Sky Broadband Send Notification Letters About Golden Eye International To Their Subscribers (UPDATE)


OK, certain Sky Broadband customers are receiving notification letters from Sky notifying them of that they may receive a letter of claim from Golden Eye International Limited.

I currently do not have a copy of the letter being sent out (yeah we do now – Hicks), but if you have received such a letter then the most importing thing is to be calm and do not feel stressed about it.

Read the letter and be aware of the likelihood that a Letter Of Claim (“LoC”) from Golden Eye International Limited (“GEIL”) will arrive through the post at some time soon.

Previous letters like this were sent from O2/BE Broadband to their subscribers in anticipation of GEIL letters being sent out:

Yeah OK, easy for me to say! “Don’t feel stressed about it”.  Well, you are not alone and with you finding yourself here, you have guidance and help.

If you do receive a letter from GEIL, it may be similar or the same as this below:

(We covered this “Phishing” letter on the blog!)

The above letter was decided by a High Court Judge from the following High Court case involving GEIL:

The above Court case is quite a lot to go through but essentially Justice Arnold ensured that you as a receiver of an LoC from GEIL do not have to pay them if you are innocent.

Now, with that established, where can you find further guidance?

Firstly, please visit a forum completely dedicated to this:

Read the posts and understand that many people have gone through the same experience.

If you wish to ask a question, register with using NO DETAIL that could be linked back to you. Don’t use your name, nickname, email address etc. Create a new email address which has no resemblance to your name or nickname.

Be Anonymous! LOVES anonymous!

Further help can be obtained from The Citizens Advice:

You can use the Citizens Advice consumer complaints procedure:

You can write to your MP:

Most important. If you are innocent STAND STRONG and do not pay them and seek help.

Do not suffer alone and try to bear such a burden. We are here to help.

Posted in Golden Eye International | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Ranger Bay is NOT a lone ranger. The company they keep is astonishing. UPDATE 2

ranger lone

Marcus Auton and Julian Becker

Thanks to Bpaw, and the Slyck team, and of course Andy! (soz)

Receiving a letter from TCYK LLC, and noting that the payment had to go to a different compay called “Ranger Bay Limited”, I was intrigued, especially as I read on and noted that I could visit the Ranger Bay website as stated, “…. you may also find it helpful to refer to the list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) and Notes on Evidence which can be found at this website


I thought, hmmm, now this all looks rather familiar. The “Notes on evidence” tab did not work, and required a password, however on closer inspection, the actual file DID NOT EXIST, how embarrassing for them. The FAQ section was most definitely something I had seen before, (maybe it was a template FAQ, you say), I pondered then thought, “Aha, yes”, I have seen that FAQ on……. Copyright collections Limited (Patric Acache ex of Guardaley and the Anti-Piracy Management Company)

Registrant Name: Patrick Achache (Guardaley)

Registrant Address: 20-22, Wenlock Road, London England, N1 7GU (Same as Ranger Bay)

This seems an aborted plan that farted and crapped itself on the launchpad (when we started to first look at it and posted some stuff on slyck forums), it now seems to be just a blog posting lame stuff from other websites, the “Intellectual property” it allegedly owned/owns it seems has now been passed on to another tentacle of the beast (Data Protection Laws , anyone)

What is more fascinating though is that we looked into Copyright Collections Limited as it had a link to Julian Becker of Golden Eye International (GEIL) infamy, and indeed included billing to “Goldeneye” within its website, (Since removed, will post when I find a capture). Please see here, as promised. Screen Capture (Highlight mine), see here (Original FAQ) and here (Prensent FAQ with reference to Goldeneye removed).  Can we REALLY believe this is NOT the same “Goldeneye”, as Goldeneye International? You decide.

This is a snapshot of the ACS:LAW website, the company that TCYK LLC, Golden Eye International and MICM(Mircom), have absolutely nothing to do with (*cough* *Bullsh*t*), strange then that their practice bears such a striking resemblance.

The Golden Eye International Limited, run by Pornographers Julian Becker and Lindsay Honey (Ben Dover), seem to have their fingers in many other pies.(excuse the unavoidable pun).

All the above companies have connections with Mr Becker.

Who is TCYK LLC? Why do the defendants have to pay their “compensation” to another company called Ranger Bay Limited? Who are Ranger Bay Limited? Confused? So were we, but then that is the plan, smoke and mirrors folks, smoke and mirrors.

Lets see if we can unpick this tangled sordid web shall we?

So TCYK LLC send out a letter, this comes from a company called;


Registrant Name: Robert Croucher @RobertCroucher

They go through the usual, “We represent Blah Blah Blah, and your connection has infringed our copyright, you need to explain why that is, and if you cant prove that you didn’t do it, you have to pay us “compensation” to our clients, to the tune of £400 -£600″

BUT they say, you must send the “compensation” to

Ranger Bay Limited

Registrant Name: Marcus Auton

Registrant Address: 20-22, Wenlock Road, London England, N1 7GU (Same as Copyright Collections Ltd)

So far so strange…….

Dig Deeper……

Who is Marcus Auton?

Not to deep a search and what do we have? (Oh, nothing there, looks like it has been removed Hmmm). A little more digging and some searching, and we found this, interesting piece.

Marcus Auton is fundraising for The Langdon Foundation

We thought, that is strange, seen that charity before, who did a charity bike ride?, ahh yes, Julian Becker, surely not connected though, well, yes actually,

Good luck mate….dont let

Julian get ahead of you!

It also appears that someone tried to hide the fact of the registering of, originally it was, and that had Marcus Auton as Registrants name, but guess who as the Technical Advisor? Yep Julian Becker.

So the files that we spoke about earlier, of which are “Password Protected” are actually links to yet another website. This website is one of real infamy, run by Patrick Achache, who is notorious around the World as a Copyright Troll.

Guardaley from which are linking their documents, came to infamy when their “Business Plan” was leaked to the World, in which the owner Patrick Achache mentions the following about their “Forensic Expert”.

paragraph 2 in regards to software consultant (i.e., he can talk about software issues), & we’re hoping the judge won’t question his qualifications too much.

Oh, and just in case you may have heard the name Patrick Achache of Guardaley before, you might if you had been following the ACS:LAW saga, he was Terence Tsangs friend in Germany .  This is covered in more depth in this article, strange world eh?

Just how is Becker and the rest of them, STILL getting away with it?


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Company (Golden Eye International/MICM/TCYK LLC) they keep, and what to do about them.

And here we go again. Yet a new Copyright Troll rears its ugly head, TCYK LLC, which is named for the film it defends, a very average affair called “The Company you Keep”. Again we have the situation where a Solicitor/Company sends a letter of claim, after allegedly trawling their modified Bit-torrent client and isolating all the users from a certain country and ISP, then going to Court to request the ISP releases the details of the account holder tied to the IP address at that specific time and date. Seems so straightforward.

What could possibly go wrong?

Well a number of Judges around the world have already stated than an IP address DOES NOT EQUAL a person. 1: 2 , and in the words of High Court Judge Birss, when dealing with the “copyright management” company Media C.A.T;

“…All the IP address identifies is an internet connection, which is likely today to be a wireless home broadband router. All Media CAT’s monitoring can identify is the person who has the contract with their ISP to have internet access. Assuming a case in Media CAT’s favour that the IP address is indeed linked to wholesale infringements of the copyright in question… Media CAT do not know who did it and know that they do not know who did it.”

So what is this all about? Well money, 2 , the “Copyright Holders” may whine on that they are losing money to “Pirates” that “Steal” their work, and apart from that terminology being completely inappropriate, (they may be losing money to copyright infringement, by people engaging in copyright infringing acts), if that were the case, then in the UK at least, we would surely expect them to actually take a person to Court? Right? Well you would have thought, but, no, they don’t want to, why could that be? Because they know that if they did they would have the Judge laughing it out of court for lack of evidence.

The forerunners of this “Legal Blackmail” ACS:LAW, had their Head Andrew Crossley, fined £70,000 and suspended for 2 years as a Solicitor , by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

Davenport Lyons had two of their Solicitors suspended for 3 months and fined £20,000

ACS:LAW were dissolved and Davenport Lyons have since entered into administration.

These were law firms, but TCYK LLC, Golden Eye International, and Mircom International Content Management & Consulting Limited (MICM), are not, they are “Copyright Management Companies” *cough* , all three are sending the same letters as ACS:LAW and Davenport Lyons did, slightly revised, but what ties them all together, is one Mark Wagner of little known Solicitors Wagner & Co.

Mark Wagner following the lead of previous practitioners of this “Legal Blackmail” operates out of a serviced office in London 43 Berkeley Square London WIJ 5AP (as you can see, pretty cheap setup)

TCYK LLC and the film they represent is produced by Voltage Pictures, they of “Hurt Locker” fame, and of course that film also was used in this “Legal Blackmail” scheme. This action actually led to Nicolas Chartier branding people caught up in the dragnet who had protested their innocence, as “..morons who believe stealing is right” , nice chap.

But Chartier is not alone in his cold hearted approach, over the last 2 years I have engaged with producers and pornographers, linked to the Golden Eye/Ben Dover actions, and they have similar views, “if you don’t want to receive a letter, dont steal out stuff”, “You think piracy is right, because you don’t like buying porn” etc etc, and other rather brain dead remarks that to be fair, negate any responsibility on their parts that they are indeed engaged in a scam. Check out our twitter feed for more such delights.

So what should you do if you receive a letter from one of these companies? Err sorry I mean Mr Wagner of Wagner & Co? Well you should send him a letter of denial, if he then sends you another letter demanding monies (which he will), then you need to either ignore it, or send him a second letter reiterating what to said in your first letter. He will probably ask you to tell him who else is in your house, and who has access to your internet connection, just like ACS:LAW did, that is called Phishing ,1 and is really not a good thing for a Solicitor to be doing.

One thing also to consider, is that you may hear, that Golden Eye International had their letter approved by the Court? Well that is not quite true, they were FORCED to have an INITIAL letter written with approval by the Court, but unfortunatly the Court didn’t insist on all the letters, so basically, GEIL now sends as a second letter. what ACS:LAW sent as a first letter. The Court delayed their actions by one letter.

Ultimately, there is no real evidence here, there is an IP address, so Mr Wagner and his clients, are wanting YOU to give THEM more information, so they can trap you. You will probably receive a letter, saying you need to “Compensate” the client by paying £300-£750, again, if you have already sent two letters of denial, then personally, I would then start thinking of sending a complaint to the legal ombudsman. If this does not satisfy you, then you can make a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Mark Henry Wagners’ details can be found here. And yes that IS a different address to that sent out on the letters. I wonder why?

Read the Speculative Invoicing Handbook Version 2 (PDF), for additional tips on how to respond to these “people”. Remember, Stand Strong, and do NOT worry.

Join us at Slyck Forums, and read TorrentFreak

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Speculative Invoicing By MICM (Or GEIL) – The New Batch – Update One

MICM are GEIL Podcast

MICM are GEIL Podcast

It is regrettable for me to begin this post with news of a new wave of speculative invoicing from another load of copyright trolls, or in this case an established copyright troll masquerading as someone else.

The evolution of speculative invoicing has proven time and time again (And very much what has been posted on this blog) that those who make such “claims” of “copyright infringement” are only in the game to scare people out of money.

This new threat comes from copyright trolls well versed in speculative invoicing from other countries, and with the help from fellow friends here in the United Kingdom, they are bringing their threat to these shores.

So who are these copyright trolls?

MICM vs Virgin Media
MICM are Mircom International Content Management & Consulting Limited whose given address is based in Cryprus, who have a pedigree in speculative invoicing in other countries.

MICM are another so called “Copyright Protection Services” outfit who claim to represent Sunlust Pictures (USA), Combat Zone Corporation (USA) and Pink Bonnet – Consultores de Imagem LDA (Portugal).

SunLust: SunLust1, Sunlust2, SunLust3, Sunlust4, Sunlust5

Combat Zone: CZ1, CZ2, CZ3, CZ4, CZ5

Pink Bonnet: PB1, PB2, PB3PB4

Whereas MICM are as much like Goldeneye International Limited (GEIL) in their setup, they have hired the services of Lawyer outfit Wagner & Co who have been used by GEIL previously.  This could be that MICM being based in Cyprus.

MICM have previously endeavoured to use Lawyers in Germany in the past to conduct their speculative invoicing campaign, which coincidentally have GEIL!  In fact, both GEIL & MICM are listed as being represented by Negele Zimmel Greuter Beller (“NZGB”) in this German translated link.  Fruther proof of GEIL using NZGB can be seen here and here.

It seems that MICM are well versed, or being associated with operating scams in Germany.  Whether this was a genuine attempt by MICM to gain money by deceptive means or an attempt by somebody using the MICM name, one thing is for sure and that is MICM is associated with scams.  To simply put it, a scam can only be convincing if there is such evidence available for those targeted to be convinced that the “claim” is genuine.

As we have seen, there is a well-established historical link between GEIL & MICM.  Well, the latest incarnation of the speculative invoicing saga has taken a surreal twist!

Thanks to the intrepid and wonderful TorrentFreak who reported this MICM threat back in October 2014, TorrentFreak realised the domain was registered in a way the registrant could opt out of their details being published by saying that they are not a trading Company.

An avid TorrentFreak reader reported this erroneous registration of to the domain registrars which instantly revealed GEIL as the registrant!

The most fundamental question here is why?

From my perspective, quite simply GEIL as Julian Becker and Lyndsay Honey haven’t the stomach to continue their reign of terror on the British public by sending more of their begging letters.  They certainly have no intention to bring an alleged infringer to Court from their last campaign as predicted on this blog.

Back in December 2012, Julian Becker gloated of his intention to travel to the USA and basically (as I see it) hoodwink USA producers to sign up to their scam so they can gain more 75% commissions.  Remember Julian Becker’s quote from  the BBC article?

“I look forward to travelling to adult conferences in Los Angeles and Vegas in early January to offer Golden Eye’s services to other producers,” he told the BBC.

I will put this to everyone who reads this (And I know Copyright Trolls read this).  A UK adult promotor travels to the USA and mentions to US producers that they can sign up to a reign of speculative invoicing in the UK.  The US producers pay no money, and will receive 25% of the revenue collected (Whilst giving up 75% of the revenue to GEIL).  All they have to do is basically “give away” their Licence to GEIL.  Those US producers are in the USA, and therefor don’t have anything to do with the pain and suffering caused by GEIL on their behalf.

So GEIL recruit a few producers (Not that many as far as I see) in the USA and what happens?  They can’t conduct this new scam in their own name because they conducted their own recent scam without doing what they claimed in their letters and interviews and take an alleged infringer to Court.

With all the criticisms from action groups and this blog, GEIL are cowards and don’t come through with their promises.  GEIL have ZERO credibility, and bring the whole legitimate argument of copyright infringement into question.  This new batch of speculative invoicing, in the way it has been gathered and conducted is the actions from cowards.

And to be absolutely right in this assertion, the new wave of this scam is being conducted by some “organisation” whose address is in Cyprus.  Imagine if the magnificent work from TorrentFreak and the TorrentFreak readers hadn’t happened?  GEIL would not have been associated with this scam and remained anonymous, and it would have seemed to be a new bunch of scam artists.  No, THIS IS GEIL.

This new scam is perverse, dishonest, deceitful, underhand, and false, with the hallmarks of it being operated in a corrupt nature.  From Davenport Lyons to Tilley Bailey Irvine to ACS:Law right through to GEIL, it is a scam that has evolved each time an obstacle has been encountered.  MICM is the next step.  Maybe the next scam will be operated from the Antarctic!

What convinces me more so that this is a scam is the involvement of Wagner & Co law firm.  We have seen previously what can happen to a law firm involved in these scams.  Imagine the call from Julian Becker to Mr Wagner to ask if they could represent them in Court against an alleged infringer!  NO CHANCE!  You don’t need a Lawyer degree to tell someone to go and kiss somewhere where the Sun doesn’t shine!

So as far as I am concerned, I will continue from now on to say that this latest scam is not from MICM and is definitely from Goldeneye International Limited.  This is not from unknowns from Cyprus but from well-established speculative invoice legends Mr Julian Becker & Mr Lyndsay Honey.

On to the Letter of Claim (“LoC”)

VAT. No: CY10284970
Spyrou Kypianou, 32
2nd Floor, Flat/Office 3
1075, Nicosia, Cyprus

(“MICM”) AND (“”)

Claimaints’ rights

It is with regret that we are writing this letter to you.  However, the Claimaints are very concerned at the illicit distribution of films over the internet.

Blah, blah blah……….lie after lie after lie……….claim after claim after claim…….rubbish after rubbish after rubbish

Quite frankly, this is the same LoC that GEIL were forced to use by the Courts, so not really anything new.

Although I am not quite sure why they call themselves “M I M C LIMITED” in their Cyprus address whilst calling themselves “MIRCOM INTERNATIONAL CONTENT MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING LIMITED (“MICM”) as the claimants in the same letter.  I can only put this down to a complete and utter amateur blunder.  How can any organisation who has intent to send out an “official” LoC be taken seriously when they make such an amateurish oversight?

My advice to those accused by MICM (Or GEIL) is as always.  Stand strong and do not worry.  Respond with a denial and don’t pay their inevitable demands.  Seek advice and above all take the claim serious even though those who conduct this are amateurs.

Help in providing a Letter Of Denial: Link

Some useful links:

Citizens Advice: Link

Find your MP: Link

Consumer Complaint – Citizens advice:Link

Open Rights Group: Email

Which?: Link

Join the debate at Link


Knowing that GEIL registered the domain of, it is very much a question of who was the interested party involved in MIRCOMs NPO in the High Court. This is a serious question, and raises the issue of “ex parte application to the court” where it is “the duty of full and frank disclosure” to all applicants made without notice. In this well-known and often quoted Court case from 1916, Viscount Reading C.J. stated:

Before I proceed to deal with the facts I desire to say this: Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived.

Presiding Warrington L.J also said

It is perfectly well settled that a person who makes an ex parte application to the Court – that is to say, in the absence of the person who will be affected by that which the Court is asked to do – is under an obligation to the Court to make the fullest possible disclosure of all material facts within his knowledge, and if he does not make that fullest possible disclosure, then he cannot obtain any advantage from the proceedings, and he will be deprived of any advantage he may have already obtained by means of the order which has thus wrongly been obtained by him. That is perfectly plain and requires no authority to justify it.

This is an income tax case dating back to 1916, but as what is always the case it establishes a case law where the Court protects themselves from being taken advantage of those who wish to deceive the Court.

Quotes from this case of “the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts” and “the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits” and also “should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived” resonate explicitly with NPO applications historically and now.

What is very much relevant in this latest NPO from MICM are the applicant to the Court and GEIL are the interested party. A quote from the 1916 Court case states that “the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court”. A further relevant quote from the 1916 Court case also states “if he does not make that fullest possible disclosure, then he cannot obtain any advantage from the proceedings, and he will be deprived of any advantage he may have already obtained by means of the order which has thus wrongly been obtained by him. That is perfectly plain and requires no authority to justify it.”

In a nutshell, if you do not disclose the full details and declare all interested parties involved in any application to the Courts then you have deceived the Court. This deception negates any advantage you may have gained in your favour previously.

The NPO gained by MIRCOM should be declared void.

Posted in Golden Eye International, MICM, Mircom | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Golden Eye International Limited – No Comment – UPDATE


Golden Eye International Limited (“GEIL”), fronted by Directors Julian Becker and Simon Honey, have been strangely silent recently. 

What was effectively their last word to their O2 victims in their Letter Of Claim (“LoC”) correspondence? Oh yes, it was those prophetic words below:

We remain confident of our evidence against you, and will revert to you once your file has been reviewed if a decision has been made to progress matters against you through the legal system.

 And let’s remind ourselves of their words of wisdom from GEILs website homepage:

While every attempt will be made to seek a settlement out of court we will not hesitate to enter into court proceeding with those who fail to acknowledge our intellectual rights.

 “we will not hesitate” eh?

 The last words from the previous post on this blog stated:

The message is clear to GEIL. Back up your “Evidence”, “Technical witness” and “Expert witness” and issue proceedings against an alleged infringer who denies your claim.

The truth is no legal outfit or copyright holder has done this, and it will very likely never happen.

There is nothing more to say other than GEIL are never going to take an alleged infringer to Court, and test their claim against an alleged infringer who is allowed to mount a defence and all GEIL have done is operate an alternate money making scheme for failing producers.


 Now I will take the opportunity to divulge a bit of information on Mr Simon Lindsay Honey.

 Two bits of information taken from the Wikipedia article are:

 Simon James Honey (born 23 May 1956 in Sittingbourne, Kent), better known as Ben Dover

Honey joined The Ian Mitchell Band (formed by Mitchell who had previously joined Bay City Rollers on bass for seven months in 1976) in May 1979, who whilst not finding success in the UK or US, released three studio albums and regularly toured across Europe and Japan”.

So by 1979, that would make Simon Honey about 23 years of age when he joined “The Ian Mitchell Band”.  Hmmmm……

 I would like to bring to your attention an interview of Simon Honey which he gave to Strictly Broadband website, which although no longer exists, it can been seen in an archive here.

I’m sure you had plenty of girls to give a good seeing to as well, though. I certainly did, especially in Japan, where our bands were really big. I shagged a 13 year old on the bullet train once, and I was only about 14 at the time myself.

 “only about 14 at the time myself”?????? More like 24 years of age, and this would have been an illegal and criminal act.

Obviously these are the words of Simon Honey and it could be true or a bit of bare faced bragging.

 We have seen before, mentioned in a previous post on this blog, more bragging from Julian Becker:

I never thought of myself as a pornographer, but I started looking at content and text messaging. I had actresses outside football stadiums giving out cards. They acted really unprofessional, but that was deliberate: ‘My name’s Ella, I’ve just arrived in the UK and I’m looking for new friends’. They would give the cards to these guys, who would then give them a call, but it would actually go to some bureau. It was normally a bunch of gay guys down in Brighton who played the roles. I always found that quite amusing, and it did OK.

That is a scam.

Remember, this is THEIR words.

Maybe we can gain an insight from Mr Simon Honey and his personal blog post about an alleged paedophile gang:

The activities of these low lives duly came to the attention of the local Plod. Plod investigated, but when it became clear that it was a Muslim gang, the shutters came down, e-mails were deleted, diversity courses were attended, and finally the powers that be gave the order to turn a blind eye and let the scumbags carry on with their revolting activities. Well, better a few underage white girls being abused , gang raped and forced on to drugs than another bomb on the underground eh?

Yet again, this is HIS words.

More words from Mr Simon Honeys blog:

Apparently the reason these women are forced to dress up in what looks like a cheap Darth Vader fancy dress costume is so that other men can’t see the beauty of the woman lurking underneath, and as a result be consumed with a lust that they will be unable to control!

I think we all know from their own words what Mr Julian Becker and Mr Simon Honey are.

Please feel free to comment.

I will now provide a piece of true evidence that hasn’t come from these two individuals but instead from the Police. In this document, you will see a transcript of an interview with Simon Honey taken from the Metropolitan Police in the early eighties when Videx Ltd was raided:


Mr Honey seemed to have a repetitive problem providing the response “No comment”.

Question: “Do you work for Videx Ltd?”; Answer: “I don’t wish to make any comment.”

Oh the irony! Are O2 victims allowed the same luxury of providing the same response to GEILs LoCs? I think not!

One of the questions put to Mr Honey in the Police statement:

I received a film ‘The Videx Video Show’ which shows you in it engaged in sexual practices, is it in fact you in that film?

Hmmm………..Mr Honeys last statement:

I would just like to say that I can see nothing at all offensive about the sequence included in the Videx Video Show filmed at Eureka Sun Club. It is merely a documentary type sequence showing families indulging in a totally innocent pass time ie walking around with no clothes on.

The Videx Video Show was described in the Police statement as a film which shows Mr Honey “engaged in sexual practices” also showing “families indulging in a totally innocent pass time ie walking around with no clothes on”. Mr Honey replies with “I would just like to say that I can see nothing at all offensive about the sequence included in the Videx Video Show”.

Which seems to be described in the statement as a pornography film showing adult sexual content and also showing a sequence which shows naked families at the “Eureka Sun Club”.

Was this video an adult content film also showing inappropriate footage of naked children? Look at another part of the Police statement:

Mr Honey, I’am satisfied with the documents in Police possession together with the observation on the premises at <-snip-> that you have a responsibility in the running of Videx Ltd and in addition having viewed the ‘Videx Video Show’ that you are aware of the contents of that video and as such you will be charged with the offences under the Obscene Publications Act and under the Protection of Children Act and again I remind you of the caution, that is formally telling you of what you are going to be charged with.

It is at this point where I say “No comment”.


This blog is all about proof and truth, but within the realms of speculative invoicing. The protagonists have been proven on this blog time and time again to make unjust claims, unjust demands, providing inadequate evidence and above all making complete lies about promising to issue Court proceedings against those who deny their claim.

What is Mr Simon Honey? No comment.



Has anyone formed an opinion of Lindsay Honey?

It could be difficult considering he has grown old now, and maybe more evidence is required to form an honest opinion.

A more recent bit of evidence is required:


Ben Dover needs new girls for TVX project

We have a new series commissioned by TVX, and we’re currently looking for suitable girls to cast. The most important aspect is the girls must all look young [18] as that is the theme of the series.

Does the adult industry make it OK to let a prominent legend performer who self professed he “shagged a 13 year old” at 24 years of age then promote that person at 58 years of age to say he “needs new girls” who “must all look young“?  A 58 year old who “needs new girls” to look like 18 year olds!

A father or mother might want to make a comment if their daughter was involved.

I wish to make one comment.


Posted in Golden Eye International | Tagged , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Anti-Piracy? The Truth About Golden Eye International Limited

Golden Eye Truth & Lies

Golden Eye International
Balance Of Probabilities

Well, it is now over twelve months since the disclosure from O2 of their subscriber private details they provided to Golden Eye International (“GEIL”) following the Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”) Court judgement and GEILs successful appeal.

This Anniversary now requires GEIL to perform their Court order obligation to destroy the private details of the O2 subscribers they have not sent a begging letter to (See below).

Within twelve months of the date of disclosure, the Applicants shall destroy all copies of any data which has not been used to either send a letter or claim or issue legal proceedings for infringement of copyright on the terms set out in this Order and shall provide written confirmation to the Respondent that such destruction has taken place.”

The interesting part of the above paragraph is “issue legal proceedings”.  This would seem an assumption that a High Court Judge has a belief that GEIL will actually bring proceedings against alleged infringers and I believe it was crucial for the ruling of disclosure.  This can be seen further from the following paragraph of the Order:

The Applicants are granted permission (to the extent that it is necessary) to use the information provided to it pursuant to the Order in paragraph 1 herein for the purposes of bringing separate proceedings for copyright infringement against those said persons (or any of them), and for the purposes of any pre-action correspondence relating thereto.

The part “for the purposes of bringing separate proceedings for copyright infringement against those said persons” is foremost and prominent in the Order, whilst “pre-action correspondence” is “relating thereto”.

Indeed, from the actual Court approved letter that GEIL sent to alleged infringers, it states:

In the event that that this matter cannot be resolved, it may become necessary for GEIL and BDP to bring a claim against you for copyright infringement. This claim would be brought in the civil court, where liability is determined on the balance of probabilities.

What about Julian Becker?  Well, his own words from this article:

Our initial letters in summary gave details of the infringements the software had detected, giving specific dates and times in addition to film titles. The letters then gave the recipient our legal position and encouraged them to contact us so that we could make an informed judgement on whether we would be pursuing the case through the courts or ceasing action. It also gave the recipient the option to admit the offence, financially settle the matter as well as committing to not re commit the offence.

So “we could make an informed judgement on whether we would be pursuing the case through the courts or ceasing action” again is foremost and prominent.

The truth is GEIL have conducted a campaign of threatening Court action against alleged infringers unless GEILs settlement figure has been paid.

The truth is GEIL have not issued proceedings against any alleged infringer who denied their claim.

So will GEIL ever issue proceedings against an alleged infringer?

Of course we know that GEIL have a history of speculative invoicing.  This Judgement from HHJ Birss QC shows GEILs intent.  Quite clearly this shows GEILs true intention of only going after “default judgements” under Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”), Part 12.1.

In order to secure a “default judgement” , GEIL would need to issue proceedings against an alleged infringer to the Courts and the alleged infringer fails to file an acknowledgement or fails to provide a defence to proceedings.

This link shows the outcome of the case, and GEIL using the Money Claim Online route was a clear breach of CPR rules.  In the link, HHJ Birss QC words were summed up as:

He was also concerned about the breach of the Civil Procedure Rules when issuing the claims. Copyright and IP cases can only be heard in certain courts and the money claims the online process used by Golden Eye is not set up for IP cases.

The truth is GEIL have never issued proceedings against an alleged infringer who has contested their claim.

So why would GEIL use the Money Claim Online route?  Speculation is they tried this route against those who did not reply to their Letter Of Claim (“LoC”).  It was unfortunate for GEIL that these individuals actually took action against their claim and did mount a defence.

The truth is that GEIL have absolutely no interest in issuing proceeding against anyone who denied their claim.  Going after default judgements against those who did not reply to their LoC is their “modus operandi”.

The truth is this is NOT the correct actions from an organisation who wishes to protect their copyright.

The message is clear to GEIL.  Back up your “Evidence”, “Technical witness” and “Expert witness” and issue proceedings against an alleged infringer who denies your claim.

The truth is no legal outfit or copyright holder has done this, and it will very likely never happen.

Posted in Golden Eye International | Tagged , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Anti-Piracy By Prostitution – Golden Eye International Prematurely Acts For Friendly Producers

Avast ye, let me Hornswaggle yer!

Avast ye, let me Hornswaggle yer!

Golden Eye International Limited (“GEIL”) has finally sent out their letters of claim (“LoC”) for the other producers involved in GEILs “Anti-Piracy” campaign.

What has been considered controversial by the High Court Judge Justice Arnold at GEILs Norwich Pharmacal (“NPO”) Order application, GEIL were given the green light in their appeal to Justice Arnolds original decision to act on behalf of the other producers.

For those who have recently received your first LoC, these links will give you an idea of what to expect:

Link1, Link2, Link3 

Further bad news is Julian Becker, Director of GEIL and manager to the other GEIL Director Simon Honey (a.k.a. Ben Dover), has gloated on forums of his exploits from his visits to US adult trade shows:

Through my work in anti piracy, I am now representing a number of studio’s in the USA.

If any female models are interested in 2-3 weeks of work probably in LA, please email me direct for further details.



So what can you make of that?  What do you call someone who arranges a certain type of work for female models and get paid?  And what has that got to do with anti-piracy?  Is that implying that such work isn’t for selling but to be made available for people to download, and then you send a settlement letter?  Is that what you call anti-piracy?

And on to GEIL.  How can you describe GEIL and what they do?

Well, let us see an extract from GEILs NPO.


2.1 Licensor is the owner of the Copyright and/or related ancillary rights in the Works under international copyright law.

2.2 Licensor grants Licensee the exclusive right to act for it in relation to any alleged breaches of copyright arising out of ‘peer to peer’ copying of material across the Internet. The parties agree that additional movies can be added to Schedule 1 with a written supplemental Agreement.

2.3 In case of any infringement of suspected or past infringement by any third party of copyright subsisting in the Works:

(a) the Licensee shall, in its sole discretion, decide what action if any to take; and

(b) the Licensee shall have sole control over, and conduct of, all claims and proceedings;

(c) the Licensee may require the Licensor to lend its name to such proceedings and provide reasonable assistance, subject to the Licensee giving the Licensor an indemnity in respect of all costs damages and expenses that it may incur including an award of costs against it, directly resulting from Licensor’s involvement in such proceedings.

This is very much technical, and can be confusing to those who have been accused by GEIL.  I will try to explain to the best of my understanding by using an analogy of prostitution.  In no way am I trying to associate what GEIL are doing as being prostitution.  It is simply a means to explain.

So effectively the “Licensor” (Prostitute) gives the “Licensee” (Pimp) (“Producer” gives “GEIL”) the right to conduct a campaign of speculative invoicing.

We all know how speculative invoicing works, so how can such an agreement work between the “Licensor” (Prostitute) and “Licensee” (Pimp)?  Again from GEILs NPO:

In consideration of the rights hereby granted under this Agreement, the Licensee agrees to pay to the Licensor 25% of any Revenue. These monies shall be payable by the Licensee in a manner and at intervals agreed between the parties

In the case of the agreements with Orchid MG Ltd, Kudeta BVBA and RP Films Ltd, the figure specified in clause 2.5 is 27.5%, 37.5% and 27.5% respectively, rather than 25%.

Hmmm…..the general agreement is 25%, but three producers want more!  Why?

Having given the prostitute / pimp analogy, let’s start with Justice Arnolds opinion from the NPO:

I consider that would be tantamount to the court sanctioning the sale of the Intended Defendants’ privacy and data protection rights to the highest bidder

So some producers needs are more important than the others (So it seems).

So who are these producers?  Some detail is more obtainable than others which doesn’t really fit well with the idea that their revenue is decimated through torrent piracy.

One of the producers who I will not name made the following quote about GEIL:

If someone gives me a call and says they will fight my corner free of charge, all you have to do is sign up and we’ll do the rest. I signed up!

Interestingly it makes me wonder what “free of charge” actually means.  The Grant Of Rights (Earlier) section 2.3(c) states:

the Licensee may require the Licensor to lend its name to such proceedings and provide reasonable assistance, subject to the Licensee giving the Licensor an indemnity in respect of all costs damages and expenses that it may incur including an award of costs against it, directly resulting from Licensor’s involvement in such proceedings

So GEIL give the producer an indemnity (Or compensation) if things don’t go well in Court.  But what happens if GEIL go bankrupt?

Anyway, back to the producers.

The following is an introduction to the various producers with some detail as best as I could find.  I do have much more information on the companies and people involved, but such is the nature of the material and media I have tried to make it as decent as possible.  It is unfortunate though that some of the links do contain adult content, and it is also possible again from the people involved that the material could change.  Please be aware of such possibilities when clicking on any link.

RP Films
Revenue agreement: 27.5%
Company details: Link
Company status: Dissolved 15/05/2012

What is interesting is their first notice of strike off was 31/01/2012 which was two months before GEILs NPO application in March 2012.

Principle director at time of NPO:
Gavin Erlam: Link
Some notable links to RP Films:
Nothing really available.

Orchid MG Ltd
Revenue agreement: 27.5%
Company details: Link
Company status: Dissolved 09/07/2013
Principle director at time of NPO:
Jason Maskell: Link
Some notable links to Orchid MG Ltd and Jason Maskell:
Twitter: @Orchid_Films
Twitter: @Jason_Maskell
Twitter: @Yoursdotxxx
Twitter: @TrulyFlyMag
Twitter: @AdultXfund
Facebook: Link
Facebook: Link

Kudata BVBA
Revenue agreement: 37.5%
Company status: Link – Bankrupt: 21/03/2013, Bankrupt withdrawn: 13/06/2013

Obviously there was an incentive to keep the company alive after the bankruptcy.

Some notable links to Kudeta BVBA:
Nothing really available apart from this link: Link

Celtic Broadcasting
Revenue agreement: 25%
Company details: Link
Principle director at time of NPO:
Garry Stuart Grant: Link
Some notable links to Celtic Broadcasting and Garry Grant:

Celtic Broadcasting was founded by Gary ten years ago after he graduated as an editor from Aberdeen College.

Easy On The Eye
Revenue agreement: 25%
Company details: Link
Principle director at time of NPO:
Anna Imogen Arrowsmith: Link – Anna Imogen Arrowsmith has an alias of Anna Span.
Some notable links to Easy On The Eye and Anna Imogen Arrowsmith:
Twitter: @annaarrowsmith
LinkedIn: Link

DMS Telecoms Limited
Revenue agreement: 25%
Company details: Link
Principle director at time of NPO:
Darren Paul Barker: Link
Some notable links to DMS Telecoms:
Twitter: @stockingsluts

Nylon Stocking Sluts is owned and administered by Fricova 1102, Dobris, 26301, Czech Republic. Email:

Gary Baker
Revenue agreement: 25%
Company details:
No real information available.
Principle director at time of NPO:
No real information available.
Some notable links to Gary Baker:

Harmony Films Limited
Revenue agreement: 25%
Company details: Link1
Principle director at time of NPO:
Daniel Richard O’Sullivan: Link
Steven Thomas Elvins: Link
Some notable links to Harmony Films and Directors:
Twitter: @harmonystoreuk
Facebook: Link

Justin Ribeiro Dos Santos, Trading As Joybear Pictures
Revenue agreement: 25%
Company details: Link
Principle director at time of NPO:
Oliver Justin Ribeiro Dos Santos: Link
Some notable links to Joybear and Oliver Santos:
Twitter: @Joybearbaby
Twitter: @joybear_lady
FaceBook: Link
YouTube: Link

Having concluded that the Service is an ODPS, ATVOD has determined that a contravention of section 368BA (Requirement to notify an ODPS) and section 368D(3)(za) (Requirement to pay a fee) has occurred because on the basis of the information available (a) the Service is an ODPS; (b) Joybear Pictures is the provider of the service; (c) Joybear Pictures withdrew its previous notifcation of the service; and (d) Joybear Pictures has not paid the regulatory fee for the year ending 31 March 2013, as required by ATVOD under section 368NA of the Act.

So effectively Joybear should have paid a fee to operate an On Demand Programme Service (ODPS) and JoyBear tried to weed out of it by claiming that the domain had transferred to another company outside the UK.

More information:

Service providers must pay a fee to ATVOD in relation to each On Demand Programme Service they provide and will receive invoices with respect to each notified service.

Sweetmeats Productions t/a S.M.P.
Revenue agreement: 25%
Company details:
Principle director at time of NPO: Joe Black (Not a Director as such)
Some notable links to Sweetmeats / SMP:
Twitter: @SweetmeatsPress
FaceBook: Link
Domian Info: Link
Domian Info: Link

Interesting though that the above domains are registered to a Joe Black and this link has the address of Sweetmeats above and Joe Black is a Director of a company called Blackhart Media Ltd, which this link shows a title that Sweetmeats are the production company.

SLL Films Limited
Revenue agreement: 25%
Company details: Link
Principle director at time of NPO:
Michael Lister Newcombe: Link
John Martin Coates: Link
Director After NPO:
Michael Newcombe: Link
Some notable links to SLL Films and Directors:

Down as the “Owner” of SLL Films Ltd.

The timeline for Mr Newcombe and Mr Newcombe above as Directors is strange.  Michael Lister Newcombe resigned as Director soon after GEILs successful NPO appeal in Court, then Michael Newcombe became Company Secretary between 16/01/2013 and 03/02/2013.

Now that was an introduction to the other producers.  We have been introduced to the main characters behind GEIL before.

As Julian Becker and Simon Honey are in a certain business that requires a certain character persona, it may be that they could be involved in certain dealings.  This persona may appeal to their audience and consumers, but if something is wrong then it is wrong.

Take for example an article in a London based magazine, Becker recalls Honeys early years including:

Then what happened was a company he was working for got busted. This was in the days when making porn was illegal. In fact porn was only made legal in 93 or 94 in the UK. Before then companies would distribute secretly through private mailing lists. Some of the addresses on the mailing lists were used by undercover CID officers and they were all arrested. It was so funny because when the police raided it – Lindsay was still young, only like 19 or 20 – they asked him who he was and what was he doing there. He said ‘Oh I’m just the office boy’ and they said ‘OK let him go’, which was ridiculous because had they bothered to watch the films they’d realize that he was the guy starring in all of them! And he got away with it and everyone else went to prison.

“so funny” eh? and “everyone else went to prison” eh?

Becker goes on to recall:

I never thought of myself as a pornographer, but I started looking at content and text messaging. I had actresses outside football stadiums giving out cards. They acted really unprofessional, but that was deliberate: ‘My name’s Ella, I’ve just arrived in the UK and I’m looking for new friends’. They would give the cards to these guys, who would then give them a call, but it would actually go to some bureau. It was normally a bunch of gay guys down in Brighton who played the roles. I always found that quite amusing, and it did OK.

Now that must be an admission of a scam.  It may be that it did well and there is a suggestion in the article that some didn’t mind, but never-the-less, it seems it was set up purposefully to con people.

Then Becker recalls how the Ben Dover brand was already registered:

The first thing that I did was look at the copyright side of the brand and realized that Ben Dover’s logo was actually owned by some guy based in Manchester. So I phoned Lindsay up and said ‘Do you know this guy?’, he says ‘No’ and I say ‘Well legally he’s Ben Dover not you’. He says ‘Well don’t be ridiculous you know I’m Ben Dover, everyone knows who I am’. I said ‘I might know who you are but the logo has been registered by someone else and he’s asking for a million pounds to give it up’.

So Honey masqueraded as a character that was already copyrighted.  No problem there then is there?  It is quite OK to not check copyright on a copyright name and use it without compensating the owner.

He goes on to recall:

It eventually got taken to court. This guy had to prove he had been using the Ben Dover brand. He said he’d produced clothing and merchandise. I think just before the court case was about to commence he said ‘I’ll sell it for one hundred grand’.  And we offered him, I think it was five grand – and that was our maximum. It wasn’t that he had any case it was just to stop this – the solicitor was two hundred pounds an hour! On the day of the court case he never turned up and said ‘Oh I’ve had a fire at my warehouse and all the evidence has been destroyed’. So he opted out with nothing

I’m not sure what is being said there, but the outcome proved to be very useful.  I assume the reader is supposed to come up with their own opinion on it, and I’m sure they would.

Anyone who has been a recipient of a letter could raise a complaint to various persons / organisations such as:

Judges Clerks:

Judge: Arnold J.  (NPO Judge) Clerk: Alison Lee, Tel: 020 7073 1789, email:

Judge: Birss J.  Clerk: John Curtis, Tel: 0207 947 7379, email:

Write to your MP or Lords representative:

Find your MP:

Consumer Complaint – Citizens Advice:

Open Rights Group:

Which? or

Court of Appeal civil division – Listing Office
For queries about listing cases for hearing, and other queries regarding hearing dates, and should also be used for queries about the settlement of cases
Telephone: 020 7947 6195/6917, Fax: 020 7947 6621, Email:

Court of Appeal civil division – Associates
Relates to the Associates or Court Clerks and should be used for queries about Orders of the Court, and any other post judgment matters
Telephone: 020 7947 6879, Fax: 020 7947 6751, Email:

Posted in Golden Eye International | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments