U.K. lawyers send porn download bills to upstanding citizens

Perhaps you are a fan of the gay porn movie Army F*****s. Perhaps you are not.

But surely everyone can sympathize with the English couple, aged a little more than 60, who received a nasty letter from a law firm demanding that they pay around $750 for "copyright infringement."

According to this law firm, the deeply sensitive Davenport Lyons, this couple downloaded all 115 minutes of the aforementioned seminal German gay porn flick.

There is only one potential drawback to this hammer blow for justice. The couple in question don't even know how to download. As in get something onto their desktop from somewhere else.

They told the Guardian newspaper: "We were offended by the title of the film. We don't do porn - straight or gay - and we can't do downloads. We have to ask our son even to do an iTunes purchase."

"Aha", you of a more cynical bent might be thinking. "It must be the son, then." There again, what if I told you that more than 25,000 of these letters have been sent out?

There were several other images I could have put here.

(Credit: CC Umjanedoan)

And, if everyone paid up, this would net the pornographers (with, presumably, a nice little dribble of percentage for their law firm) a sum that cuddles very close to $8 million.

I am unaware of the budget of Army F*****s, but I feel confident in projecting that such a sum would represent a healthy uplift in the pornographers' balance sheet.

Michael Coyle, who is defending some of the folks who are being strong-armed by Davenport Lyons on behalf of the pornography rights holder, told the Guardian: "We've had straight pensioners complain, and a mother who had the shock of having to question her 14-year-old son about gay porn because he was the only apparent user of the internet connection that was registered to her."

It appears that the copyright holders -- who aren't just protecting porn but also games -- are using potentially slippery methods of web identification.

"All they do is find the internet connection, demand the service provider reveal the name and address (not all do) and then send out a letter demanding cash. But the technology is flawed. It is easy to hijack a wireless router especially in a built-up area or a block of flats, so it is never clear who used what," said Mr. Coyle.

You might, at this point, be wondering whether the firm of Davenport Lyons is one that gets some entertainment from chasing trucks full of paramedics.

But no, it appears that the firm enjoys a rather exalted clientele. Including, according to its website, iTunes s.a.r.l. This is the Apple-owned company that runs Apple stores in Europe. Which might make some wonder just what methods the firm might concoct to defend iTunes.

It might also make you wonder whether Apple, in some way, condones this heartily aggressive and, some might consider, less than discriminating style of lawyering.

Naturally, the deeply sensitive chaps at Davenport Lyons are claiming that those who have done not downloaded their clients' artistic endeavors illegally have nothing to be worried about.

But how many elderly or just plain scared people are getting these demands and simply paying up to avoid embarrassment or legal costs they fear they can't afford?

There are already several discussion threads on this subject, including slyck.com .

I would hate to think that there are hordes of miscreants out there who have enjoyed the exalted stolen pleasures of Army F*****s for free.

However, when it comes to seeking justice, one would have thought that, as in the finest of pornography (so I'm told), seduction works rather better than, um, ham-fistedness.

[notesrules]

The title of this article is ABSOLUTELY misleading! As I read the article I started asking myself when would I read something about Apple lawyers sending out these bills. I then started asking myself why Apple would even have to send out these bills since the company does not sell porn. As I approached the end of the article, I realized my questions were right on target!

In order to get folks to read this article, you decided to sensationalize the tile to lure folks into reading it. Shame on you! Shame!!

It is sad to see CNET writers lowering their writing standards so much!!

[spamho]

I think perhaps we should personally email the author of the article, Chris Matyszczyk, about his inappropriate title. Very misleading and a poor, shameful, and cheap way to sensationalise and get an audience. Shame on your journalism, Mr. Chris Matyszczyk. Shame on you.

[ckurowic]

This article is complete trash. The wording is dismal, and the title is extremely misleading. Good job Matyszczyk.

[johnnykuz]

Unbelievable...... what does "iTunes" have to do with any of this?

Talk about a cheap shot....

[dhavleak]

Chris,

This is the only link I found in the article between iTunes and rest of it -- "Naturally, the deeply sensitive lawyers from Davenport Lyons (which, according to its website, also represents iTunes s.a.r.l, the Apple-owned company that runs Apple stores in Europe." (and the sentence didn't even parse correctly).

That's pretty weak isn't it? Especially considering the title you've given the article? Can you clarify the link a bit to make it clear why iTunes/Apple needed to be dragged into this?

[ChrisMatyszczyk]

Thank you, dhavleak,

I have rewritten a little to make the point a little clearer. The question surely is, at what point is this apparently blanket method of lawyering unnecessarily indiscriminate? And would iTunes, which employs this firm, condone this method of doing business in enforcing its own rights?

Chris

[mathue_tax]

What this has to do with iTunes seems tenuous at best, at the very least it is misleading. I guess this was meant to be humorous but I think it rather fell flat and wasn't terribly effective as negative guerilla PR : /

[MSSlayer]

How is this all that different from what the RIAA and MPAA is doing?

[spamho]

Wow! This is a really stupid heading for the article. I read the original article first earlier today on Guardian UK. Then when I encountered this article on C|Net I thought perhaps I misread the Guardian's article because I don't remember ANYTHING about the case being iTunes related.

Scanning through C|Net's article, I realised then the only connection is that the lawyers also represent iTunes's legal team but the case itself has nothing to do with iTunes. Very, very misleading and as a previous comment said "cheap shot".

C|Net, don't stoop so low. Title your articles properly and don't be a cheapskate. Shame on you.

[johnqh]

CNET has a lot of these kind of articles lately.

We really need a different source for tech news.

" And would iTunes, which employs this firm, condone this method of doing business in enforcing its own rights?" This tenuous link sounds like McCarthyism, guilt by association. Chris Matyszczyk and his CNet editors should be ashamed of themselves.

[Seaspray0]

Please pay attention, people. The association with itunes is one of irony. Of course, itunes has nothing to do with this but the people who did the porn sent a letter to them as well. What does this tell you? Again, read the story. "It appears that the copyright holders- who aren't just protecting porn but also games- are using potentially slippery methods of web identification." Duh!

[SunnyGuy53]

Uh guys, rumor has it that people get paid by the click for web pages.
Or hasn't anyone noticed that controversial and misleading titles are
de rigueur nowadays for articles of little actual worthwhile content.

Go figure.

[Jon Skillings]

The headline has been changed to remove "iTunes."

[mattumanu]

People. The blog (and it is a blog, afterall) is called TECHNICALLY INCORRECT. If you expected something other than title suggested, maybe you also thought that Army F*****'s was a computer animated movie from Pixar!

Get with it people. I just love armchair editors who've never attended even one journalism class second guessing something that's so obvious.

[ChrisMatyszczyk]

thank you, mattumanu,

it is always reassuring to listen to a little hearty perspective in this world of semi-conscious myopia.

I hope your Thanksgiving was good and that you are looking forward to a splendid Holiday season.

Chris

[mattumanu]

You are welcome, and I hope your holiday was a pleasant one also.