Oi! It wasn't me!

As well as the legal fees, he should peruse them for libel against his character. Imagine what the wife, kids, etc, must have thought?

Would be good for them to loose some money on this sort of practice...

Is it my imagination, or is the wording of their letter almost suggestive of generousity?

It doesn't appear to state that they actually made a mistake, instead saying that the client had decided to pursue no further action.

I guess they can't go around admitting that their business model is B*llocks, but surely if they had made a mistake the client wouldn't be given the option of pursuing the matter, i.e. the client couldn't Decide not to pursue, he'd be unable to

Clearly they did make a mistake, and likely have in a wide number of cases. The whole thing really is a lawyerly grab for money.

Mines the solid gold jacket that I DECIDED not to buy

Such tricks are not confined to filesharing: in 1994 a legal firm in Skelmersdale, Lancs., wrote to me alleging that my driver had damaged their client's sports car when unloading pallets in Peterborough (neither place ever visited by me) when I lived in Oxfordshire and, as a one man software company, employed no drivers They ignored all letters; when I reached an oik on the telephone he said, "See you in court". My solicitor wrote a four line letter demanding the names of their witnesses. We instructed a local solicitor to represent me in court in East Anglia: the claimants failed to appear and the case was dismissed with all my costs being charged to the Skelmersdale solicitors.

As you suggest: this is a "legal" scam to frighten people into sending money just to avoid trouble. One would have thought that such fishing activities would be postively illegal and punishable. Trouble is, I suppose, so many in Parliament re "lawyers", so little chance of an unbiased approach.

Probably not blackmail. Sadly, the offence of Barratry was abolished in 1967. (Why?!) Methinks it should be reinstated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry

"Sadly, the offence of Barratry was abolished in 1967. (Why?!) "

Because by then Syd had reinvented it to mean something completely different altogether.

Why, oh why, is it *always* whips when people need to name a tool of S&M delight? How stupid! I denounce this AC as one of the silly whip-beat-spank-flog-flagellate gang who giggle because they're doing something "dirty".

As any proper sadist knows, it's penetration of not entirely-willing orifices that is the ne plus ultra of s&m play. Let's have more references to giant inflatable dildos, please, and fewer to the kinds of things used to discipline recalcitrant kids.

After all, without proper equipment, the process is flawed from the start — as many tech types have noticed under a wide variety of circumstances.

Paris because <cough> her orifice rarely appears to be unwilling.

If I download Eurodomination or whatever, I have no idea if it's in copyright or not until I watch it, assuming the copyright material hasn't been removed. Until I do so I am also uploading the file to other users as I am such a generous person. How am I breaking the law. And don't say ignorance is no excuse. If I sell a stolen car that I do not know to be stolen I am not sent to prison for it, I may have to pay back the money but I am not a criminal. How is this any different?

And many non-copyrighted films, music and software are available over P2P, do I have to check the legal standing of each one prior to clicking the link? Surely the only person breaking the law is the original uploader or any downloader who subsequently finds out it is copyrighted and continues to seed.

Davenport Lyons way - guilty until proven innocent, you are the criminals, simple as that, hope you can still sleep at night by being so morally and legally corrupt

Davenport Lyons (DL) quote = "You may treat this matter as closed. We would like to apologise for any inconvenience or distress this matter may have caused."

Did DL apologise to John? I'm not sure they did. I'd like to ask out the new cute receptionist, but I know I'd be leaving myself open to trouble of one sort or another if I did. Did DL "like to apologise" in a similar way?

DL formally, and in a legal manner, contacted various organisations to pursue John, with possible unknown but troublesome consequences for his reputation now and in the future. If DL were truly apologetic wouldn't they have again been in touch with those organisations to make equal or greater effort to clear John's reputation and restore his status, and also contacted John to confirm this? I hate to think of the emotional disturbance and stress John must be suffering and, of course, the unjustified threat that now hangs over his work and personal relationships.

(I'd LIKE to give BT a bollocking as well for giving out personal information without letting the actual person know what's going on; I'd like to but I can't as BT don't have any.)

As far as my understanding goes, the biggest problem is that DigiProtect aren’t only claiming that they have suffered the civil wrong of copyright infringement. The nature of their claims means they are also accusing people of criminal acts. The evidence they claim to have is of uploaders. Euro Domination 5, like Army F*ckers, has received an R18 certificate from the BBFC. Digiprotect are accusing people of the offence of supplying an R18 video outside the premises of a licensed sex shop.

Following on from the earlier commenters, ‘John’ should certainly seek financial redress. The £150 in legal fees is a given. I personally think it would be reasonable to ask for a further £150 to cover the stress and hurt caused by such a serious accusation.