My freind recieved the DL letters, and he too had not heard of the game. He most definitely had not up/downloaded it. He does however use azureus for anime (unless it is licensed).

I am pursuing a line of investigation on this matter regarding Logistep's collection of IP addresses.
Does anyone know if the file monitored was a torrent or not? I would think it had to be given that ppl using azureus are listed in the so called 'evidence pack'.

I am going to set up a torrent file (made up of my own created documents/programmes) to share.
Set up a shareaza client to download it and disconnect the 'seed' when it is only partially done.
The client machine performing the download will have a packet sniffer running on it, and hopefully it will record connections from people who could not possibly have the file to share. The packet sniffer will be filtering for traffic on the shareaza port which I choose.

This will work only if false connections are made on a very small swarm (number of ppl connected to a tracker) as opposed to on a large swarm. My fear is that false connections are only made when connecting to large swarms (connecting to the wrong torrent once in a while).

As an innocent party, he for sure will not succumb to any 'demands for monies with menaces'.

If anyone can see any flaws in my reasoning here etc.. please post or pm me.

Lets nail these bad boy lawyers! :-)

"Nick Campbell" wrote in message
...

Blowby2 Wrote:
Maybe because it's a Hungarian developed game (East Europe) that was
produced by a German company... which is where apparently the game was
pirated. It's cyclic

Please check this out:
www.ukdata.com/numbers/05539627.html

This is a scam. Look at the woman on the front page - Nigerian - now
without painting everyone with the same brush, this is a country that
is well-known for scamming. You can see her alleged CV he

http://tinyurl.com/3y7kne

Perhaps if her ego wasn't so big, she wouldn't have drawn attention to
herself by putting her details on the frontpage... after all why is a
legal secretary on the front page of a "major" law firm - which by the
way has filed patents in the area - not rocket science - and apparently
done a few film deadline contracts for some unheard of films.

Ever heard of a top legal firm with connections with Davenport (their
US to UK branch) THAT DOESN'T MENTION THEM ON THEIR WEBSITE?
http://www.cdas.com/firmprofile.html

Because that's where their US office actually is, and you can ring them
in the US and ask them about Davenport.

IP's addresses are extremely easy to reap from any p2p software, it's
the addresses that more clever... My alarm bell rang when the spelt my
address wrong. funny that isn't it, if they are using information
supplied from an ISP.. (who deny it anyway *Even* after invoking Data
Protection Act - which uses the law to ensure they check to see if
details were handed over).

Someone needs to go to the police about this.

I'm confussed other than the fact one of them is nigerian and she
happens to be on the front page its a scam?!

I'm not sure if its a scam or not but would like more proof than that.
Also how do you mean their US to UK branch?! Because that would be
interesting. Loads of people I ahve spoken to ahve heard of Davenport
Lyons which is bad Tempted just to go up their wiv my cheque book
lol say show me proof I'll pay if not well ... lets step outside.

So Stressful! I want to know if it is a scam how they got our address,
because they got my girls mum (the account holders) address not my
name.


Thank you for trying but Im sticking with this is not a scam but I am
innnocent so shudnt be done.




--
Nick Campbell

Its a scam, in that one many if not most of the 500 who got letters are
innocent, secondly the company Logistep are they say experts in tracking
down pirates via IP address with some special program that is infaliable and
the bees knees, when all they are doing is coming up with IP addresses that
anyone with a bit of inginuity can put together, also they are not
independent they are doing this and selling the so called data for a profit
and on top of that there program or methods have I bet noot been checked
over as 100% by an independent person.

Also the german firm Zuexx is claiming money for a game that nobody has
heard of before this so called infringment of copyright and also that 500
people should want this game and be willing to download and share it jusy in
one country.

And then we have a guiilable UK legal firm seeing a quick profit to be made
as they are getting most of the cash and so they jump onto this and go for
this scam.

But hey they are legal big wigs and have managed to con the UK courts into
issuing court orders, so all in all its a same, but a well thought out one
with legal backing by our UK courts so far.

Tosh

Tosh,

I got the letters. I played it another way to the others. I am not willing to disclose my strategy in public. The companies involved picked on the wrong person here, and I'm sure from 500 there are others too - surely there must be statistically I suppose. I work in an area uncomfortably close, for the companies involved, close to them. I intend to call myself as witness.

Does anyone know what happened to Johnathan Pamplin, representative?

Bizarrely on closing account with the ISP, the customer retention department went on record that their representatives "download loads of music all the time". They are aware of our predicament. I have taken steps to ensure that any other ISP reading this should warn their customers of a court injunction raised on their account in regard to any civil action.

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:41:29 +0100, Blowby2
wrote:

I am not
willing to disclose my strategy in public.

If you're not going to tell us what you're doing, what the **** is the
reason for your post?

Does anyone know what happened to Johnathan Pamplin, representative?

So, basically, you want the other poor *******s to help you with your
case while at the same time saying they can go fry?

Copyright damages should not be punitive, says UK Government

OUT-LAW News, 14/05/2007

The Government has proposed a change to the damages available under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, ruling out the possibility of the award of punitive damages in civil cases of copyright infringement.

The Ministry of Justice, which has taken over the duties of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, is operating a consultation process on the changes, which it hopes will clarify the law.

The Act permits a judge to award "additional damages" in a civil case concerning an infringement of copyright or other rights covered by the Act. The phrase is unusual in English law, with other legislation more commonly referring to exemplary, restitutionary or aggravated damages.

The Ministry of Justice believes that the Copyright Act should, like other laws, be more specific about exactly what damages can be awarded by a judge. The consultation also includes the Patents Act.

"The Government considers that the use of this anomalous term in the 1977 [Patents] and 1988 [Copyright, Designs and Patents] Acts is not helpful and believes that it may assist in clarifying the law in this area if the Acts are amended," said the Government's consultation.

Exemplary damages are those imposed for punishment; restitutionary damages are those which repay the victim of unlawful behaviour for their actual loss; and aggravated damages are compensation for harm such as mental distress.

The Ministry of Justice proposes changing the term used in the Copyright Act from "additional damages" specifically to exclude exemplary, or punitive, damages. Its recommendations referred to Justice Pumfrey's view on civil copyright infringements in a case involving Nottinghamshire Health Care.

"He came to the conclusion that there was no reason why a purely punitive or exemplary award was appropriate, given that the Act established criminal offences in the case of knowing infringement," said the proposal.

The proposed change in the Copyright Act is to replace the term "additional damages" with the term "aggravated and restitutionary damages", thereby excluding exemplary damages.

The Government has long considered punitive damages more appropriate to criminal law. "[The] aim of civil law should be to provide compensation for loss, not to punish the defendant," said the paper.

The Ministry has also said that it wants both aggravated and restitutionary damages to be available to corporations and not just individuals, in spite of a ruling to the contrary from the Court of Appeal.

"In the case of Collins Stewart Ltd and another v Financial Times Ltd the Court of Appeal decided that aggravated damages were in principle not available to a corporate claimant because a company has no feelings to injure and cannot suffer distress," said the proposal. "In view of the fact that most claims under the 1977 and 1988 Acts are likely to be brought by corporate claimants, in amending the Acts the Government would propose to clarify that aggravated and restitutionary damages under the Acts can be awarded to corporate claimants."

http://www.out-law.com/page-8044

I have received another letter today asking for 3 things

1 "A Copy of the instructions accompanying the router"
2 "Evidence of the use of anti-virus and firewall software"
3 "Evidence showing how your computer was comprimised"

1. Thats easy enough
2. My computer wasnt compromised my router was
3. My computer wasnt compromised my router was

They obviously didnt read my letter correctly as my computer wasnt compromised my routers back then WEP encryption must have been

I am having to post this via legal banter as newserver palying up, just got another letter after 4 weeks of nothing from Davenport:


"We have now provided you with sufficient evidence to enable you to
understand fully the nature of our clients claim against you. We consider
that we have complied in full with the requirements of the Civil Procedure
Rules, the Code of Conduct for pre-action conduct in intellectual property
disputes (January 2004)and the relevant pr-action protocols.

In the light of this, we consider that to enter into further correspondence
with you on technical or evidential points is unnecessary and unhelpful and
will serve only to increase costs. We are therefore instructed not to
continue this circular correspondence.

We are taking our client's instructions regarding the issuing of proceedings
against you..

All of our client's rights are reserved."

Should be interesting how this will turn out, as my wife is innocent and has
no money etc either, what do they hope to gain?

Just got to figure how to take on expert lawyers now as they no all the cons to try and win for the bad guys in germany.

Tosh

So they are finally taking people to court, I am not even going to respond to there demands any more I am going to await court papers as I am just wasting my time talking with them

Heres a copy of the full letter http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w248/DrFranky/nn.jpg

How the hell can anyone produce evidence that ones computer was compromised, they are for sure not concerned with anything except their clients iffy evidence and the so called experts Logistep are the end and be all of everything and the rest of us are crooks, just because unlike Dvaenport we cannot supply evidence from a profit making, unindependent, non expert witnesses such as Zuexx are using Logistep.

One thing is obvious from the letter sent to you they are going to make out that because one cannot produce evidence that ones internet account was comprimised that one must be lying and that they are not.

So maybe like them we need to forge evidence to prove our case.

On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:34:31 +0100, hipraptor wrote:


I am having to post this via legal banter as newserver palying up, just
got another letter after 4 weeks of nothing from Davenport:


"We have now provided you with sufficient evidence to enable you to
understand fully the nature of our clients claim against you. We
consider
that we have complied in full with the requirements of the Civil
Procedure
Rules, the Code of Conduct for pre-action conduct in intellectual
property
disputes (January 2004)and the relevant pr-action protocols.

In the light of this, we consider that to enter into further
correspondence
with you on technical or evidential points is unnecessary and unhelpful
and
will serve only to increase costs. We are therefore instructed not to
continue this circular correspondence.

We are taking our client's instructions regarding the issuing of
proceedings
against you..

Instructions which could be be to drop it...