UK Law Body Targets RIAA-Style Settlement Letters 95
PerformanceDude writes "The Register reports that a major UK law firm knew it sometimes had no reliable evidence of unlawful filesharing when it demanded hundreds of pounds in damages from internet users, according to the solicitors' watchdog. London-based Davenport Lyons threatened thousands of people with legal action for alleged copyright infringement between 2006 and 2009. They were told that by quickly paying around £500 damages, plus costs, they could avoid court. Following complaints to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Davenport Lyons now stands accused of deliberately ignoring concerns over the standard of its evidence."
Still a long way to go (Score:5, Informative)
Davenport-Lyons was the legal firm who started this racket, which was then relaunched under ACS:Law; Gallant-Macmillan was the third entity to try it.
Only the first group of evildoers has been obliterated; the second has been damaged, but it's still in the game; the third one is still cranking out letters, although in a fairly restrained manner (in this case, it's really their customer who is pushing hard). And, eventual enforcement of the Digital Economy Bill, currently expected for late January 2011, will probably open the floodgates to hordes of copycats.
There's still a long way to go for the legal situation around UK filesharing to get back to anything resembling sanity.
Re:excellent (Score:5, Informative)
Over many years I have spent much more time with various lawyers than I ever wanted. One of the most valuable things I learned is that when a lawyer sends you a letter saying something like "In our opinion XYZ..." you should pay very close attnetion.
XYZ usually involves some sort of claim to back up a demand and not only is XYZ frequently untrue but it would be almost impossible for a practising lawyer to believe XYZ is true. That is why it is presented as an opinion rather than as a fact from an expert [the lawyer] ... so that when Mr. ABC goes before a judge he can't say "Boondoggle and Co. claimed it was illegal for me to not pay them..." then Boondoggle can defend themselves with "that was just our opinion at the time, we made no claims as to its accuracy and Mr. ABC is responsible for obtaining his own legal advice." Boondoggle and Co. are simply hoping that Mr. ABC will assume a lawyer would not outright lie or that he can't afford a lawyer of his own, or both, and will pay up without determining the truth.
This just sounds like more in the same vein but they stumbled a wee bit far over the line - smarter lawyers would have done it in such a way as to be beyond meaningful discipline.
Ladies who do! (Score:3, Informative)
You would be amazed at what they can find in the trashcans they are emptying!
And this was the core strategy of a trader in "Ladies who do", a 1963 comedy http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0057241 [imdb.com]. He collaborated with a group of cleaners to make a fortune in which they all shared, based on access to inside information.
Re:excellent (Score:2, Informative)
This is true. They o have an incentive toact if the entire profession is being brought into disrepute though, and threatening hundreds of people for filesharing is such a small part of the overal profession's income (which is presumably mostly property, wills and small business contracts) that there's not a lot of harm to putting a stop to it.