A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter 'Tilly Bailey Irvine'

[Renegade]

oldgeezer, this is definitely worth reporting to the SRA. If TBI were handing out advice when they were already under contract with a rightsholder to pursue the same scheme I cannot see how that would not be a breach of the procedures for conflict of interest!

Even if you did not follow this advice she shouldn't have been giving it if under contract, but should have instead referred you to someone else or told you she would be unable to advise you.

Obviously to lodge a complaint properly you would need some form of confirmation that TBI did offer advice, so that the dates can be matched to check any conflict of interest.

[Me2]

If TBI were handing out advice when they were already under contract with a rightsholder to pursue the same scheme I cannot see how that would not be a breach of the procedures for conflict of interest!

Surely they weren't under contract with a rightsholder back in 2008 though?

[Renegade]

Potentially they've been on scene since early last year, I've seen on mention of them before, but might be a mistaken case where TBI were defending against ACS Law (i.e. similar to oldgeezers case). Potentially its something worth questioning, even just asking the SRA if they can confirm that when TBI gave advice they had no such contract; should be a 5 second complaint to investigate and close on the basis no such contract existed at the time.

[boingboing]

Without wishing to get even more carried away with this, but after the letter posted earlier in this thread, and as Penumbra already mentioned, I find it extremely difficult to believe that TBI are not connected to DL and ACS.

I know all lawyers must use similar terminology, but it really did seem to be lifted directly from previous correspondence, in the same way the DL > ACS transition happened.

[penumbra]

Potentially they've been on scene since early last year, I've seen on mention of them before, but might be a mistaken case where TBI were defending against ACS Law (i.e. similar to oldgeezers case). Potentially its something worth questioning, even just asking the SRA if they can confirm that when TBI gave advice they had no such contract; should be a 5 second complaint to investigate and close on the basis no such contract existed at the time.

Furthermore, the dates on their letters to ISPs asking them kindly to roll over when the real NPO comes are dated the middle of last year. Quite feasible they were laying the groundwork in 2008.

[samanthaj]

If they were working with rights holders in 2008 why is the monitoring period for June - November 09 (I think that was right) and not in 2008.

Would it not make sense that if they (IP Collectors) were monitoring in 2008 that the first batch of letters sent by TBI would have a number of infringments dated in 2008 & 2009?

[Billpayerr]

An important point for anyone in receipt of a TBI letter: In their first letter they make loud noises about possible criminal remedies - but make it look as if they're being "kind" by only going for civil ones. You all seriously need to complain to the SRA about this loudly. Really loudly. It's utterly unrealistic gibbering rhetoric like that which got DL in hot water; it is wanton scaremongering and is therefore a clear breach of the solicitors code of practice.

(sorry to be late posting on this thread)
I agree Pen. I would also complain to the SRA about the paragraph where they remind the account holder that he may be breaching his IPS's terms & conditions as this is not relevant to the case being made against him and so i personally feel it's been added to intimate him/her.

I read the last paragraph as a direct threat. They give notice that the account users failure to secure his/her network resulting in allowing the infringement to occur results in him/her owing a duty of care to the copyright owners to ensure that the network is secured against third parties. Failure to do so may lead to proceedings....blah blah

Where in the law does it state that if you do not secure your network you can be held responsible for third parties infringing copyright on it? A groundless threat? Worth mentioning to the SRA.

Do you agree?

[oldgeezer]

It was October 2008 when I visited TBI for advice. What I didnt understand at the time was she asked me to send her all the correspondence to and from DL, which I did, so she could look into it and she would get back to me. Still waiting.

[samanthaj]

I'm not defending these people, I would have thought that if they had information on alledged offences dating back to 2008 then they would have used that first rather than sending data for the latter part of 2009. I can't imagine them missing a trick.

If as pen says the letters to ISPs where dated mid 09 this would suggest that they sent the letters to ISPs before the IP data had been collected. Could this be them getting their ducks in order first so to speak?

[ntscuser]

Dear Sir

Media & More GmbH & Co KG ( Ref xxxxxx.x)

In light of the fact that your letter appears to be based on evidence obtained from a "Legal Counsel" online as a result of using search engines, we would suggest this is not a substitute for obtaining property legal advice from a solicitor and would recommend that you do so.

Over the period of xx/xx/xxxx to xx/xx/xxxx our technical data providers used their file watch software programme and logged 350 snapshots of your user hash and IP address (as identified at the date and time of the original capture of the infringing activity) whilst attempting to upload or download copyright material (inclding that of our client) on P2P sites.

If that was true, even assuming a static IP had been used which would be unusual, would it not entail an amount of manual checking of the figures by staff costing far in excess of the sum being claimed?

The only way I can see that 350 instances of usage by the same connection could be tabulated at such low cost is if they were generated by a computer programmed in advance to fill in the blanks with incriminating information which has never been verified by eye.

[MrFredPFL]

@ "user hash". shockingly ( ), these people don't seem to understand what they're talking about.

[derr]

I too received a TBI letter . The fear and dread these types of things inspire is unbelievable. Didnt know what to do so have now found all these reassuring (sort of) forums where I find am not the only one. Also found support with Which who seem to be campaigning about this too. Sent and LOD and have now received a second letter telling me that their experts captured xxx snapshots of activity related to the client (Golden Eye International) in july 2009. It seems that a lot of the lettrs seem to be relating to "evidence" found in July 2009.
Am the mother of young children and have hardly slept a wink, cant eat or think of much else since the first letter came. So bad feel that paying the £700 might be small price to pay for piece of mind but just absolutely could not admit to something like that when I am an innocent.
Just wish a stop could be put to it.
Am going to contcat SRA and also the Lords suggested

[penumbra]

I too received a TBI letter three weeks ago. The fear and dread these types of things inspire is unbelievable. Didnt know what to do so have now found all these reassuring (sort of) forums where I find am not the only one. Also found support with Which who seem to be campaigning about this too. Sent and LOD and have now received a second letter telling me that their experts captured 805 snapshots of activity related to the client (Golden Eye International) between July 14 and 30th. It seems that a lot of the lettrs seem to be relating to "evidence" found in July 2009.
Am the mother of five young children and have hardly slept a wink, cant eat or think of much else since the first letter came. So bad feel that paying the £700 might be small price to pay for piece of mind but just absolutely could not admit to something like that when I am an innocent.
Just wish a stop could be put to it.
Am going to contcat SRA and also the Lords suggested

Bear in mind that the number of "snapshots" (which they don't precisely define anywhere) is irrelevant in the case where you have either been identified incorrectly, or someone has hacked your wireless (or any of the hundreds of other ways your connection may be used without your consent).

They're obviously quoting the numbers and expecting you to think that more snapshots = more guilty. In fact, from their own publicity it appears they beleive this is true. This is utterly, totally and completely wrong.

[Me2]

I too received a TBI letter three weeks ago. The fear and dread these types of things inspire is unbelievable. Didnt know what to do so have now found all these reassuring (sort of) forums where I find am not the only one. Also found support with Which who seem to be campaigning about this too. Sent and LOD and have now received a second letter telling me that their experts captured 805 snapshots of activity related to the client (Golden Eye International) between July 14 and 30th. It seems that a lot of the lettrs seem to be relating to "evidence" found in July 2009.
Am the mother of five young children and have hardly slept a wink, cant eat or think of much else since the first letter came. So bad feel that paying the £700 might be small price to pay for piece of mind but just absolutely could not admit to something like that when I am an innocent.
Just wish a stop could be put to it.
Am going to contcat SRA and also the Lords suggested

Bear in mind that the number of "snapshots" (which they don't precisely define anywhere) is irrelevant in the case where you have either been identified incorrectly, or someone has hacked your wireless (or any of the hundreds of other ways your connection may be used without your consent).

They're obviously quoting the numbers and expecting you to think that more snapshots = more guilty. In fact, from their own publicity it appears they beleive this is true. This is utterly, totally and completely wrong.

What is the interval at which they take these snapshots? 1ms? 1s? 1min? 1hour?
There is a big difference between 850 snapshots that are 10ms apart, and 850 that are 1 hour apart.

[ntscuser]

So bad feel that paying the £700 might be small price to pay for piece of mind but just absolutely could not admit to something like that when I am an innocent.

If you did that it would encourage them to send many more letters to other mothers in exactly the same position as yourself!

[derr]

To Penumbra
thanks for your thoughts- you are right the number they give makes me feel like it is really serious- grand scale. It refers to "downlloading activity" over that period and wants me to verify if there are any other people who may have access to my computer in that period. It says "the results indicate that my internet connection has been linked to file sharing activity on numerous occasions and as sich they consider that, on the balance of [probablilities either me or someone at my property has used my internet connection to carry out the infringing activity..... As the account holder the terms and conditions of your contract with your isp require that you do not use the services they provide to breach copyright of a third party and place a positive obligation on you to ensure teh security of your system". It finishes by telling me I have seven days to provide a response. It doesnt say what they will do next
My first letter showed a copy of some high court order in October 2009 and copy of letter to BT legal servcies ordering them to identify internet users.
Did you notice that a lot of people have referred to the evidence havig been collected in July 2009? I have seen it on a few posst and on other forums.

[MrFredPFL]

Bear in mind that the number of "snapshots" (which they don't precisely define anywhere) is irrelevant in the case where you have either been identified incorrectly, or someone has hacked your wireless (or any of the hundreds of other ways your connection may be used without your consent).

They're obviously quoting the numbers and expecting you to think that more snapshots = more guilty. In fact, from their own publicity it appears they beleive this is true. This is utterly, totally and completely wrong.

What is the interval at which they take these snapshots? 1ms? 1s? 1min? 1hour?
There is a big difference between 850 snapshots that are 10ms apart, and 850 that are 1 hour apart.

this just highlights another problem with this whole process ( like there aren't enough other problems with it ) - the utter refusal of the parties involved to allow their methods to be scrutinized by independent observers. they are working with the premise of "if we told you how we did it, we'd have to kill you." you'd think they'd WANT their "foolproof and infallible" methods documented, as if they were as good as they say they are, this would only serve to strengthen their case in court. ohhhhh, wait a minute, my bad. none of these cases are going to court. seems pretty cowardly to me.

[S1066]

For those relying on the SRA or Lords to defend their human rights, I think we can think again, according to Which news, the SRA have not completed the investigation reported to them 15 months ago. Guess who the SRA are, yes, thats right, another bunch of solicitors, in the which opinion "it shows that the SRA is incapable of acting swiftly to curb poor conduct, and, more worryingly, it has not prevented other law firms from jumping on the bandwagon in the meantime". Ok what about their Lordships? Clearly any sane and fair judge would throw these cases out of court? well maybe, but "on the balance of probabilities" most will have some sort of legal or accounting background sympathy and will not understand the first thing about filesharing or the technology involved. This is so disappointing for a country that gave a "fair" legal system to the world, sometimes..... ok, rant stopped.

[S1066]

Ok, I have calmed now, sorry, latest news from Which is below, although somehow I doubt it will stop the highwaymen at TBI from trying it on, we will see. Well done to Which magazine, if it works, I think alot of people will owe them a subscription.


04 March 2010

Consumer champion Which? today welcomed the news that the solicitors’ watchdog will pursue its complaint about a London law firm, Davenport Lyons*, which accused hundreds of innocent consumers of illegal file sharing.

In its complaint, sent to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in December 2008, Which? said it believed the conduct of Davenport Lyons had been ‘bullying’ and ‘excessive’. The SRA agrees that there are grounds to call Davenport Lyons to account and has referred the matter to its disciplinary tribunal.**

However, Which? is disappointed that the process has taken so long. At least two other law firms (ACS Law and Tilly Bailey Irvine Solicitors(TBI)) have jumped on the bandwagon since the original complaint and are engaging in volume litigation*** relating to ‘illegal’ file sharing.

Deborah Prince, Head of Legal Affairs, Which?, said:

“We’re pleased to see some action at last from the SRA and hope the tide is finally turning in favour of consumers. We now want to see some decisive action to stop these bully-boy tactics. We hope the SRA’s decision sends a message to law firms like ACS and TBI that they can’t make a quick buck by accusing people of copyright infringements they haven’t committed.”

Which? continues to hear on an almost weekly basis from distressed people who have received letters wrongly accusing them of illegal file sharing and demanding payment for their ‘crime’. It has produced advice for such people on its website.****

Which? also has forwarded a copy of the latest letter from TBI to the SRA.

[ntscuser]

To Penumbra
thanks for your thoughts- you are right the number they give makes me feel like it is really serious- grand scale. It refers to "downlloading activity" over that period and wants me to verify if there are any other people who may have access to my computer in that period.

What anyone else may or may not have done is irrelevant to the accusation made against you.

You are under no obligation to assist them with enquiries into whether someone else did or did not use your internet connection.

My stock reply would be that "I have no knowledge of the alleged infringement" and leave it at that.

[Renegade]

S1066 you are right to be concerned, even thought the SRA have referred a couple of Davenport Lyons solicitors to the Disciplinary tribunal it could be another 6months at least before anything happens. However, the lords are not the law lords but sitting in the house. They have the opportunity to amend copyright law through the digital economy bill and put in some more protection for the many innocent people caught up in this case.

They do however need to continued urging to do so; soon the bill will progress to the house of commons and it'll be the MPs turn to suggest amendments. This looks at the moment to be the quickest way to protect people: a change in the law. There is otherwise no magic bullet which will end the accusations.

[Slick50]

MrFredPFL left a comment in the main forum regarding this subject implying that you can simply reply to this letter with one sentence along the lines of:

"I did not commit this infringement and no other correspondence will be entered into unless it is a court summons"

He may remember exactly what he wrote. I do not have the time to exactly source his comment. So although there are guidelines regarding the letter of denial, one sentence is sufficient in my book (and in MrFredPFL's) and that is all they deserve. Remember, at the most fundamental level, one day you will die, and how much time do you want to waste on these letters?

I suggest one sentence of denial, not a letter, then get out into the spring sunshine for the rest of the time that you were thinking of putting aside for a complex LOD, because your denial will be ignored by them anyway. Just like DL and ACS

[MrFredPFL]

if you didn't download it, say so, and leave it at that. tell them you'll see them in court or in hell, whichever comes first.

[Renegade]

Call to action.

Hopefully you will all have seen from previous posts that your lobbying of the Lords was noticed. There were several promising amendments tabled which would have put a halt to the schemes run by Davenport Lyons, ACS law and now Tilley Baily & Irvine. Unfortunately, the government has displayed a tremendous amount of inertia on this matter and has stated that it prefers to sit on it's hands and wait for the outcome of the SRA enquiry before taking any sort of action. For this reason, these amendments were bounced. This is not the end of the matter however as the government spokesperson, Lord Young, gave Lord Lucas his assurance that, should the SRA do nothing in the individual cases of ACS law and TBI, the government will move to stop the practice.

The lords stage of the bill debates has come to an end. We are now entering the second stage of the bill debates. The Bill will now be debated in the House of Commons. Your contribution now is critical.

You have all been doing a sterling job of raising the awareness of this issue within the powers that be. It has lead to real results. Our next job is to let the know that their lack of action is unacceptable and to keep up the pressure we have been exerting on them.

Unlike in the House of Lords, where you could all contact several Lords and ensure good coverage, the only individual that can generally lobby an MP is a constituent. This makes EVERY SINGLE letter and surgery visit critical to ensuring that amendments from the Lords stay in the bill, and also for the MPs to suggest amendments for any gaps still in the legislation.

You MUST at the very least make contact with your MP through http://www.writetothem.com/ . Ideally you'd also follow up after a week or so by telephone, or even more usefully, by making an appointment to meet them in surgery and talk to them face to face.

The following are points to consider when contacting your MP.

• Set the background: When you received the letters from ACS:Law/DL/Tilly Bailey Irvine OR Why you have an interest in lobbying against their schemes.
• Set the background: How the letters have made you feel and what you've done to try to stop their action (including complaints to regulatory bodies and your opinions on what those bodies have done).
• Which particular amendments made in the House of Lords (including any that failed) you wish your MP to support. The following is a list of key (but by no means all) sections that you may wish to highlight:
  
  • Forcing copyright holders to follow the Digital Economy provisions as an initial obligation before taking further legal action (note, the government objection to this is it prevents other court action. The liberal democrat amendment (below) does not do this, if a solicitor wants to avoid the obligation they can do so but only after providing good reason to the court):
    
    Sponsors, Lord Clement Jones and Lord Razzall.
    
    Text: "Obligations on copyright holders - Copyright holders seeking to take action against subscribers for online copyright infringement must use the process set out in sections 124A to 124E of the Communications Act 2003 except where a court is satisfied it would not be reasonable and proportionate to do so."
    
  • An amendment to provide relief and challenge to any incorrect accusations of infringement. i.e.
    
    Sponsor, Lord Lucas.
    
    Text: "Remedy for groundless threats of copyright infringement proceedings
    
    (1) The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is amended as follows.
    
    (2) After section 169 insert—
    
    "169A Remedy for groundless threats of infringement proceedings
    
    (1) Where a person threatens another person with proceedings for infringement of copyright, a person aggrieved by the threats may bring an action against him claiming—
    
    (a) a declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable;
    
    (b) an injunction against the continuance of the threats;
    
    (c) damages in respect of any loss which he has sustained by the threats.
    
    (2) If the claimant proves that the threats were made and that he is a person aggrieved by them, he is entitled to the relief claimed unless the defendant shows that the acts in respect of which proceedings were threatened did constitute, or if done would have constituted, an infringement of the copyright concerned.
    
    (3) Mere notification that work is protected by copyright does not constitute a threat of proceedings for the purposes of this section.
    
    (4) A copyright infringement report within the meaning of section 124A(3) of the Communications Act 2003, if notified to a subscriber under section 124A(4) of that Act, does constitute a threat of proceedings for the purposes of this section.""
    
• What further amendments or actions your MP can take, both in the progress of the Digital Economy bill and in other action to ensure they continue to help you. i.e.
  
  
  • Introduce an amendment to prevent volume legislation. If the evidence involved is so definitive then costs should not be met by economies of scale. Preventing the Norwich Pharmacal Orders being used for disclosure of more than 10 individuals details at time would appear a reasonable amendment. Given the strength of the evidence, all 10 can be litigated against and costs recovered in court.
    
  • Introduce an amendment to the Data Protection Act (1998) to prevent ISPs disclosing personal information under a Norwich Pharmacal Order without attempting to challenge the Order, or further, to prevent the disclosure of IP addresses by an ISP under civil law.

What is also VERY important is not to consider the matter closed after one letter or one visit. You should tell your MP you expect to be kept up to date on their progress in helping you, and that you will contact them on a regular basis to see what your options are.

Remember, with 600+ MPs, if YOU don't contact YOUR MP it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that anyone else will be able to do so. This is far more important than the Lords lobbying, make your contact count.

Anyone that has already contacted your MP, please still recontact them so your experiences are at the forefront of their minds as they debate the Digital Economy Bill. If you don't remind them you have already experienced schemes likely to ride on loopholes in the bill, then the MP may not remember your plight and help. Equally, if whips are employed, your contact might be critical in breaking them.

For the eager amongst you, the only other MPs you might be able to send a letter to other than your own may be ministers and shadow ministers for departments with appropriate interest in the area. Highest priorities bolded and blue, these are listed below:

• Front Bench
  • Ben Bradshaw MP (Labour) - Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport
  • Vera Baird QC MP (Labour) - Solicitor General
  • Jack Straw MP (Labour) - Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor
  • Dominic Grieve QC MP (Conservative) - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice
  • Edward Garnier QC MP (Conservative) - Shadow Attorney General
  • Jeremy Hunt MP (Conservative) - Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
  • Kenneth Clarke QC MP (Conservative) - Shadow Secretary of State for Business
  • David Howarth MP (Lib Dem) - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice
  • Stephen Williams MP (Lib Dem) - Shadow Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills
  • Don Foster MP (Lib Dem) - Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
• Other Ministers
  • Stephen Timms MP (Labour) - Minister for Digital Britain
  • Siá»™n Simon MP (Labour) - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Creative Industries)
  • Pat McFadden MP (Labour) - Minister of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
  • David Lammy MP (Labour) - Minister of State for Higher Education and Intellectual Property
  • Tobias Ellwood MP (Conservative) - Shadow Minister for Culture, Media & Sport
  • Jonathan Djanogly MP (Conservative) - Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Solicitor General
  • John Penrose MP (Conservative) - Shadow Minister for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform
  • Henry Bellingham MP (Conservative) - Shadow Minister for Justice
  • David Burrowes MP (Conservative) - Shadow Minister for Justice
  • Eleanor Laing MP (Conservative) - Shadow Minister for Justice
  • Dr Evan Harris MP (Lib Dem) - Spokesman; Innovation, Universities and Skills
  • Richard Younger-Ross MP (Lib Dem) - Spokesman; Culture, Media and Sport

[derr]

Thnaks for that info- I will definately write to the MPs.