mommypro wrote: penumbra wrote:
I wouldn't ignore their letters - everyone legally trained always says not to.
Personally, I would reply and deny. See the guide thread in my signature. They will not simply leave you alone - they will send letters back and try like hell to get you to pay.
If you did not do it do not pay
Out of interest how similar is the letter to this one
? (PDF link)
Also, anyone with a scanned copy of this letter please PM me.
The usual legal advice would indeed be do not ignore - the reason being it would not look good on you in court. However, do you or I really believe this will ever
end up in court? These people have already stolen a couple hours of my time and I would really resent having to waste more time replying to them if I don't have to.
Well, I don't think anyone who has replied with a robust denial will end up in court, no. However, ignoring the letter - that's a slightly different matter. You're deliberately reducing your options. Let me explain:
If you reply to the first letter with a wide ranging and robust denial, then
you have the option of ignoring all their further
correspondence. If you simply ignore everything then the next time you hear from them could be the court summons. And it won't look good on you in court. They may drop it like a hot potato when you file your defence, but at that point they may feel they have a good line to go on in court - you ignored their letter AND you will annoy the judge.
See where I'm coming from?
The letter is practically word for word. Of the two obvious differences (excepting my specifics and the solicitors details) only one is of significance a paragraph added between the paragraphs 'consequences of bringing a claim' and 'offer to settle' entitled 'submissions from you'.
"If, despite the information we set out above, you say you are not responsible for the infringement of our client's rights, please set out your reasons in writing for us to evaulate. In light of the information we have obtained, it is unlikely that a simple denial (without further explanation) will change our view of the cicrumstances, so please provides as much detail as you are able to"
Thanks for the info mommypro.
Now that is a very interesting paragraph, as you say a pre emptive heading off of the simple reply and deny. However, I would still argue that the average joe has very little training in network security and can't possibly know the relevant information to provide beyond a simple denial. The truth is that it forces them into a huge gamble, or further expense if you simply refuse to attempt to explain it away.
Also, you're right - these letters are almost exactly identical to those sent out by Davenport Lyons. So despite the two top people not being linked to DL in any way I can see, they have managed to come up with almost identical letter templates. Also, the first three pages of the FAQ on their website are a verbatim copy of DL's own file sharing FAQ and
the notes on evidence have been copied wholesale.
If these people aren't DL themselves, or haven't received licence to do this, they're infringing copyright. How ironic.
The chief guy doesn't seem averse to smut: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lawyer ... speaks-out