you’re caught speeding the police can look up the owner the car and send them a letter requesting identification of the driver and a fine for the offence. Of course the owner of the car isn’t necessarily the person that was driving at the time, similarly the person who actually downloaded a file (assuming the file was downloaded which it may not be) isn’t necessarily the account holder. And of course you have the chance to plead not guilty to the speeding offense and attend the court if you wish.

Lawyer Who Threatened File-Sharers is Banned For 6 months
Written by enigmax on April 05, 2008

A lawyer who sent out hundreds of thousands of threatening letters demanding that alleged file-sharers pay 400 euros, has been banned from operating for 6 months. Elizabeth Martin, who had been working with Swiss anti-piracy outfit, Logistep, was condemned by the Paris Bar Council.

For anti-piracy company, Logistep, life is becoming more and more difficult by the day. They have been deemed to be operating illegally in Italy and have been slammed over privacy issues in the home country, Switzerland. Now, according to a report - and to add further insult to this growing pile of misery - a lawyer they’ve been working with in France has just found herself in an awful lot of trouble.

Lawyer Elizabeth Martin had been demanding 400 Euros from hundreds of thousands of file-sharers who Logistep say had been infringing the rights of software company Techland, on their game ‘Call of Juarez’.

In her letters she warned alleged file-sharers that should it be necessary to take anyone to court, the costs would be substantial. File-sharers were also led to believe that should they be found guilty, they would not only be responsible for their own costs, but those of the other side - with an indication that the decision against them would mount to “hundreds of thousands of euros”.

Of course, none of these letters are complete without some threats and intimidation. Elizabeth Martin - just like the UK’s Davenport Lyons - finishes up with with a threat totally disproportionate to any petty copyright offense. “If you are not able to pay the damages ordered by the court, our client will seek to gain the amount by the sale of your goods”.

This wording is very similar to other letters received all across Europe, including those received from UK lawyers Davenport Lyons, who are also working with Logistep in exactly the same manner. Their version is “In the event that you were not able to pay whatever sums the court may direct, our client would have no option but to take steps to enforce the debt against your property.”

Unfortunately for Elizabeth Martin, it’s not just the general public who are disgusted by her actions. She has been the subject of a Conseil de l’Ordre du Barreau de Paris disciplinary investigation - and subsequent condemnation - by none other than her own peers. How embarrassing.

The disciplinary board decided that “By choosing to reproduce aggressive foreign methods, intended to force payments, the interested party also violated [the code] which specifies that the lawyer cannot unfairly represent a situation or seriousness of threat.”

In addition, the lawyer also violated the code by cashing payments into a private account, not the usual dedicated litigation account, known as a ‘Carpa’. Martin also refused to reveal how many payments had been received from file-sharers.

For these serious breaches, Elizabeth Martin was ordered by the disciplinary board to suspend her activities as a lawyer for 6 months. Furthermore, she was banned from belonging to the National Council of the Bars (CNB) and other such professional associations for a period of 10 years.

Thanks to Ganza

In this article, it is stated that the letters were sent to 500 alleged file-sharers. Can anybody please explain where this information was obtained from and its accuracy? - Surely only Davenport Lyons know how many letters they sent and apparently, they have not commented (on any website that I could find) what their actions were in respect to this campaign. Furthermore, in order to ascertain if they are fishing or not, I believe it it crucial to know how many peolpe were targeted. At the end of the day 500 don’t seem too many compared to the “hundreds of thousands of threatening letters ” that the French lawer sent - now that is fishing. If DL sent 500, it may well be that the 500 are trully guilty as heavy downloaders…
Just a thought.

In this article, it is stated that the letters were sent to 500 alleged file-sharers. Can anybody please explain where this information was obtained from and its accuracy? - Surely only Davenport Lyons know how many letters they sent and apparently, they have not commented on any website that I could find what their actions were in respect to this campaign. Furthermore, in order to ascertain if they are fishing or not, I believe it it crucial to know how many peolpe were targeted. At the end of the day 500 don’t seem to many compared to the “hundreds of thousands of threatening letters ” that the French lawer sent - now that is fishing. If they sent 500, it may well be that the 500 are trully guilty as heavy downloaders…
Just a thought.

Anton and Ruppert, thanks for taking interest in this subject and asking questions. According to my research Devonport Lyon has send thousands of threatening letters to file sharer, including one to me, I have enough evidence to nail them and I will, that I didn’t downloaded or shared it.

I used 500 as a figure because when I spoke to them and question on their experts credibility, taken from the conversation “our experts ware called in to other court services, and from list of 500 sharers we will pursue every individual”

Even if 500 users are heavy downloader, they have no leg to stand based on the evidence they have send to me. Firstly, if someone is sharing something they need to prove it was in the hard drive in the first place in order to share, DL and their experts don’t have the access to the HD. If they are experts they need to provide more convincing proof.

Just to give you an idea amount of information can be collect from your post, I can tell, you posted with 2 name from same IP address (xx.xx.xx.142), which ISP you are with (xx.ntl.com) even though you choose not to share your info, I didn’t publish any more of your info for obvious reason. My point is, for an expert they should be able to send enough compelling evidence to all file sharers so that people who infringe copyright should know they are busted without thinking twice. Their experts only providing file name hash, that dont prove copyright infringment, thats tells me its a organised scam.

I have received the response to my previous letter:

3 April 2008

Dear Sir,

Techland S.p.z.o.o - ‘Call of Juarez’

We have read your letter of 3 March 2008 and note its contents.

Our client’s claim against you has been clearly set out in correspondence and we have given you ample opportunity to respond. We believe we have provided you with all the evidence we are required to under the Pre-Action Protocol. Any further evidence required by you will be made available during formal court proceedings (if appropriate).

As far as delivery of our letter of claim is converned, we have no idea why you did not receive it unitl 3 march 2008. Our letter was franked and posted to you on the date appearing on the postmark.

Accordingly, unless we receive your written undertaking and payment within the next seven days, we shall seek our client’s instructions to commence proceedings against you without further notice.

In the meantime we expressly reserve all our client’s rights.

Yours faithfully

Davenport Lyons

My response to them:

By FAX: 0207437 8216

Davenport Lyons
30 Old Burlington Street
London W1S 3NL

8 April 2008

Dear Sir,

Ref: XXXXX
Techland S.p.z.o.o – ‘call of juarez’

I refer to your letter dated 3rd April 2008.

Your client’s claim against me is not clearly set out, because the information I have requested to you on my previous letter you have not sent me, as I have stated on my previous letter that this a totally false accusation. What I can say about your evidence, some people remain of the view that little green men built the pyramids. Neither their opinion nor yours hold any merit - the only body who’s view counts is that of the court.

Given me ample opportunity to respond! You could go away and try your scam on someone else, who might be a little more cowed by your deliberately threatening manner.

As far as signing undertaking and payment within seven days, If you “choose” to continue to try your luck with me, please be warned that your court claim will be met with a counterclaim, including my time spent dealing with this claim plus a request for exemplary damages in respect of your aggressive tactics on what can at best be described as a speculative case. If I don’t receive a response with the information requested within seven day I will disregard your claim.

In the meantime I expressly reserve the right to consider you as pester.

Yours faithfully

Hi Shiraj,
Sorry for the double posting. The first one did not appear, so i sent a second one - and yes I am not using my real name, for obvious reasons.

To your point about their evidence not being compelling… Are you suggesting that the High Court was careless in a way that they were not presented with compelling evidence against file sharers and issued those disclosure orders to the ISPs anyway?
I don’t know anything about the judicial system in the UK, but surely the High Court was more than satisfied with the evidence DL presented, otherwise they would not have forced the ISPs to disclose Personal Details to a Third Party like DL?

As far as I understand, in a civil case, the decision of the court is based on the balance of probabilities, not on irrefutable evidence, such as evidence of the file being/having been on your harddrive. Doesn’t that mean that in order for DL to win a court case, the evidence is not extremely important and what is important is that the judge believes that you actually didn’t do it?

I am asking these things because I cannot understand how so many of the people DL has targeted can be confident that DL will not take them to court (according to posts I have read), when DL have at least some evidence and the High Court was already happy with it.
Thank you for your thoughts.

Hi Ruppert,

That’s a very good point you raised about High court and what evidence they need to issue disclosure order. If High Court issuing disclosure order on ISP doesn’t mean that I have downloaded and share copyright material, otherwise all file sharers are guilty by default. What is the point of trail?

As an example if I believe my server is hacked and I an IP address is logged on my server, I should have right to apply to court to get disclosure order under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_1), that doesn’t mean owner of the IP address is the hacker.

I don’t think ISP fought the case, because they have nothing to loose because DL is paying for the information and ISP making extra revenue, up to £50 per IP.

Why do you think judge should believe DL and not me? Without understanding how file sharing is done how would judge believe that I actually did or didn’t do it, why do you think judge will believe DL’s evidence and ignore my evidence?

There are many unsecure wireless networks anyone can jump on to it and download and share copyright materials. An example, to me it’s the same as when your car goes through a police speed camera, you will get a notice send to fill in and send back if you was the real driver. If your car was stolen or misuse and get caught on speed camera is it your responsibility that they were infringing the law and your licence should get endorsed with points?

Another one, on many online banking frauds, if your pc or servers get hacked to commit a crime who gets the blame? If you go to internet café and share or download a game is the owner responsible for your action?

DL certainly has some evidence at least they should have PC that was used and name of the user and much more because, if I can track a user right down to their desktop level with basic tools, compare to that DL are claiming to be using experts. I am confident that they will not take me to court. Even if they do I have collected all the necessary evidence to prove that I haven’t done it, and they will lose.

They can and they will take a small number to court but that doesn’t mean they will win all of the case. I think the scam is even if they win the case they will not get the compensation they are looking for and will not cover their costs so, if they send letter before claim to large number of publics, X number will pay up without thinking because it will cost more to hiring a solicitor. X number of them will pay up because they did share the file. Also I think if you don’t respond to their letter they can issue court summon by default, which gives them an advantage.

I know of people who never even heard of the game and they received the letter, a few of them just paid up because they can’t be bothered wasting the time, because it will cost them more for their time. The amount of time I have spend on this, that’s already 10 time more then what they are claiming. Therefore, they know that very well that they will get a large amount of money without going to court. I am fighting this because I have a very good legal team and I will only involve them if I have to go to court and counterclaim all my costs.

Just to make it clear FILE SHARING IS NOT ILLIGAL, BUT SHARING COPYRIGHT MATERIALS IS. If you share a file that named ‘[PC] CALL OF JEARUZ.zip’ without knowing its content how would High Court decide it’s the copyright infringement.

hi
Have you heard back from DL from your last letter. As i have also had a letter from them. I wrote to them saying I had no idea that I was uploading this game. but they replied saying they have supplied me with sufficient evidence which they say is sufficiently clear. And that if i dont pay within seven day they will commence proceedings against me without further notice ?. Not sure what to do next.
Many thanks
Keith

Hi Keith,
No, I still haven’t received any reply. Just providing a file hash and your IP that is not sufficient evidence. Unless they provided you with something else.

If you haven’t downloaded and shared it, then you have nothing to worry about. They will pressure you to pay up, don’t pay them. But make sure you reply to their letters, make it clear that they will be met with a counterclaim.

If you have read this blog then you will find many points to reply to DL.

Let me know if you need further clarification on any points.

Thanks Shiraj.

Hi Keith and Shiraj. Last month I received my third letter from DL. They said that they have provided me with enough evidence and that more evidence will be provided through the court if required. (I have never disputed their evidence nor I have asked for extra evidence. It appears they pressed a button in their computer and sent me the third letter). They also say that now they will be asking for more money and that they have received instruction from their clients to take me to court and that court proceedings are being prepared. I have promptly replied to their first and second letter, but I have not done what they accuse me and I will not spend a penny more to reply to their third letter. Shiraj, you strongly recommended that Keith replies to their letter. I understand that it is important to reply to their initial letters and to make your position clear, but wouldn’t you agree that after the second letter - where you already repeated the first letter - we shouldn’t spend any more money or time in replying to their letters?

R

Ruppert, I agree you shouldn’t spend a lot of time and money, but we need to be very careful if we don’t response then DL gets extra point on arguing the case.
DL will say they given ample opportunity before taking action.

If you response and make your point clear, make it clear that you will not be replying anymore to their threat and you will meet them in court, you should stick to this, and don’t reply.

If DL made clear on their 1st letter if they don’t get the payment within 7 days they will be taking legal action, I don’t understand why DL is sending 2nd and 3rd letter and still threatening to take legal action, why they still haven’t taken the legal action.

Hi Shiraj,

I’m in the same boat as everyone on this matter so I’m hoping to stay posted with all updates regarding it.

Thought I’d give a comment because I linked this blog on the slyck.com forums. The thread can be found here: http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=39877&p=467873#p467873
it has been very useful in dealing with this issue and is worth a read to everyone involved.

I hope you don’t mind in me linking to this page one there.

Regards,

Hi,
Thanks for posting the comment. I am all for making this known to as many people as possible, and if anyone else have similar site I would be happy to know have link on this site providing its 2 way link.

As much as the illegal sharing is a crime, company like DL is committing much bigger crime by threatening and accusing people for something they never done.

I just received another letter from DL, but not reply of my letter send on 8th April.

7th May 2008

Dear Sir
Techland Sp.z.o.o.: ‘call of juarez’

We write further to our letter dated 18th April 2008 and noted we have not heard further from you . We have instructions from our client to issue court proceedings and these are being prepared.

The claim will include a claim for damages and we will be asking the court to award a sum in excess of the settlement figure that our client was prepared to accept. We will also be asking the court to make an award of costs against you.

Save in the event you now wish to settle this matter, please not that we will not enter into any further correspondence with you, prior to issuing proceedings. We will, however, place any correspondence you sent to us before the Court at the relevant time.

In the meantime, we expressly reserve all our client’s rights.

Yours faithfully

My response to them:

By FAX: 0207437 8216

Davenport Lyons
30 Old Burlington Street
London W1S 3NL

8 May 2008

Dear Sir,

Ref: x

Techland S.p.z.o.o – ‘call of juarez’

I refer to your letter dated 7th May 2008.

I am responding to another one of your template letter. You stated you never received response to your letter dated 18th April 2008.

I never received any letter dated 18th April 2008, if you have send me any letter you will get prompt reply by FAX.

You never responded to my letter dated 8th April 2008. This was faxed to you and logged on our server 9th April 2008@ 9:43.

Yours faithfully

i also got the same letter .dont know what to do next .should i wait it out or should i pay ,as i am now starting to panic ,any help would be most useful

If you are certain you have not shared the file, don’t pay them but reply to their letter. Fax or post them, keep a record of everything any letter you got from them including envelope. I have posted all the letters I received and replied on this blog. Make sure you reply back to them.

Hi I also got the same letter word for word about court proceedings being prepared. But I have a big problem. When I got the original letter accusing me of sharing juarez, I found out that my son had in fact downloaded the game as a back up because the original game he had was faulty. I nievaly wrote to davenport explaining this and that my son (13yrs old) had no idea or intention to upload.Does this mean Im guilty and would have no case in court,should I pay. or as Ive read just keep replying to them asking for more specific proof. Which I have asked before but was told that they had given enough information, and any other information would be available at court hearings.Bloody kids Ill kill him.
many thanks keith.

Hi Keith, As you have already told them your son have done it, my advice is contact your local citizen advisory bureau or get professional legal help.

If you are asking for proof, I guess they will say you wrote to them, that is the proof. But lawyer may find different angle to tackle this.

hi shiraj,
my father has also received letters from DL.he asked me about this situation as he is basically computer-illiterate and i am the main web user in the household.we chose to ignore the first letter as we couldnt determine if the file was shared on our household network as i have an open wifi connection as well as having regular LAN partys and therefore quite often have multiple pcs connected to our router and sharing the net connection.he has now received the letter explaining that court proceedings are being prepared.surely these ‘preperations’ will prove to any court it is impossible to ascertain who or which pc is responsible in themselves? as there is obviously no reasoning with this firm i believe he may be best to wait it out and see what happens. what are your thoughts?

Do not ignore any letter, just reply to them take a sample from this site, I believe you will find response to all the letter send by DL. Make your self clear not paying.

If you have a unsecured WLAN that’s not illegal e.g starbucks offer internet and anyone downloading/sharing files don’t make the owner of starbucks responsible for file sharing.

I have received court proceedings letter from DL in Feb 08, gave me 7 days to pay, I made myself clear to them not getting any money from me I will wait for court to send me the summon, before I get my legal team involve. Still waiting.

DL is just using dirty tactics to get you to pay up without going to court. Also in the same letter you may notice they talk about what happen in German court, don’t say anything about British Law. Even if you go to court they don’t have anything on what PC it was from or who did it.

If you can, post your letter to this forum for other to see, how they are using same letter for everyone.