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."
excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if firms responsible will actually be punished for false claims, we might be going somewhere.
Excellent advice (Score:5, Insightful)
Double tap to the body, then the kill shot to the head.
Expensive legal defense (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as an effective defense is more expensive than out of court settlement, this type of harassment will exist. Even though Davenport Lyons may have known that some of the recipients of the letter were not guilty of anything, it would have been time consuming to figure out which ones they were. And with the state of the courts these days, it was more effective to take a wide view and hit everyone they could.
Until the government provides basic defense in all cases, this type of thing will continue.
How about "Treble Damages" for Wrongful Settlement (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems fair for their side, triple refund plus an apology in the Daily Mail if the victim wants it.
Re:excellent (Score:2, Insightful)
To bad this hasn't happened on the other side of the pond... yet.
I honestly don't know what's worse here. The lack of ethics in a field which purports to have some level of authority, for justices' sake. Or, the level to which greed will strip so many individuals of some semblence of conscience. Since, essentially, they're willing to ruin average peoples lives financially.....
Alas, my faith in humanity retains its below normal level.
This has nothing to do with the RIAA (Score:1, Insightful)
It's purely greedy lawyers who decide to put profit over doing the right thing. These are the ambulance chasers and injury fakers of the world, and how they act has nothing to do with any merits the RIAA may or may not have.
They'd be doing the exact same damn thing if they could get money from the GPL, from Ponzi Schemes, or deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge.
It is OK if you can get away with it .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about "Treble Damages" for Wrongful Settlem (Score:1, Insightful)
And oral sex from the best looking secretary! That's about as likely to happen.
Re:Expensive legal defense (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, in much the same way it's more effective if I just steal what I want. There are minimum standards to how sure you need to be before you demand settlement under threat of lawsuit. While that standard falls well below absolute certainty, they were nowhere near meeting it. Unfortunately, a rule with no enforcement is no rule at all and there are always bottom feeders out there ready to take advantage of it.
I wish we did that here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently, English civil courts require real evidence when you bring a case before them.
It's kind of a neat idea. Here, it's "Well, we have an IP address that we think the defendant used around that time!" We should adopt that standard here in the good old US. Actual, hard evidence. What a great idea!
Nothing less... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A rose by any other name (Score:3, Insightful)
Mainly this is lawyers not acting under direction from a client. Which is entirely against the rules that lawyers are supposed to operate under.
Fingers crossed ACS Law will also get rapped, as they were doing the same using "assets" from DL
Re:Still a long way to go (Score:3, Insightful)
Only the first group of evildoers has been obliterated; the second has been damaged, but it's still in the game;
It's worth pointing out that legal firms that are *not* currently involved in this nonsense are scurrying around trying to consolidate their position of "Too hot, wouldn't touch it with someone else's stolen ten-foot shitty stick". If *lawyers* are prepared to stay away from a money-making scheme because it's too dirty...