|
Law firm Davenport Lyons seems to have made an effort to distance itself from the controversial splatter approach of sending demands of between £500 and £700 to internet users as a presettlement on alleged file sharing of a number of games and porn films.
Using IP addresses gleaned from a Swiss firm Logistep from file-sharing swarms, Davenport Lyons had been applying to the High Court to force ISPs to reveal names and addresses attached to the IP addresses and then sending out demands for payment. However it has been widely reported that Davenport Lyons had been unwilling to actually test the principle in a defended court case for fear of it being thrown out or costing more money than the firm could reap in cheques. The case was recently brought to the attention of the BBC's Watchdog programme.
An apparently new law firm called ACS:LAW, headed by Andrew Crossley, a few hundred yards from Davenport Lyons, is now taking up the file-sharing cases. It has also been reported that there have been staff swaps between the two offices and the documents being sent out bearing an uncanny resemblance to those sent out by Davenport Lyons, although Davenport Lyons have gone on record saying the two firms are in no way linked.
The Solicitors Regulatory Authority is presently investigating a complaint by Which? after it received numerous complaints over the heavy-handed tactics employed by Davenport Lyons and the lack of response when complainants refuted the allegations. That complaint is still ongoing and it is thought that similar complaints are being made about ACS:LAW to consumer group Which?.
IP addresses can be poached on wireless internet connections and it is thought there are many cloned modems in circulation, making it almost impossible to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a particulr internet user did in fact upload or share copyright protected files. It is thought that this is why Davenport Lyons was unwilling to test this fully in a defended court case and instead relied on a barrage of threatening letters to encourage those accused to pay up.
There is also controversy surrounding the application to the Chancery to force ISPs to reveal names and addresses. According to reports. the application was on the basis that the case involved criminal activity but Davenport Lyons then switched to threatening those accused, with Civil action. A civil action alone would not be enough to procure data at the High Court.
It is not entirely certain whether the transerral of file-sharing cases to another recently set up law firm (ACS:LAW) is merely a damage limitation exercise by Davenport Lyons in the face of so much negative publicity, or as some suggest, a way to continue the practice but under another name, or even to distance itself from formal complaints made to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, but Davenport Lyons remains adamant that the two are in no way linked, despite the transferral of staff and associated documentation.
One thing is clear though, the tactic of sending template letters and replies designed to encourage the recipient to hand over money is identical and so far, no contested case has seen the light of day, nor is it likely to. Whilst some pay up, the money reaped is encouragement enough to stick to the same methods employed by Davenport Lyons.
But as always, unless file sharers are caught red-handed, seated at their PCs with a firm of solicitors crammed inside an undercover transit van just outside, binoculars at the ready, actually making the link between an individual and illegal file-sharing is tenuous. Easier by far to keep churning out the letters in the hope that it will be enough to force an admission of guilt and another fat cheque, little of which will actually end up in the hands of those whose copyright has been infringed.
The bulk of this file-sharing litigation bonanza goes to the law firm themselves. No suprise there then. Even the most suprising ideas can really fly. |