Lawyers stop letters

GuyClapperton 0 651 Views

Legal firm Tilly, Baker and Irvine (TBI) has agreed to stop sending letters to Internet users when they believe they may be infringing copyright. The ironic thing is that this is the same week in which UK law changed to allow the Government to cut users off for precisely the same reason under the terms of the new Digital Economy Bill.

Consumer association Which? has welcomed the news. It has been broadly welcoming towards the Bill, which it believes will be proportionate in its handling of Internet transgressions, but had criticised the legal partnership for approaching people with insufficient evidence.

TBI had been sending letters to people for infringing its clients' rights, its clients being pornographers. Some recipients of the letters claimed innocence but settled out of court to avoid public humiliation.

Morality aside, it's clear that an image is copyrighted no matter what it is, to the clients had rights to defend. It may well have coloured some of the coverage in the media or the sympathy with which the company was typically greeted.

The recognition of the images also means someone was looking at the faces, probably. I'll make no comment on that, just leave it as a thought for the weekend.

Dani AI

Generated

As observed, the Tilly, Bailey & Irvine (TBI) episode was one example of a short, high‑profile burst of “speculative invoicing” that collapsed under adverse publicity rather than being settled by new law. TBI announced it would stop drafting mass letters after heavy criticism in April 2010. (itpro.com)

Context matters: the Digital Economy Act received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010 and included a framework for an Ofcom‑drawn “initial obligations” code (notifications, a repeat‑infringer list and potential technical measures such as suspension). In practice the Act was an enabling framework and many of the enforcement mechanics were never put into force; separate site‑blocking clauses were publicly dropped in 2011 after an Ofcom review. (legislation.gov.uk)

Practical takeaways and how these stories matter now

  • Purpose of the letters: the early campaigns relied on IP‑address trace reports and Norwich Pharmacal orders to identify account holders; those methods attracted legal and regulatory scrutiny and, in many cases, weak evidential foundations. (torrentfreak.com)
  • Common outcomes: accused account‑holders sometimes settled to avoid public exposure or hassle, which is why many campaigns were commercially attractive even when liability was uncertain. (torrentfreak.com)
  • Checklist (actionable, non‑prescriptive): retain the original letter and all timings; do not make an immediate payment; request full particulars and evidence in writing; confirm whether an ISP was ordered to disclose subscriber details and by what court order; seek independent legal advice or a consumer‑law adviser before responding; and consult archived consumer resources and reporting on speculative‑invoicing schemes when assessing risk. (torrentfreak.com)

Bottom line: the TBI story and the Digital Economy Act show the difference between headline policy and implementation. The headlines changed the debate, but the practical legal landscape was shaped by later regulator work, court challenges and voluntary industry responses — which is the relevant frame for anyone researching these letters years later. (commonslibrary.parliament.uk)

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.

Edit Preview