Telefonica Spanish owner of O2, were approached by Golden Eye International with a request to disclose 9124 (NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FOUR) of its customers details. “Golden Eye International” (GEIL) is a trading name for “Ben Dover”, the Pornographers.
It is astonishing to think that this request came on the 20th September 2011, a FULL year after the ACS:LAW debacle unravelled. At a time when all other ISPs have stated they would not work with the “Speculative Invoicing” scheme, O2 alone has bucked the trend.
They did NOT fight for their customers, rather they SOLD them out
From the Judgement posted online:
5: On 7 October 2011 Baker & McKenzie filed an acknowledgement of service on behalf of O2 stating that O2 did not intend to contest the claim.
6: On 18 November 2011 the parties were given notice of a disposal hearing before Chief Master Winegarten on 6 December 2011. On 28 November 2011 Baker & McKenzie wrote to the Chief Master to confirm that O2 did not oppose the making of an order in the terms submitted by Golden Eye, and therefore did not intend to attend the hearing. At the hearing on 6 December 2011 Mr Becker attended on behalf of the Claimants. The Chief Master raised a number of questions about the proposed order, which he asked Mr Becker to relay to Baker & McKenzie. Mr Becker duly did so, and on 14 December 2011 Baker & McKenzie wrote to the Chief Master answering his questions. In the letter Baker & McKenzie stated that, prior to issuing the Claim Form, Golden Eye had provided O2 with a draft of the proposed order and that Baker & McKenzie had made amendments to the draft. A number of amendments were identified and explained. The letter reiterated that O2 did not oppose the making of an order in that form. Having considered the letter, the Chief Master decided to refer the claim to a judge.
120: In consider the proportionality of the order sought, it seems to me that it is important to have regard to the precise terms of that order. The terms of the draft order having been negotiated between Golden Eye and Baker & McKenzie, it is in a form that O2 is content with. Thus it may be regarded as proportionate as between the Claimants and O2
32:1: 4(b) Within 7 days of the date of this Order, the First Applicant, on behalf of all the Applicants, shall pay into an escrow account to be held by the Respondent’s solicitors, Baker & McKenzie LLP, (the ‘Escrow Account’) a sum equal to £2.20 per IP address requested within the initial Batch together with £2500 costs to be held as security for the costs specified in paragraph 5 below.
They COULD have contested it, but CHOSE not to.
If YOU are a subscriber of O2, I think maybe you should consider moving to an ISP who values you as a customer more than the needs of a Pornographer who after all is merely following the example of ACS:LAW. Golden Eye International after all were first represented by Tilly Baily Irvine. It was only when TBI reacted to the negative publicity including being named in the House of Lords that they withdrew and GEIL continued.
O2 did not fight for it’s subscribers when it could have done, their have be to many disingenuous articles published so far that claim they did 1 2. Read the Judgement and decide for yourself.
Their will be another hearing after Easter regarding the GEIL hearing and how the letters will be composed, one thing is for sure GEIL did NOT get what they wanted.
This is not a new direction more an attempted refinement of the scheme that Davenport Lyons, ACS:LAW, Tilly Baily Irvine and Gallant Macmillan/Ministry of Sound have attempted and failed. It should be treated with the same contempt.
The contempt indeed that O2 have shown it’s customers.
Previous Posts RE Golden Eye International
O2 says it has no option but “co-operate fully” with a High Court judgement ordering it to hand customer details over to a porn company.
By Dan Whitworth (Newsbeat technology reporter)
Yeah – Right !!!!!
Hmmm, your cynism is justified, if only the BBC were a Multi Billion Pound Corporation funded by the Tax Payers of the UK, they could have read the judgement freely on line, not be rushed off their feet and only have time to read the “Press release” prepared by O2
Thanks for leaving a comment!.
Yep – Only too right Hickster 🙂
Seems to have gone above the heads/below the radar, of some though 😦
Thanks again for the comments, you are right, but then if you go to SKY NEWS and search for ACS:LAW data leak, you will find nothing, they never covered the story, why? well because they betrayed thousands of their customers.. Ingorance is bliss for these people. That is why the individuals must fight and join with others.
See the LOGO? Spread it! Improve it repost it.
O2 didn’t contest it because they know they’d ultimately lose, which would also cost money and Rights Holders could then accuse them of supporting piracy. Having said that, Rights Holders already accuse ISPs of supporting piracy anyway and had O2 contested then Consumer Focus has shown that they could have done some real good.
I am not so sure, you will notice as I know you are already aware that GOlden Eye International did NOT target Virgin Media or Car Phone Warehouse, as they have both stated quite clearly that this is NOT the way to go. I think we are at a crossroads where New Technology and desire has outpaced the industry, the creative industores as they like to call themselves have always opposed new media, all the way back to Vinyl records destorying the Sheet Music Industry, however this is not about even that, this is about desperate greedy people with third rate products attemping to “Monetise alterernative revenue streams”
You have a GREAT site BTW, thanks for taking time out to comment!
Oh one further point of interest, is that that one of the companies listed (In the application) is “RP Films Ltd”, this seems strange as on Companies House Website, “RP Films Ltd” are in a “Proposal to strike off” status. (http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/a492f3c3f460065de8e5262025f2e989/compdetails)
A company which has that status should not be part of a Court Application to persue people.
I don’t think you can criticise O2 for agreeing to abide by a court order.
You can criticise them for being complicit in managing the situation so that a court order was likely to be given in the absence of any defence by o2?.
The history of this type of speculative scam should have made them aware of the need to mount a defence. Even the judge appeared to be surprised that no defence was offered and that’s why consumer focus became involved at the behest of the judge.
I am not criticising O2 on that count, but the point is they should NEVER have allowed it to get to that point, see my comment RE: Virgin Media and Car Phone Warehouse, also O2 are deafening by their silence at the moment.
Compare the O2 forum here http://forum.o2.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=402949
With Plusnets forum here http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=236fa4677ddba1daf528c96d472bb40b&topic=85908.2208
It is as if O2 have been completely blind and deaf to what has happened RE: ACS:LAW et all.
Their is not a great deal of difference between what Golden Eye International have done to what they did with Tilly Baily Irvine.
Yet another site, picks up on the “Poor 02” angle 😦
“Forced” – Duh ! 😦
Nice logo BTW Hick !!
Thanks Ed, I was starting to go crazy seeing all these “O2 forced..” Blog posts, I was like WTF!
BTW If anyone want to redesign that logo I would love to see it. I think it is a cool idea. Boycott O2 lol
another piece of total shit from a no hoper porn company, “big boy ben dover”, more like” o2 open your arse up & accept my f….n big tool”!!! wankers the lot of them!