Reports on the net have an allegation that TBI Solicitors have been trying to edit their Wikipedia entry.  You can see this for yourself at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilly_bailey_irvine and pay special attention to the volume litigation section, where it says:

On 3 March, UK consumer rights website Which? reported complaints by people who had received letters from TBI Solicitors accusing them of illegally sharing files of pornographic material that belongs to Golden Eye (International).

According to Torrentfreak, this is amongst the material that TBI has been alleged to try and stop people seeing, unfortunately they didn’t think to mask their own IP (which is alleged to have geolocated to TBI sols) and have ended up with a warning from admins of Wikipedia.

Heres what the admins are reported to have said to TBI solicitors:

Please do not remove sourced content from Wikipedia, as you did with TBI Solicitors — this is vandalism…….Furthermore, your IP address geolocates to ‘TILLY BAILEY & IRVINE’ which suggests that you have a conflict of interest in removing criticism of the firm from Wikipedia. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with that policy before editing this particular article any further…

So do TBI want to distance themselves from the file sharing issue?  Maybe they want to distance themselves from the pornography?  Whatever the truth, let it be known what is alleged against TBI, visit for yourself and make your own mind up.

You can visit the TBI homepage yourself at http://www.tbilaw.co.uk/ and it’s worth also noting that TBI offer “personal injury” services as well as IP and others.

What I find amusing (in respect of the personal injury service) is:

You keep 100% of the compensation that you receive in straight forward cases.

I wonder if TBI could then confirm, how much of the “compensation” do the pornography business get when you recoup money for them?  Maybe an answer only TBI can give.  I doubt they would.

Ive included a link to the TBI homepage in the hope that they will see the incoming link and respond to this article, having said that if the Wikipedia allegation is accurate then I would question if they had the technical knowledge to do that.  I wonder, how much faith can a label put into TBI in regards to harvesting IP’s of infringers when it can’t even “get away” with modifying its own Wikipage?

As my regular readers know I have spent years talking about on a regular basis how I think piracy is wrong.  I don’t think though that the allegations against law firms that we have recently seen are right either though.  If a anti-piracy viewpoint cannot agree with the “fines” letters and recent actions then what hope is there for a resolution to the issue.

Whilst we are on the subject of pornography, Ive recently asked how a warning letter/civil action can be given by TBI/ACS/anyone else in the UK if the material in question has not been classified by the BBFC.  I am not sure of the current list of titles that these companies go after, but if the pornography has not received a BBFC classification then it is not allowed to be sold in this country.  How can civil recompense be sought for a title with effectively no “legal status” in the UK? Just food for thought.

Goblin – bytes4free@googlemail.com

If you are new to this blog (or have not yet read it) please take time to view the Openbytes statement, here.