Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy The Courts United Kingdom News Your Rights Online

Anti-Piracy Lawyers 'Knew Letters Hit Innocents' 240

Posted by Soulskill
from the collateral-profit dept.
nk497 writes "A UK legal watchdog has claimed lawyers who sent out letters demanding settlement payments from alleged file-sharers knew they would end up hitting innocent people. The Solicitors Regulators Authority said the two Davenport Lyons lawyers 'knew that in conducting generic campaigns against those identified as IP holders whose IP numeric had been used for downloading or uploading of material that they might in such generic campaigns be targeting people innocent of any copyright breach.' The SRA also said the two lawyers lost their independence because they convinced right holders to allow them to act on their behalf by waiving hourly fees and instead taking a cut of the settlements. The pair earned £150,000 of the £370,000 collected from alleged file-sharers. Because they were looking to recoup their own costs, the lawyers ignored clients' concerns about the negative publicity the letter campaign could — and eventually did — cause, the SRA claimed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Piracy Lawyers 'Knew Letters Hit Innocents'

Comments Filter:
  • by DragonFodder (712772) on Friday November 19, 2010 @10:34AM (#34281268)
    Famous qoute, "First Kill all the lawyers" seems apropos.

    And I know it probably wasn't what was intended within the context of the play, but it sure does seem correct now.
    • by AnonymousClown (1788472) on Friday November 19, 2010 @10:39AM (#34281316)

      Famous qoute, "First Kill all the lawyers" seems apropos. And I know it probably wasn't what was intended within the context of the play, but it sure does seem correct now.

      No, no,no. That's like hitting all your dogs on the nose when one pisses on the rug.

      Just shoot the assholes like these and let the other animals learn from that. And if Britain is creating lawyers half as fast as the US is, there will plenty of lawyers to fill in the gap.

      • by cdrudge (68377) on Friday November 19, 2010 @11:35AM (#34281898) Homepage

        Just shoot the assholes like these and let the other animals learn from that.

        The death penalty hasn't worked to deter extremely violent crimes. If it doesn't work for the scum of the earth, why do you think it would work for an even lower life form?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by O('_')O_Bush (1162487)
          The death penalty wasn't designed to deter extremely violent crimes. The death penalty was designed to remove extremely violent persons from our society. The same way killing lawyers is about removing those that are so corrupt that it is believed they cannot be rehabilitated.
          • recidivism.

            You can be absolutely SURE there won't be repeat offenders.

            Unfortunately psychopaths, sociopaths and gummints feel justified in the heinous acts they perpetrate and there are always more of those being born every minute.

            Okay gummints not so much because they're harder to get rid of than a SOC7 error at 11:00 at night.

          • by scubamage (727538) on Friday November 19, 2010 @02:19PM (#34283642)
            One problem though; most death row inmates are not people with violent histories. Most of them are people who "snapped" at one point in time. It's also (as of the last time I had a prison studies class) the only portion of the prison strata where whites are more common than other races.
        • by hairyfeet (841228)

          Because the criminal knows EXACTLY what crimes get the death penalty and then can base his "decision" on what he thinks his odds are. Now imagine if you just broadcast 'We just executed a lawyer for being VERY naughty. Any lawyer who is likewise naughty in a similar fashion will also be executed. Have a nice day." Then the lawyers would be forced to go "Fuck, HOW was he naughty? If it is the same dirty underhanded BS I've been pulling I could get fucking shot! WTF!?!?" Which would certainly be a deterrent f

        • by TheLink (130905)
          Many extremely violent crimes are done by people who don't think very well (insane, stupid), or get caught up by emotions (anger, desperation etc).

          Whereas psychopathic and sociopathic lawyers are often very good at dispassionately figuring things out and deciding what the optimum action should be for them (even if it means harming innocent people).

          If lawyers who do such stuff start getting executed regularly, they will certainly stop doing it.

          I'm not saying this is the right thing to do of course (to me thr
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mwvdlee (775178)

        Yes yes, we all know not ALL lawyers are evil.
        But a court case requires atleast two lawyers, so what good is it to kill all but the good one?

        • by Kjella (173770)

          No matter how poor a solution is, you have to come up with a better solution. No courts? Let alleged victims do the prosecution? Force everyone to represent themselves? And how about every organization, how should they get representation? Or maybe immunity? Drag the CEO into every small claims court?

          No matter if you remove "lawyer" as a profession, there will always be trained legal experts. People will come to them for advice on what they can do and can't do and how contracts should be set up and whatever.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by lakeland (218447)

            Well yes, but you only have to look at other countries to see an alternative - e.g. Japan a few years ago or China now.

            In the US contracts are long and complicated because the cost of a mistake is high. The other side is likely to also go through them with a fine toothed comb for loopholes, and legal recourse is expensive, slow and unpredictable. In other countries, businesses will not do business with you if you have a bad reputation so there is a strong disincentive from exploiting loopholes - meaning t

      • by sconeu (64226)

        What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

        What do you call 100 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand? Not enough sand.

        What's yellow and black and makes you laugh and cry at the same time? A schoolbus almost full of lawyers burning. You're crying because of the empty seats.

      • by ArsonSmith (13997)

        Yea, it's just some of the lawyers in the world a giving the other 3 a bad name.

    • by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday November 19, 2010 @11:12AM (#34281652) Homepage Journal

      No, there are good lawyers, but bad lawyers like these give the other 1% a bad name.

      List of good lawyers I know of:
      Lawrence Lessig
      NYCL
      My divorce attorney
      My bankrupcy attorney

      Yeah, it's a short list, but still...

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 19, 2010 @11:18AM (#34281706)

        So in other words, lawyers are good when they're on your side.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          of course, whenever you need a lawyer don't you want to have the meanest bastard you can find to drag the other guy through the coals and then spit on him to add insult?

          its about winning, not justice.

        • It's the lawyer's job to be on the side of their client, regardless of who they might personally judge is in the right morally. Like mercinaries.
        • by sorak (246725)

          So in other words, lawyers are good when they're on your side.

          If you're on the right side, yes.

        • by cpghost (719344)
          IMHO, good lawyers are those who win more cases than bad lawyers. Of course, hiring a good lawyer (by that metric) isn't so easy, because where are the "lawyer benchmarks"? I've yet to see a law firm advertising going like this: "65,032 cases handled: 65% won, 30% settled out of court, 5% cases lost".
      • by c++0xFF (1758032)

        List of good lawyers I know of: ...
        My divorce attorney

        I have a feeling your ex would disagree.

    • There was one Justice League episode that had the ultimate answer to prevent scumball lawyers - all lawyers share the sentence of their clients.
      • by slick7 (1703596)

        There was one Justice League episode that had the ultimate answer to prevent scumball lawyers - all lawyers share the sentence of their clients.

        And how would that work for O. J.?

    • We're not supposed to complain when lawyers are hired by large corporations to sue peasants, only when peasants hire lawyers to sue large corporations. Now go back to North Korea you damned collectivist! [/rightwingstrawman]
    • by strength_of_10_men (967050) on Friday November 19, 2010 @12:16PM (#34282364)
      I'm not defending these lawyers, but isn't this "kill all lawyers"-kinda indiscriminate punishment very much akin to what these lawyers are doing and what we're all railing against in the first place?
      • by slick7 (1703596)

        I'm not defending these lawyers, but isn't this "kill all lawyers"-kinda indiscriminate punishment very much akin to what these lawyers are doing and what we're all railing against in the first place?

        Aren't most of the politicians in Washington, lawyers? There, fixed that for ya.

      • by freeweed (309734)

        Slashdot needs a +1, Irony mod.

      • by Thud457 (234763)
        I didn't say "kill all lawyers", I said "kill all sleazy lawyers"...

        And does the concept of barratry [wikipedia.org] apply to groups ?
    • by slick7 (1703596)

      Famous qoute, "First Kill all the lawyers" seems apropos. And I know it probably wasn't what was intended within the context of the play, but it sure does seem correct now.

      Pirates and sharks, how apropos.

    • by debrain (29228)

      Famous qoute, "First Kill all the lawyers" seems apropos.

      Sir —

      Indeed, if you wish to give the rich even greater arbitrary and unfettered powers. Please allow me to present some choice quotes:

      "Those who use this phrase pejoratively against lawyers are as miserably misguided about their Shakespeare as they are about the judicial system which they disdain so freely."

      From: http://www.howardnations.com/shakespeare.html [howardnations.com]

      "The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers." Contrary to popular belief, the proposal was not designed to restore sanity to commercial life. Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society.

      – and –

      As the famous remark by the plotter of treachery in Shakespeare's King Henry VI shows - "The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers," - the surest way to chaos and tyranny even then was to remove the guardians of independent thinking.

      From: http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html [spectacle.org]

      Who do you think sets up any framework for regulatory consequences or enactment of discipline of the stooges for the RIAA?

      What exactly do you think would happen in the absence of any such a framework or discipline?

      And I know it probably wasn't what was intended within the context of the play, but it sure does seem correct now.

      With respect, to quote "First kill all the lawyers" as an

      • by girlintraining (1395911) on Friday November 19, 2010 @03:29PM (#34284508)

        You have a very persuasive argument, except you neglect one minor detail: You assume people will take the moral high ground when money is involved. They usually don't. Lawyers aren't any different than Joe Q. Public on the street, excepting that they dress better, make somewhat more money, and (hopefully) are somewhat better trained for their professional field than most.

        Additionally, your argument loses a lot of its intellectual purity and moral superiority when you make the reductio ad absurdum argument in paragraph two. Your post would have gone better without that.

        Lastly, there is no transparency in the legal system and you're being intellectually dishonest to state otherwise: The legal system is incredibly complex and largely unavailable to the poor. When you have a system that necessitates the use of lawyers and attorneys in every legal preceding, to the point that attempting to advance a case pro se is laughed at by every judge and legal professional -- what then can we honestly say about transparency in the system? If the system requires experts that are licensed through the state to interpret or apply its rules, then the system is not transparent. In fact, it is utterly impervious to external examination, and any protests against it are swiftly dismissed as "uneducated" or rogue. The system is self-contradictory: Practicing law without a license is a criminal offense, but yet ignorance from the law is no excuse for breaking it.

        You can be rid of the bastions of knowledge and reason – lawyers – only at the peril of the concept of principle itself.

        This conclusion is fallacious. There are systems of justice for which lawyers and attorneys are forbidden from entry, and serve only their original role as counselors: Unable to act in any way on behalf of their clients or to have any direct influence over legal proceedings. These systems do not simply cease to function without oxford-educated people in expensive suits, and these systems generally avoid overly dense and burdensome legal texts because the participants are unable to interpret or use them in any meaningful capacity.

        Lawyers should be optional, not a requirement, in the judicial process. Our system has become broken when it requires people charging several hundred or thousand dollars an hour to act as an "advocate" for their clients, and in the process creating a closed system for which money funnels in, and justice is an occasional byproduct of it, happening as much by coincidence as by design.

  • I thought this kind of shit only happens in the US.

    I am looking forward to the lawyer bubble popping.

    • Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shrike82 (1471633) on Friday November 19, 2010 @11:05AM (#34281576)
      Don't hold your breath, I highly doubt that the entire legal profession will disappear overnight. Even less likely that the profession will stop attracting assholes who are ready to do anything at all for money, including victimising innocent people like these two and their compatriots at ACS:Law.
      • by mosb1000 (710161)

        I highly doubt that the entire legal profession will disappear overnight.

        Actually, that's exactly how it will happen if things keep going the way they are now. There's too much dead weight, and there's more and more every day. Eventually the whole thing will be overspent and it will collapse into civil unrest. That is, unless we all pull our heads out of our asses and stop engaging in this kind of nonsense.

    • by sorak (246725)

      I thought this kind of shit only happens in the US.

      I am looking forward to the lawyer bubble popping.

      Why? When did a business ever fail due to unethical behavior? Look at the Catholic church*. Ethical behavior is supposed to be their product, but, somehow they seem to be weathering the child molestation scandal rather well. If the guy who's job is to tell you how to be good can get away with unethical behavior, then what mechanism would shoot down the guy whose job is to help you make money?

      * Sorry for making this about religion, but it seems like too good a counter-example.

  • I see (Score:4, Funny)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Friday November 19, 2010 @10:38AM (#34281312) Homepage

    Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs?

    "Screw the omlette. Can't go skeet shooting without breaking a few lawyers." -My wife's uncle

  • by symes (835608)
    So the accepted method of dealing with letters such as these of filing them in the trash is justified. IANAL, but surely there is a case here, perhaps class action, to go after these guys for harassment? Or perhaps ask if that infamous pizzeria at /b/ might be interested in dropping some snacks off?
    • by click2005 (921437) *

      I'm not sure if the UK has class action lawsuits.

    • by Shrike82 (1471633)

      Or perhaps ask if that infamous pizzeria at /b/ might be interested in dropping some snacks off?

      They already went after ACS:Law who were doing the same thing, so I'm sure their brightest and best (almost an oxymoron given the context) are firing up their harassment engines as we speak.

    • by sjames (1099)

      How about extortion and racketeering? They threatened a group of people they knew to be innocent with a large harm (huge legal bills etc) and offered to make it go away if they made a lesser payment.

  • Is this some type of new corporate phishing scheme?

    Things like this tarnish the sparkling reputation of lawyers everywhere!
  • The clients were publishers, not ordinary working people, weren't they? Implying that they were swindled by fast-talking lawyers seems rather naive.

    • Perhaps the publishers have some more fast-talking lawyers of their own to limit their liability
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I'm assuming that this is some legal analog of that trope from just about every special operations/spy themed violence drama ever made: "We are sending you to do something dangerous and illegal and highly advantageous to us. If it goes well, congratulations all around and we weren't involved. If it goes poorly, we've never heard of you before, and if we had than you must have gone rogue and been acting without authorization and we have nothing to do with it..."
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by delinear (991444)
        In this case it's not even that drastic. If it goes well, you'll make a ton of money and we'll nuke a few file sharers off the internet, if it goes badly you'll make a ton of money and probably get a slap on the wrist for your part in it.
    • The clients were publishers, not ordinary working people, weren't they? Implying that they were swindled by fast-talking lawyers seems rather naive.

      I don't think /. is saying they were swindled, I think they mean to say that the publishers weren't as fucking blindly stupid as they seemed to be: It's not that they couldn't imagine this shit being a bad move, they just fell into their own greedy lawyer-trap.

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Friday November 19, 2010 @10:56AM (#34281480) Journal
    May be they should be sued for malpractice and made to pay triple damages. A taste of their own medicine might do a whole lot of good in this case.
    • by whoever57 (658626)
      I believe the correct for for this type of action is extortion and they should face criminal charges.
    • by nahdude812 (88157) *

      Or since a $0.99 song being shared causes $62,500 in damages [wikipedia.org], they (and the industry they represent) should be charged $62,500 * (falsely accused recipient) * (average requested settlement amount).

    • by sorak (246725)

      May be they should be sued for malpractice and made to pay triple damages. A taste of their own medicine might do a whole lot of good in this case.

      This is the kind of thing tort laws were made for. They looked at the law and the penalty for violating it. They calculated that they could make more money by violating the law and paying up when they occasionally got caught, and the "punishment" should be high enough to ensure they don't do it again. I'm talking McDonald's hot coffee money levels. Abuse of the legal system hurts everybody, not just the few people who get nasty letters.

  • by IBBoard (1128019) on Friday November 19, 2010 @10:59AM (#34281516) Homepage

    The Solicitors Regulators Authority said the two Davenport Lyons lawyers 'knew that in conducting generic campaigns against those identified as IP holders whose IP numeric had been used for downloading or uploading of material that they might in such generic campaigns be targeting people innocent of any copyright breach.'

    (My highlighting)

    "IP numeric"? "IP holders"? They obviously aren't techies or tech-aware...which makes you wonder how they can ever be trusted to know what they're doing with these legal threats. Oh, yes, that's right, the whole things is a bit dodgy anyway - that explains the lack of technical awareness.

    I guess it was all sold to managers without a clue by lawyers without a clue, just a scent of blood (or money, whichever pays better).

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by babyrat (314371)

      "IP numeric"? "IP holders"? They obviously aren't techies or tech-aware...which makes you wonder how they can ever be trusted to know what they're doing with these legal threats. Oh, yes, that's right, the whole things is a bit dodgy anyway - that explains the lack of technical awareness.

      Right - the Solicitors Regulatory Authority are a bit dodgy - oh wait - they were the ones who used the IP Numeric term, not the lawyers who sent out the notices.

      But let's not let facts get in the way of our comments.

    • by Tim C (15259)

      News flash - people skilled in one field sometimes make a mess of jargon used in a different field. Film at 11.

      Also, you realise that you're quoting the criticism of the lawyers, not the lawyers themselves, yes? The terms may not be quite right, but the concept - that just because an IP address was identified as being involved in the copyright infringement doesn't prove that the person paying for the connection is the infringer - is bang on.

      But you go ahead and castigate the people trying to curb this sort

    • The Solicitors Regulators Authority said the two Davenport Lyons lawyers 'knew that in conducting generic campaigns against those identified as IP holders whose IP numeric had been used for downloading or uploading of material that they might in such generic campaigns be targeting people innocent of any copyright breach.'

      (My highlighting)

      "IP numeric"? "IP holders"? They obviously aren't techies or tech-aware...

      I believe they are just mixing acronyms poorly, and that it should be read as 'Intellectual Property holders (ie. possessors) whose Internet Protocol numeric (ie. number) had been used...'
      So in legalese that just means, "people that did possess and did share copyrighted files, identified by computer logs".

      Legalese is a lot older than techie speak. You're about 400 years too late for the 'can't speak English' joke. :) The lingo ain't gonna change to suit the way you think it should sound.

    • by Sockatume (732728)

      It's perfectly comprehensible - "numeric" parses as "numeric address" which pretty adequately sums up an IP address, while "IP holder" is pretty unambiguously "the person holding a particular IP address". Given that it's written for the legal trade it's completely understandable that they'd write it in their style. I wouldn't rip into a mathematician for saying I expand a wavefunction in a basis of gaussian functions instead of the proper jargon basis set.

      • It makes more sense if you read 'IP holder' as 'Intellectual property holder' - the person who was in posession of and distributing the client's intellectual property without authorisation.
  • by wvmarle (1070040) on Friday November 19, 2010 @11:00AM (#34281522)

    The typical problem of lawyers working on "no cure, no pay" basis. It is very close to police officers being allowed to keep (part of) the fines they hand out to people. They lose their integrity.

    Lawyers have a very bad name on /., I believe that has a lot to do with those stupid lawsuits in the US, typical medical related (person is doing something stupid, gets hurt, sues maker, gets awards, and now irons come with warnings like "do not iron clothes while taking a bath"). Suits that are primarily started by "no cure no pay" type lawyers.

    In many country that whole practice is outlawed, for good reason. Lawyers have an important role to fulfil in our society, but those kind of actions gives them a very bad name.

    • "No cure no pay" is illegal in most civil law countries. Oh, and most of them are also "loser pays court and attorney fees" jurisdictions.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      And what do poor people do if they need legal representation?

      There are many lawyers doing good work for a cut of the settlement, because that's the only way many many people could get someone to pay attention to them.

      "Sir, a doctor took my left leg off when I went in for a vasectomy."
      "Very good, that sounds like a solid case. Based on similar cases I've argued, it will take around 2 years and cost approximately $60,000. I'll expect 20% up front and I will provide you invoices for services rendered until we'

      • by delinear (991444)
        Actually, in the UK we have legal aid [wikipedia.org] to help people on low incomes with legal fees. It doesn't cover all cases (libel and personal injury aren't covered - the latter attracting most of the contingency "no win, no fee" law firms), but it would certainly cover something like the above.
    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Friday November 19, 2010 @11:27AM (#34281838) Journal
      I don't think that blaming contingency-basis laywers as a general institution is all that accurate(and their lack can be positively harmful).

      Because contingency-basis lawyers have to win cases in order to get paid, they arguably have to hew to a more selective standard than do standard per-hour lawyers. If I'm getting my hourly rate, I'll pretty much do whatever legal faffing you want, as long as it won't get me disbarred or otherwise open me to trouble that isn't worth it. If I get absolutely nothing until I win, I'm going to give the winnability(note, this is not identical with merit) of your case a very good look....

      Now, the fact that winnability and merit are not identical, either because(as in this case) they are simply engaging in extortion outside the courtroom, or because(as in some malpractice cases) juries are simple emotional saps is a problem, and contingency-basis lawyers will(as a body that acts roughly value-rationally on average) be willing to take winnable cases whether or not they are justly winnable; but so will standard-fee lawyers(who will also be willing to take unwinnable cases, just or unjust, or harassment cases).

      Plus, contingency-basis laywers are, in many cases, the only thing preventing access to justice(particularly civil justice) from being even more ludicrously lopsided than it already is. Criminal defendants have a right to an(often mediocre, horribly overworked) laywer, shockingly "law and order" plays better than "pay more public defenders"... People who have been wronged civilly have to get their own. Since lawyers aren't cheap, this pretty much means that civil justice for anybody who isn't at least upper-middle-class(or sticking strictly to small claims court) is available through a contingency-fee lawyer or not at all. Given the frequency with which civil wrongs are committed down the economic totem pole, "not at all" seems like a pretty lousy option...

      The fact that it is possible to win unjust cases, and sometimes simply extort people, is a problem that needs to be addressed. The fact that there are lawyers who are willing to share their client's fate is, if anything, more conducive to justice than the alternative. Contingency-fee lawyers may be like cops who get a cut of the fine(if we consider fines that have to be demonstrated in court, not that "asset forfeiture" crap); in that they will swarm like flies over anything winnable in court; but hourly laywers are like mercenaries, in that they will do the bidding of whoever is paying them, without regard for winnability, much less justice, excepting only actions likely to make them liable to more punishment than is worth it.

      If I were going to forbid a type of lawyer-payment arrangement, I'd actually say that justice would be better served by forbidding non-contingency lawyers(except in criminal cases, since a great many of those involve no money, only jail time, changing hands). A contingency-lawyer has to do the best job he can, on the best cases he can, or starve. A fee-based lawyer has to do the best job he can, on whatever his client is paying him to do, or starve. One will necessarily hew to winnability(whose relationship to justice is something that can be controlled by public policy), while the other will be a freelance heavy in the service of his client's economic interests...
      • by sjames (1099)

        Part of the problem is that contingency-fee lawyers create an imbalance. It just doesn't work when you're a defendant. As a defendant you either cough up a huge amount for a lawyer and take time off from work (probably unpaid) and risk getting socked with a huge judgment (just or not), go in pro se and take an even bigger risk of a huge judgment, or pay a fraction of that in extortion money to make it all go away.

        Of course, the absence of contingency-fee lawyers wouldn't remove the imbalance in all cases an

  • Because they were looking to recoup their own costs, the lawyers ignored clients' concerns about the negative publicity the letter campaign could — and eventually did — cause, the SRA claimed

    Implausible deniability. Everyone knows that lawyers are so careful, so crafty with the details of the law that they would never be so careless unless their clients specifically instructed them to act this way.

  • This is nothing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aceticon (140883) on Friday November 19, 2010 @11:11AM (#34281646)

    Once the three-strikes law comes into effect and they become able to legally blackmail people, all kinds of slease-bags (lawyers or not) will be coming out of the woodwork.

    In fact, the smart sleasy lawyers will be making a killing by selling "Kits" and giving "Courses" on "Using the 3-Strikes Legislation to protect your IP":
    - Considering that everybody is an IP producer and it's easy to publish your IP on the Net (in fact, this post is an example of both), everybody can go around accusing everybody else of stealing their IP, collect the "settlements" (or "drop the case" when confronted with with somebody that actually fights back) without spending a cent in courts and lawyers beyond the standard notice templates and such from the "Kits".

    There being no punishment for wrongfully accusing somebody of IP "theft" and no due process before somebody's connection is cut, a whole new class of easy, cheap and profitable scams will be born.

  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Friday November 19, 2010 @11:47AM (#34282032)

    I read these two UK periodicals to get a full spectrum of folks in the UK. From these two, one can conclude that UK citizens (née, subjects) are a highly intelligent, diplomatic and genteel folk, who will punch your fucking teeth out, if you spill their pint. "A pint and a fight, a great British night!"

    So it boggles me a bit that UK folks would just pay up on this scam without resistance. It's a good thing that Darl Charles McBride doesn't know about this. Everyone in the UK would be sent a bill for $699 for running Linux on their refrigerators. "Oi! Are yee linuxing up oor lass?"

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...