UK Law Firm Exaggerates Its $30,000 Win Over Pinball Game Sharer

from the default-judgment dept

We wrote about the woman who was fined $30,000 for file sharing a pinball video game earlier this week, noting that the press seemed to be taking the word of the law firm that sued her, Davenport Lyons, as if it were fact. That seemed problematic — and we should have realized that it was even more problematic than initially noted. TorrentFreak has turned up the fact that this was a default judgment against the woman, meaning that she didn’t even show up in court to defend herself. Effectively, the court more or less had to decide this way. Davenport Lyons, of course, implied that she had fought the case and lost — and thus, everyone else would be better off just paying based on the pre-settlement letters that the firm seems to send out in bulk. But that’s not necessarily true. There’s no indication how a court would rule if an actual defense were put forth.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: davenport lyons

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “UK Law Firm Exaggerates Its $30,000 Win Over Pinball Game Sharer”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Ignoring the fact a lawsuit was filed and a judgement rendered, I do have to wonder what would ever possess an individual receiving a settlement offer under these circumstances to in essence ignore its contents?

Hopefully there is more to the story than what appears in the news. Is the plaintiff really inclined to demand the damages award be paid, or there a side letter that lets the plaintiff gets its “headline” while excusing payment under a confidential arrangement? Personally, I would strongly urge a client to pursue the latter course. It makes the point publicly, but at the same time ameliorates the obvious hardship to the defendant.

BTW, I strongly doubt that the plaintiff is proceeding blindly by failing to recognize the likelihood of negative PR. Such actions by business executives/management are rarely made in a casual manner and are usually employed as a last resort.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: …what would ever possess an individual…?

There are two obvious possibilities. The first is that Miss Barwinska, being Polish, may not have understood the seriousness of the letters she received. That would be unfortunate, but no excuse. The second is that she may not have known about the court case. The Daily Mail reported that Miss Barwinska moved from Leytonstone to Canning Town between the date of the alleged infringement and the date of the judgement. The piece by Channel 4 News suggests that Davenport Lyons had no idea if they’d managed to successfully contact Miss Barwinska. If she moved before Davenport Lyons’ paperwork turned up, she should be able to apply to the court to have the judgement set aside.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...