Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

For discussion of the threatened legal action surrounding the alleged filesharing of computer games, pornography and music. (ACS Law and Davenport Lyons)
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

Welcome to this forum, should you have received a letter do not panic, read the threads and make a (hopefully more informed) decision on how you want to proceed.

To avoid repeating previous posts, please familiarise yourself with the following information before posting.

Summary site (BeingThreatened.com) and Chat (IRC) or Chat (WebClient)
I've received a letter, what should I do? and Davenport Lyons - What can we do as a group?

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby penumbra » Fri Nov 28, 2008 4:57 am

MEMOR wrote:DEAR ALL
HAVE FOUND THIS DISCUSSION BOARD THIS WEEK, AND I HAVE FOUND IT TO BE AN EXTREMELY INVALUABLE RESOURCE IN THE FIGHT AGAIST DL.
...
THE METHODS EMPLOYED BY DL IN MY VIEW ARE SERIOUSLY FLAWED AND I SHALL BE POSTING MY IDEAS ON VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THEIR METHODS IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE IF YOU FEEL THAT MY INPUT IS HELPFUL.
I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO BORE THE FORUM BY GOING OVER OLD GROUND
...
SO WHAT DOES THE TEAM THINK - IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT BEATING DL IS THIS FORUM THE BEST WAY TO DO IT OR IS THERE ANOTHER WAY, I AWAIT YOUR COMMENTS.


Hi Memor, and welcome to the forum.

I'm glad you have found the forums very helpful so far. We're all in this together and everybody has an equal voice, so fire away with anything you might feel is helpful. I don't know whether this forum is necessarily the best way to do it - but it's all we have at the moment!

As has already been pointed out, writing entirely in capitals is a violation of the rather quaint idea of netiquette. It's certainly harder to read than lowercase text and it does have that rather strange quality of being read out as a SHOUT in most people's brains.

Anyways, welcome aboard and I hope you continue to find us useful.
Don't take rubbish from ACS:Law / Digiprotect / Logistep lying down. Go to Beingthreatened.com for advice and help others out by meeting your MP and filling out the statistics form! This scheme will not stop unless you are willing to contribute.
User avatar
penumbra
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:54 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby MEMOR » Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:06 am

Penumbra

You are a gentleman, I take on board what you have said about capitals

MEMOR
MEMOR
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:23 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby boingboing » Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:07 am

As much as I like to think of this as a victory for us, this was an informed commercial decision by DL to increase profits. Let me explain....


Yes, agreed, but this victory is important to us trying to raise the profile of this. It used to be a dubious action backed by large multinationals and a legitimate law firm, and was therefore looked on as a legitimate act by the authorities. Now one of the key players has walked away from it, as even they have now seen it for the grubby little scam it always was.

Now will the politicians, courts and information commissioner also twig what this is all about? Thats the main question. But either way, Atari dropping this is probably better for us than Atari never being involved in the first place. By walking away they are almost admitting themselves it is a scam.

It will be interesting to see what their press releases say to the media.
boingboing
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby kj2008 » Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:10 am

If Davenport Lyons decide to drop the case against us Atari victims, I bet they don't even have the courtesy to tell us. They are the scummiest law firm in London, if not England. (I don't think "scummiest" is a word but so what!)
"Millions of people want to live forever, yet they don't even know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"

* "Davenport Lyons" and/or "Davenport-Lyons" and/or "Davenporn Lyons" and/or "Davenport Lyons BBC"
kj2008
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:09 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby MEMOR » Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:16 am

One for BT users - extract from BT Account- Service Status - I think that this statement may help many BT customers in fighting DL. BT as far as I am aware never alerted me to this directly, I stumbled on it when looking at my account status.

April 08

Important Message: Upgrading your Wireless Security
Your BT Home Hub already provides a basic level of wireless security straight out of the box. This allows you to get set up as quickly and easily as possible with a basic level of protection. However this basic WEP protection is an older security method and has proven vulnerable to dedicated computer hackers who could try to use your BT Home Hub's wireless connection to monitor your broadband connection or access your computer.

So we recommend that once you've set up your broadband connection you should change your wireless security to WPA and create a new wireless key rather than using the Hub's default key. To find out more on how to upgrade your Hub's security please go to: BT Home Hub security advice.
MEMOR
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:23 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby kj2008 » Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:23 am

I could be wrong here, but I think I have read somewhere on this site that WPA has now been hacked. However, it would be difficult to use that as a defence because hacking WPA requires real expertise which your average "neighbour across the street" wouldn't have.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/22300 ... -crack-wpa
"Millions of people want to live forever, yet they don't even know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"

* "Davenport Lyons" and/or "Davenport-Lyons" and/or "Davenporn Lyons" and/or "Davenport Lyons BBC"
kj2008
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:09 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby Eagle1982 » Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:41 am

kj2008 wrote:I could be wrong here, but I think I have read somewhere on this site that WPA has now been hacked. However, it would be difficult to use that as a defence because hacking WPA requires real expertise which your average "neighbour across the street" wouldn't have.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/22300 ... -crack-wpa


That was ghost. It only requires 5 minutes to crack a WPA there are videos on youtube on how to do it...and there is free software available to do it...
Last edited by Eagle1982 on Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Davenport Lyons" and/or "Davenport-Lyons" and/or "Davenporn Lyons"
User avatar
Eagle1982
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:12 am
Location: UK

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby MEMOR » Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:43 am

KJ2008

With respect,

What I am saying is that my Hub was on WEP, probably just like everyone else - up to this week !

Millions of customers routers will have WEP rather than WPA by default, and that the default key (which lets face it most people will never change, knowing nothing about computer security) can be derived from the default SSID (which is public knowledge)!

We have placed our faith in BT and its security systems and embarassingly for BT their systems appear to me, a layman, not up to the mark. Furthermore, they have not sent out letters etc pointing out this glaring hole in Hub security.

Ultimately for BT Customers (and possibly others ) this appears to be a good defence against DL.
MEMOR
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:23 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby Eagle1982 » Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:51 am

MEMOR wrote:KJ2008

With respect,

What I am saying is that my Hub was on WEP, probably just like everyone else - up to this week !

Millions of customers routers will have WEP rather than WPA by default, and that the default key (which lets face it most people will never change, knowing nothing about computer security) can be derived from the default SSID (which is public knowledge)!

We have placed our faith in BT and its security systems and embarassingly for BT their systems appear to me, a layman, not up to the mark. Furthermore, they have not sent out letters etc pointing out this glaring hole in Hub security.

Ultimately for BT Customers (and possibly others ) this appears to be a good defence against DL.


Yes Memor you are right, the WEP deffence should be enough...but that is in a criminal case. It raises the doubt...you might need a bit more in a civil case. But if you are sure you didn't do it, dont worry they have nothing against you.

I have also used the WEP. Off course they completly ignored it and said I now own a dutty of care to every copyright holder because I failed to secure my internet properly...
Last edited by Eagle1982 on Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Davenport Lyons" and/or "Davenport-Lyons" and/or "Davenporn Lyons"
User avatar
Eagle1982
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:12 am
Location: UK

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby Eagle1982 » Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:14 am

I have just contacted Davenporn and guess what? Their official comment on Atari is..."We have no comments".

I guess this means for sure Atari are no longer working with them...that's hopefully me sorted out...

Off course I will keep being pro-active until all this nonsense is gone! :pissedoff:

These ****** send us threatning letters, get us in massive distress and in the end..."no comments" !!!!??????

That's how it ends...no apoligies, no admitance you can now have some piece of mind..."no comments"!?

Expected nothing less...
I hope they burn in hell!
"Davenport Lyons" and/or "Davenport-Lyons" and/or "Davenporn Lyons"
User avatar
Eagle1982
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:12 am
Location: UK

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby MEMOR » Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:16 am

Thank you Eagle1982
I'm sure I have not done anything wrong at all, but as you have said, you can go on youtube and find out how to crack almost any security system.

In the area where I reside, everyone seems to have computers, the kids are extremely computer savvy, far and away in front of my own abilities. They dont even have to be in a nearby building as it can be performed in a car, in your street, using a laptop.

They have the knowldge, the know how and the ballsl to perform hacking, for fun, for a laugh, for gain.
It will only get worse, in these harsh economic times.

DL must not be allowed to get away with this, regarding wireless security in any way shape or form, as ultimately no one will be safe from litigation.

MEMOR
MEMOR
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:23 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby Eagle1982 » Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:23 am

Then don't worry MEMOR. Some people have been threatned with this letters for 2 years now. Always demanding money in 14 days...they will never go to court. Their proof is ridiculous...

The best way to deal with this until now has been to go to the media...specially if you don't fall in the typical downloader profile...which you don't seem to...I have PM you with two e-mail adresses from media interested in this.

If you have the time read through the threads in this forums they are probably the best help you can get, once you get the global picture. Also enigmax articles on torrentfreak, they will give you the knowledge you need to answer them.

If you do answer them, don't forget to ask how can they be so sure their evidence is fullproof and then admite they done a mistake in the case of the scottish couple.
"Davenport Lyons" and/or "Davenport-Lyons" and/or "Davenporn Lyons"
User avatar
Eagle1982
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:12 am
Location: UK

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby kj2008 » Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:31 am

Maybe us Atari victims could consider small claims court action against DavenPORN Lyons.

(Edit) I don't think we can use the small claims process!
"Millions of people want to live forever, yet they don't even know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"

* "Davenport Lyons" and/or "Davenport-Lyons" and/or "Davenporn Lyons" and/or "Davenport Lyons BBC"
kj2008
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:09 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby chris.hoops78 » Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:47 am

I believe it is a mistake to focus just on the issue of wireless hijacking.

As we saw from the case of Ken and Gil Murdoch, false accusations by DP have not been limited merely to cases where wireless hijacking has occurred. The BBC reported: "Mr and Mrs Murdoch do not have a wireless network so their address cannot have been hijacked in this way."

In my view, the wireless argument distracts from the point that, even in cases where the user has a 'closed system', hijacking of the IP address itself can still occur (we have heard the rumours that certain P2P networks deliberately pollute torrent swarms with false IP's, also there is the issue of modem cloning etc.) An IP address alone is no proof, and only those ignorant of the issues i mention would allow it to be treated as such.

I hope that with Atari dumping DP this is where we start to see their dirty little game unravel. I predict a sh*t storm in the media which Davenport Lyons should be very, VERY concerned about.
chris.hoops78
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:33 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby bazwar31 » Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:03 am

sorry if this has been posted before http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/27 ... ort_lyons/
bazwar31
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby penumbra » Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:17 am

chris.hoops78 wrote:I believe it is a mistake to focus just on the issue of wireless hijacking.

As we saw from the case of Ken and Gil Murdoch, false accusations by DP have not been limited merely to cases where wireless hijacking has occurred. The BBC reported: "Mr and Mrs Murdoch do not have a wireless network so their address cannot have been hijacked in this way."


Yup, a very pertinent point. There a myriad of reasons their "forensic" evidence is tosh.

Although wireless network vulnerability is probably the most major one - they include random IPs in swarms, proxy protocols (such as Tor), spyware & viruses, errors in the collecting software (which nobody has ever independently audited), windows or other software exploits, errors in ISP accounting and no doubt more I haven't thought of.

These will work their way into an MP / MEP letter I am working on. I have a final draft of the IC letter ready. Expect to see it around soon.
Don't take rubbish from ACS:Law / Digiprotect / Logistep lying down. Go to Beingthreatened.com for advice and help others out by meeting your MP and filling out the statistics form! This scheme will not stop unless you are willing to contribute.
User avatar
penumbra
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:54 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby kj2008 » Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:38 am

Penumbra seems to be "Smarter than the average bear" So to speak. Any new members would do well to read what Penumbra has to say.
"Millions of people want to live forever, yet they don't even know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"

* "Davenport Lyons" and/or "Davenport-Lyons" and/or "Davenporn Lyons" and/or "Davenport Lyons BBC"
kj2008
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:09 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby tohellwithDL » Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:48 am

Just to remind everyone just how insecure wireless really is:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A88XB7_Jz7s
User avatar
tohellwithDL
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby spoofer-im-lonely » Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:48 am

Hello everyone DavenPorn especially haha you sniping unethical bunch of b****d**s

i also recieved a letter from davenports with reference to a bit of music by scooter saying the usual crap id distributed files illegaly etc,so heres what ive done ive obviosly denied all allegations and refused to pay requesting a copy of all evidence both davenports and their clients have against me, i still havent sought legal advice as i feel this forums been fantastic
Next i decided to collate as much evidence against the digiprotect as possible eg offline webpages copys of leaked contracts, news clips from germany switzerland & uk ....ref the unethical methods theryre using aswell as the insufficiant evidence of only an ip address which seems to be the case ! (or have they got more than that?)
the file ids dont mean shit that ties aboloutley nothing to me being sat at a pc doing the deed
anyway i happened to find the download page with the exact scooter file on it ooooooooohhhhhhhh boy this was great breakthrough digiprotect looks to have put the file on a torrent site via a " bot "with a password to open the file once dowloaded sneaky ehh
i probably would have deleted the file if the password didnt work or id forgot the password
does this assist my defence if going to court eg proving that they had their chance to state copyrighted and didnt ?
Thus proving they are only interested in making cash as opposed to stopping illegal downloads ??? & if digiprotect didnt put it on there shouldnt it be their mission to sort out there issues with the torrent site not the folk who once may have listened to music on their pc using dj software etc & actually attempting to produce future music
spoofer-im-lonely
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:02 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby kj2008 » Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:35 am

spoofer-im-lonely wrote:Hello everyone DavenPorn especially haha you sniping unethical bunch of b****d**s


Welcome to the party spoofer. Yes apparently Davenporn Lyons want £500 for one single scooter MP3 track. I would love to see how they could justify to a judge how a 2-5 minute download can cost the songwriter £500. That is the equivalent cost of 50 to 70 albums.
"Millions of people want to live forever, yet they don't even know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"

* "Davenport Lyons" and/or "Davenport-Lyons" and/or "Davenporn Lyons" and/or "Davenport Lyons BBC"
kj2008
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:09 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby wobbler » Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:51 am

It's on The Guardian's website today: Davenport Lyons caught sending demands for £503 for Army Fuckers to old dears in Hertfordshire

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/no ... ll-mistake
wobbler
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:31 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby Eldon » Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:22 am

Have just come back from the CAB with my partner, and a solicitor will write to davenport telling them that we have never downloaded the said scooter cd. He said that it would cost Davenport a lot of money if they took us to court for £500. My partner feels a bit more relief so we will wait to see what their reply will be.
It's amazing that in a earlier post that cd is still there.
Eldon
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:39 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby penumbra » Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:23 am

wobbler wrote:It's on The Guardian's website today: Davenport Lyons caught sending demands for £503 for Army Fuckers to old dears in Hertfordshire

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/no ... ll-mistake


Brilliant. There's even a link to this very forum, and they use the £12.5 million figure. Cheers, Tony Levine!

From the article:
We put a number of questions to Davenport Lyons. In a statement it said: "We cannot comment on individual cases. We represent clients who own valuable rights in copyright material and are legally entitled to protect and enforce such rights against any unlawful infringement. The material was not put on a file-sharing site by our clients.


If the material was not put on a file sharing site by their clients, then how do they explain the leaked contract? Is it a fake? By who - and what for?

Why bother granting Digiprotect the right to do so and then not do it? Why send them 5 DVDs of each title? How can they know they didn't put them on the networks for distribution when nobody has seen their software in action? Are they aware that it's a major component of these protocols to upload and if clients such as eMule detect someone downloading only, they'll be banned using anti leecher rules well before they got the full file?

And please: stop the red herrings. Nobody has any argument with people enforcing their copyrights. We have an argument with people falsely accusing us of civil offences we simply haven't committed.
Last edited by penumbra on Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Don't take rubbish from ACS:Law / Digiprotect / Logistep lying down. Go to Beingthreatened.com for advice and help others out by meeting your MP and filling out the statistics form! This scheme will not stop unless you are willing to contribute.
User avatar
penumbra
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:54 am

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby Me2 » Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:24 am

wobbler wrote:It's on The Guardian's website today: Davenport Lyons caught sending demands for £503 for Army Fuckers to old dears in Hertfordshire

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/no ... ll-mistake


Good although,

"In a statement it[DL] said: "We write an initial letter to those suspected of illegal file sharing based on technical information received from our clients. Such procedure is required by court rules. We allow ample opportunity for the recipient to respond, and if they have done nothing wrong they have no reason to be concerned.""

Lying Bastards. What they actually say is "Give us the money or else you will go to court" There has never been a plead innocent option.
Me2
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:16 pm

Re: The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread - discussion

Postby spoofer-im-lonely » Fri Nov 28, 2008 12:03 pm

my letter says:-
3. Evidence of copyright infrigement
it is irrelevant for the purposes of our clients evidence how ************ came to be resident on the computer connected to ip address in questionat the time of upload/and or5 making available on a p2p netwrk it may have been copied from a cd or other medium or indeed downloaded from either a bona fide website or obtained through file sharing on a p2p website,either by you or a third party using your internet connection , what or clients evidence shows is that the file in question was made available from an internet connection registered in you name on a certain date and time
spoofer-im-lonely
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:02 am

PreviousNext

Return to ACS:Law/UK Filesharing Allegations/Lawsuit Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com