Illegal Game Downloads: Lawyers Steam In Again
Problems arise with peer-to-peer again
Remember lawyers Davenport Lyons and how Atari dropped them after BBC consumer show Watchdog objected to their activities in prosecuting illegal game downloads? (Details here if you don't remember.)
Well today it's being reported that a legal firm based in London and called ACS:Law is being challenged after it went after a Hartlepool man who they accuse of an illegal download.
Mark Thompson of The Hartlepool Mail reports that local man, Mark Whitaker, is being chased for £665 by the legal eagles for downloading a copy of Reality Pumps' Two Worlds via Azerus.
Now, illegally downloading games is bad. It takes a bit of money from developers and a whole chunk of money from publishers, retail and merchant bankers.
The problem with this case - and many like it (see Davenport Lyons again) - is that proving it is not easy. In this case, Mr Whittaker is stating that he didn't live at a Jarvis Walk, Hartlepool, address on April 9th 2009. This is a problem for ACS:Law, as this is the location and date being used to attempt to extract the money from Mr W' who says, "I legally download stuff like everyone else and I checked with my internet provider to make sure I was doing nothing wrong. To me I am being targeted for money I do not owe."
As we say, illegally downloading games is wrong and, well, illegal. However, we're unsure how a law firm - even one of the unimpeachable standing and reputation that we assume ACS: Law has can demand money without anybody actually having been found guilty of any wrong-doing.
Well today it's being reported that a legal firm based in London and called ACS:Law is being challenged after it went after a Hartlepool man who they accuse of an illegal download.
Mark Thompson of The Hartlepool Mail reports that local man, Mark Whitaker, is being chased for £665 by the legal eagles for downloading a copy of Reality Pumps' Two Worlds via Azerus.
Now, illegally downloading games is bad. It takes a bit of money from developers and a whole chunk of money from publishers, retail and merchant bankers.
The problem with this case - and many like it (see Davenport Lyons again) - is that proving it is not easy. In this case, Mr Whittaker is stating that he didn't live at a Jarvis Walk, Hartlepool, address on April 9th 2009. This is a problem for ACS:Law, as this is the location and date being used to attempt to extract the money from Mr W' who says, "I legally download stuff like everyone else and I checked with my internet provider to make sure I was doing nothing wrong. To me I am being targeted for money I do not owe."
As we say, illegally downloading games is wrong and, well, illegal. However, we're unsure how a law firm - even one of the unimpeachable standing and reputation that we assume ACS: Law has can demand money without anybody actually having been found guilty of any wrong-doing.
Read More Like This
Comments
Ken 14 May 2009 09:37
1/2
Because to be found guilty of criminal law you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas to sue as a tort--through private action, independent of a prosecutor, which is where they make their money--you only need to prove that on the basis of probabilities they committed the wrong.
Here in Canada our courts have ruled that ISPs can't divulge user information from IPs, due to privacy concerns. However, most countries which went the other way and allowed the attacks on individuals (by implementing legislation based on the new international model conventions) also imposed a cap to how much the studies can sue for. If your laws are like that then that's probably why the claim was so low, hardly seems worth it to get lawyers involved for that much of a reward haha.
As far as the story goes, it sounds like we're missing information, there must be some kind of link. The law firm may be bound to privacy if they got information from the ISP or anything liek that. And really, an ISP isn't going to tell you what you can and can't do on the internet, maybe a call center employee but that doesn't really amount to much.
Here in Canada our courts have ruled that ISPs can't divulge user information from IPs, due to privacy concerns. However, most countries which went the other way and allowed the attacks on individuals (by implementing legislation based on the new international model conventions) also imposed a cap to how much the studies can sue for. If your laws are like that then that's probably why the claim was so low, hardly seems worth it to get lawyers involved for that much of a reward haha.
As far as the story goes, it sounds like we're missing information, there must be some kind of link. The law firm may be bound to privacy if they got information from the ISP or anything liek that. And really, an ISP isn't going to tell you what you can and can't do on the internet, maybe a call center employee but that doesn't really amount to much.
Beingscammed 14 May 2009 10:11
2/2
@Ken
For more information and all the dirt we have uncovered so far, please read the forum at http://www.p2pfreak.com/forum/torrent-sites/1581-infringement-copyright-notice-two-worlds.html and for a brief update try this u-tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0PejRr5SCM
Coming soon www.beingscammed.com to give you a full and easy overview.
For more information and all the dirt we have uncovered so far, please read the forum at http://www.p2pfreak.com/forum/torrent-sites/1581-infringement-copyright-notice-two-worlds.html and for a brief update try this u-tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0PejRr5SCM
Coming soon www.beingscammed.com to give you a full and easy overview.