The full letter – the same one I was unable to post – is available on their secure website, and thanks to the organisation’s modus operandi is unlikely to be going anywhere soon no matter what threats Davenport Lyons makes.

What a shame someone ignored the strongly-worded threats in the letter against publication.  Oh, well – thank you, kind – and, more importantly, anonymous – Wikileaks contributor.

More specifically, accusing people of downloading pornographic movies from peer-to-peer networks.  If you think about it, it would be the perfect scam for an company operating illegitimately – not that anyone could accuse Davenport Lyons of such a thing – : it’s one thing to stand up in court and defend yourself from accusations you downloaded Sid Meier’s Alpha Centurai but quite another to publicly associated yourself with Army Fuckers.

According to the BBC, the letters follow the usual Davenport Lyons theme of “you’ve been naughty, give us £500.”  Again, Davenport Lyons is ignoring the very real possibility that their ‘monitoring’ company, DigiProtect GmBH, is acting on poisoned data.  They’re still laying it on thick and threatening extremely expensive court action too.

The good news is that none of this is worth a damn.  As I’ve said before, make yourself a nuisance and they’ll go away.  So far, not a single person who followed my advice and replied to the demands with a Subject Access Request has been taken to court or made to pay a single penny.

If you’re curious as to what the Davenport Lyons letters look like, a very kind individual has sent me a scan of one he received after being accused of sharing a video file.  Unfortunately, I have been advised that Davenport Lyons doesn’t like the thought of people being able to prepare themselves and collaborate on a defence and is actually threatening anyone who publishes the letter online with legal action.  As a result – and because I don’t want to give them any ammunition that could take this site down – I’m unable to publish it.

As always, keep making a nuisance of yourselves and take heart from the fact that not a single person that has put up even the most basic of defences has been successfully sued by Davenport Lyons.

Ken and Gill Murdoch received the usual “give us £500 or we’ll sue” extortion-style letter from the firm but denied any wrongdoing, claiming that – and forgive me for quoting direct here – “their internet IP address may have been hijacked by illegal downloaders.“  No, seriously – that’s what the article says.

Although Davenport Lyons has since dropped the case, it took the intervention of Which? Computing magazine on the Murdoch’s behalf to get them to do so.  Sarah Kidner, editor of the magazine, decried the “heavy-handed tactics” employed by the firm but then shot herself in the foot by saying that “consumers need to be aware of the dangers of having their computer address copied by hackers” – again, I’m not making this up.  The editor of a computing magazine, for chrissakes.

Lazy tabloid journalism aside, the article should at least offer hope that Davenport Lyons really don’t have the balls to back up their claims of copyright infringement – as I’ve said all along.

Since that time, many individuals both on bit-tech and another forum called Slyck have downloaded and sent off the letter along with the required payment.  Since then, most – as I predicted – have not heard back.  However, some of the very earliest letters have had a reply – here’s an example from bit-tech member nw104hh:

Dear Sir

Atari Europe S.A.S: The Witcher

We refer to your letter of 08 July in which you have made a subject access request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for “personally identifiable information held by yourselves with regards myself”.

The personal data which this firms holds about you is contained in documents which were created in order to be used in potential litigation against you. As such, they are exempted from requirement to comply with subject access request given in Section 37 and paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 of the Act.

Accordingly, we are not require to comply with your request and are therefore returning your postal order.

We strongly suggest you seek legal advise and cease copying and pasting often misguided and erroneous advice from internet forums. This only serves to increase the costs which it will be necessary to seek from you, should this matter proceed to trial.

I find this response very interesting.  Note the continued threats (“…only serves to increase the costs which it will be necessary to seek from you…“) and claims that they are somehow exempt from the Data Protection Act (“…given in Section 37 and paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 of the Act.“).

To put it bluntly, this is horse-hooey.  Schedule 7 does not make information obtained for the purposes of pending civil lawsuit exempt – this is, you will remember, information which the firm will be obliged to make available to you before the lawsuit begins anyway.

To anyone who has received this response, I would advise the following: send another letter along with another cheque – or the same cheque again, whichever – stating that the evidence gathered is not exempt, and your original Subject Access Request still stands according to the original timescale of 40 days.

The second reason I find the letter interesting is that it makes specific reference to my original letter (“…cease copying and pasting often misguided and erroneous advice from internet forums…“) – which tells me that Davenport Lyons is actually spending time searching for people it has accused discussing the matter on the ‘net, in order to pre-empt any defence they might make.

Don’t let the buggers win.  As I have said in my original post, if you’re innocent you have nothing to fear.  Don’t pay: if you pay, that’s an admission of guilt.  Today it’s a claim for £500; tomorrow it’s for £1,000.  Davenport Lyons are, in my opinion, acting like bullies with diplomas, and must not be allowed to get away with these tactics.

If you’re worried about the recent case of Isabella Barwinska - who was ordered by the court to pay £6,000 in damages and £10,000 in legal costs for the alleged sharing of Pinball Dreams 3D – don’t be: Barwinska failed to respond to the original letter from Davenport Lyons, and didn’t turn up to court.  Faced with no defence, the judge had no option but to find in favour of Davenport Lyons.  As I said in my original post on the matter, make a fuss: as Ms. Barwinska has found to her cost, burying your head in the sand is precisely the worst thing you could possibly do.

Well, hooey. So far the only people they’ve taken to court are individuals who ignored the letter and didn’t turn up on their court day – which resulted in a default victory for Davenport Lyons.

If you receive such a letter, **do not ignore it**. Instead, ask to see the ‘evidence’ that you made the software available. I’ve drafted a sample letter to send back to Davenport Lyons which //bit-tech// members have found useful.

Dear {the person the letter is from, or “To whom it may concern” if no name},

With regards to your letter dated {date} claiming that a computer connected to my internet connection provided by {ISP} downloaded on {date} a software product called {game} without permission of the copyright holder: this letter is to inform you that I deny any such wrongdoing, and request a full and complete copy of all records you have pertaining to myself, the case, and the alleged download. I request this under the Data Protection Act 1998 and would advise that this constitutes a full and formal Subject Access Request under said act. Accordingly, I am including a cheque for £10 made payable to your company as required under the Act.

In accordance with said Act, you now have 40 days to make available full and complete records of this alleged incident along with any other personally identifiable information held by yourselves with regards to myself. If the records are not made available within this time I will issue a complaint through the Information Commissioner against the appointed Data Protection Officer at your company as recorded in the Register of Data Controllers record number Z645072X.

Please note that future correspondence regarding this issue that is not related to my Subject Access Request and which is not accompanied by a valid court order or summons will be considered harassment, and will be treated accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

{signature}

{name}

It is important to realise that by replying in this way you are //not// risking a criminal record – if Davenport Lyons //were// to sue, it would be a civil case. The only thing they would be granted in victory would be the fee they originally requested, so you really have nothing to lose.

My prediction is that once this letter has been sent – and I’d recommend using a tracked service such as Special Delivery – you’ll make it to Davenport Lyon’s ‘troublemakers’ list, and never hear from them again.