Which? makes formal "bullying" complaint about Davenport Lyons
Consumer group Which? has complained to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) about letters sent by Davenport Lyons to alleged file-sharers on behalf of copyright owners.
In a letter sent to the SRA yesterday, Which? accused Davenport Lyons of “bullying” behaviour.
Which? also claims that the Davenport Lyons letters make “incorrect assertions about the nature of copyright infringement”.
Deborah Prince, Head of legal affairs at Which?, said: “We think the SRA needs to take urgent action against Davenport Lyons. In the current financial climate, we expect an increase in the action that companies may want to take against individuals. The SRA must investigate all such allegations and take decisive action where necessary.”
Davenport Lyons has been working with Internet Service Providers and the courts to hunt for internet users who are thought to have illegally downloaded copyrighted material, such as music, videogames and films. The firm sends letters demanding £500 compensation to the alleged file-sharers.
Davenport Lyons denied that the letters were not legally correct and were bullying.
A spokesperson said: “We’re disappointed that Which? have released this. They haven’t fully discussed the issues with us. The overwhelming thing is that we are saddened that a consumer group wants to pour scorn on a scheme to protect copyright, the theft of which costs consumers millions of pounds a year.”
He added: “We’re baffled as to why this sort of action warrants their attention. Essentially they’re doing the work of the illegal file-sharers for them. If the SRA want to investigate then we are happy to co-operate - we’ve got nothing to hide.”
On Monday The Lawyer reported that Davenport Lyons has been acting on behalf of German company Digiprotect to target file-sharers (8 December).
Digiprotect owns the rights to pornographic films including gay title Army F*ckers, about which Davenport Lyons sent a letter demanding £500 to an elderly couple alleged to have downloaded it (see story).
To subscribe to our free Lawyer News Daily news and comment email, click here. Or get the latest news, features and comment as it’s published with our free RSS feed.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Send me jobs by email
Readers' comments (16)
Andrew Keogh | 10-Dec-2008 2:56 pm
which consumer?
I was interested that Which? is apparently a consumer group. Instead of jumping to the supposed defence of those who allegedly rip off the intellectuall property of others, it should pause to think about consumers like me who pay for this via legitimate purchases.
I trust that the SRA has better things to do than get involved in a spat no doubt inteded to generate publicity for a group that seems to be losing its moral compass in life.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Dec-2008 3:27 pm
Moral compass?
Moral compass? Get off your high horse. These actions are misguided and prone to error. See all the prosecutions of children, pensioners and the like (...although why pensioners should be presumed to be innocent of downloading gay porn is open to debate.)
The industry's persecution of the very people who should be its customers is a damning indictment of an industry that has completely lost its way in the digital age. What kind of a moron sues his own customers?!
To complain about moral compasses shows that you are just as out of date as the idiots in charge of the big record companies.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Dec-2008 3:48 pm
Not customers
Clearly those being sued are not customers hence the reason why are being sued - for downloading without payment
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Dec-2008 3:52 pm
RE:Which Consumer
Andrew Keogh i couldn't agree with you more. People who spend their hard earned money on titles such as Army F*ckers have every right to feel let down when people receive a copy for free...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Synergy6 | 10-Dec-2008 4:37 pm
RE: Not Customers
Except for the small point that many of those sent such letters either *are* customers, or haven't downloaded anything illegally. The dead people, pets, etc. who have been sent letters probably aren't great customers, but I don't think it logically follows that they should get sued.
The main problem for the media companies is, in the proportionally few instances these things actually get to court, they quite often lose. Scaring a family into forking over £3000 is a lot easier than proving criminal liability based on generally flimsy evidence.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Dec-2008 5:20 pm
We don't know enough
I think it is too soon to pass comment on whether or not DL has been "bullying" at all. I have not seen the letter, and so far as I am aware it has not been published. DL's clients must have the right, as with any copyright owner, to protect its intellectual property, irrespective of its content, provided that content is not illegal. It is also perfectly proper for DL to accept those instructions.
If there is evidence that copyright has been breached, DL can demand appropriate payment of royalties by way of settlement rather than go to court.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Dec-2008 5:42 pm
What are DigiProtect?
As I understand the position, the copyright owners in each case only get a very small proportion of the £500. So essentially the majority is made up of some kind of perverse profit share between DL and DigiProtect... lovely. I am sure that a lot of firms would like to make the most of the potential profits, although clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel quality-wise....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Dec-2008 5:49 pm
We don't know enough
For those who don't watch the BBC, Watchdog on Monday evening ran this story. They had computer experts examine the hard drives of some of the people that had contested the accusations and it would seem that this proved that the content had not been downloaded.
In at least one of the cases (missed a bit getting dinner) the person was able to prove she was elsewhere and could not have downloaded this rubbish. So in many cases there was no evidence of copyright breaches. And the letters that were shown looked very heavy and threatening to me!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Dec-2008 5:53 pm
Evidence
I think that is the point.. the evidence is shaky at best. However, the letters are full-on. Not the sort of letters you would expect from solicitors dealing with the man on the street. How many of these people are realistically going to get legal advice from a lawyer that knows what they are doing with IP. Setting the "royalty" - or "penalty" - at the rate means that a suitable level of profit is realised by DigiProtect.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Dec-2008 6:17 pm
Bullying is not the only issue
It seems to me that the real issue here is clamping down on the pornographers who make and freely distribute this sort of stuff on the Internet, and the prostitutes they employ to "act" in their films.
Allowing distributors to use lawyers and the courts to obtain payment for such material (particularly if the downloaders inferred that it was legal and free because it was freely available) is just encouraging pornographers.
Paying people to have sex, on film or not, is prostitution (and may involve human trafficking and exploitation). All those profiting from this activity, including the alleged copyright owners, could therefore be argued to be living off the proceeds of prostitution, ie pimping.
Perhaps the solution is to remove copyright protection from pornography. Then the distributors would not be able to profit from carelessly making their material available on the net without proper safeguards - and then cleaning up later with demands from lawyers, so they would police their own operations to get paid at the point of sale. But no doubt someone will tell me that that is too simplistic an analysis.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment