A response to Maverickeye (Patrick Achache) blog post “No internet subscriber is falsely accused in copyright infringement case”
A rather odd and barely comprehensible Blog post was made just the other day, it concerned, me and was posted on the Maverickeye Website. Let us not be confused however, for Maverickeye, we mean Patrick Achache. Patrick of course, was Terence Tsangs friend in Germany 2, who was going to help out ACS:LAW before the latters implosion.
I felt the need to respond on a point by point, as there are some serious untruths and aspersions, nothing you wouldn’t expect from an amateurish outfit you understand.
The article was posted under the title;
Sorry, I get confused, sometimes you and your “clients” say it is the connection that is accused, (even a printer once), never a downloader only uploads blah blah blah, but the actual LETTER you send out, most defiantly DOES accuse the subscriber, it says, the account holder is responsible.
Defender of copyright infringers Joe Hickster made it his mission to make people believe that movie pirates should not be penalized. In essence, he makes it seem okay for people to infringe copyrighted materials because they can get away with it. So basically, he’s one of the reasons why the entertainment business is struggling with piracy.
Defender of copyright infringers? Wow, OK, I prefer defender of falsely accused, but there, lets not split hairs. I don’t and never have defended infringers, I simply urge those accused to demand a hearing in Court, that the companies that send out the letters should do. Without a Court hearing to lay out the evidence, to me, it is wrong and a misuse of the Court system, you Mr Achache are relying on out of court settlements, and using fear to keep people away from demanding their day in Court, by spreading rumors about how they could face financial ruin if the Court found against them.
In essence, no I state explicitly that people receiving these letters should not pay up out of fear, if they have not done what they are accused of they should state this and demand a fair hearing in Court. If the entertainment business has to rely on targeting innocent people and extorting money from them through fear tactics of financial ruin, then the entertainment business is in a sad state of affairs, not of course that you Mr Achache has anything whatsoever to do with that business, apart from your self appointed role and self serving practices.
Hickster is responsible for keeping infringers from facing the consequences of their actions. He runs a blog called ACS Bore that was set up to undermine ACS:Law’s activities. Now, an article targeting Patrick Achache, Robert Croucher, and a few other copyright enforcers has surfaced all over the net particularly on TorrentFreak.
Not only does this statement show Achaches arrogance, that anyone receiving a letter is already guilty of infringing, I would restate that in England, the presumption is innocent UNTIL proven guilty. I do run a blog, although I would say it was not to undermine, but to show the negligence that was happening at ACS:LAW, and other Law Practices, the leaked ACS:LAW fully vindicated my stance, and showed the shadiness of Achache and his convoluted shell company organisations. I don’t trust anyone who speaks in the third person, “targeting Patrick Achache, Robert Croucher, and a few other copyright enforcers”, wow Patrick, that is real delusions of grandeur right there, “Copyright enforcers” eh, I think the word you are finding hard to type there is TROLL. The so called article, was actually a report into how I was targeted by Mr Croucher, but never mind, the evidence is on the board for all to see. Mr Croucher reacted badly when I showed him some evidence contrary to what he believed and he threatened me.
Just to clear the air –
Please do, it seems saturated with methane at the moment!
No internet service subscriber is falsely accused in copyright infringement cases. When copyright enforcers work on a copyright case, their discovery is the result of the findings from using sophisticated software and they track the internet subscriber’s Internet Protocol (IP) address.
There you go again, stating that noone is innocent, interesting, even the Judge at the Goldeneye International hearing stated it was obvious there would be many innocent people targeted, but you Mr Achache have a better system? No of course not, it is probably, a tampered version of Transmission (open source program) that excludes the uploading feature. We know how it works (the concept), it was in the leaked emails, you act as if the world doesn’t know how the system works, like you have some black box of high sophistication. Your friend Terence put an advert out on Freelancer to BUY a system for $700, I mean COME ON MAN.
At Maverickeye, we refer to the IP addresses used in the illegal downloads through BitTorrent networks. These IP addresses are linked to the name of the registered subscriber of an internet service provider (ISP). So, using the 82-year-old lady’s case as an example (Patricia Drew’s IP was allegedly caught uploading “The Company You Keep” film to torrent sites) is such a poor excuse for copyright infringers.
Maverickeye, Guardaley, Excipio, APMC, et all, this is NOT an exact science, and you know this. What has the “82 year old ladys case”, got to do with anything? Did you prosecute? If not why not? If your system is faultless, then did she pay you? Did you drop the case, for PR purposes? What does, “poor excuse for copyright infringers” actually mean? The fact remains, that you boil this down to a binary choice, an either, or, which is wrong, you state that either, YOU used this connection, OR you authorised someone else to do so. Here is a third reason, YOU MIGHT JUST BE WRONG! Just a thought. Judge Birss in the only time this has been heard in a Court in the UK (ACS:LAW), said, “…they don’t know who [infringed], and know they don’t know who [infringed].”
Anyone can have their own guesses as to where this fight will go, but surely all anti-piracy advocates will not back down from any setbacks. When Hickster accused Robert Croucher of being involved in a “smoke and mirrors” operation, the latter warned, “To summarise; Please stop contacting me, any of my staff and certainly any of my clients, should you continue I will ensure that you are put to maximum task with respect to issuing legal proceedings against you for ongoing harassment and defamation,”
We don’t need guesses, we need truth and facts. NO HE DID NOT! Mr Croucher, made that statement, after I pointed out to him that Hatton&Berkeley, was owned by a Mr Paul Carter, he denied this and put out seven rather ludicrous statements, in a VERY patronising manner, and ended it with that statement. I refuted his assertions, and provided overwhelming evidence point by point, that what I had said was true.
This was obvious as Mr Croucher operated from a website branded with Hatton&Berkeley, yet in reality it is CMI Business Group, t/a Hatton&Berkeley. This has of course been rectified with the creation of a number of new companies by Mr Croucher, AFTER our exchanges. Why else do you think he was using Ranger Bay, setup by an associate of the pornographer Julian Becker to receive the money from the TCYK letters? Mr Croucher continued to engage with me after this, because he is a real man of his word.. ‘cough’.
Hopefully, Hickster can see the efforts being done to combat piracy.
Well, not by yourself I cant no. If you mean the leaking of one of your Guardeley emails to a Pornographer in an attempt to smear, Lawdit the Solicitors who are representing a lot of the falsely accused, then I see that, but don’t consider it a valid attempt at combating piracy. The Pornographer, Terry Stephens (One Eyed Jack), also shows your knowledge and possible involvement, denied by Robert Croucher, of Julian Beckers Goldeneye International. Terry Stephens being one of the more small time producers, but most vocal of the GEIL defenders. Interesting, Mr Croucher or yourself, seems to be telling a mistruth, I wonder which one?
I have seen your “Business plan” that was leaked online; loved the line “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. “ ,was their good reason for this? You couldn’t get someone sufficiently qualified, kind of smells bad, doesn’t it? Almost like, deceitful?, like you are hiding something.
A few other thoughts;
just why do you need more than one “Copyright enforcement” business, I mean if you are legit, and upstanding?, all seems so shady to me. For the record, there are LOTS of ways to combat copyright infringement that do NOT involve sending letters out based on a modified bittorrent program, that isn’t even your own original piece of code.
The problem with these other methods, is that whilst they would significantly lower the copyright infringement they would not make people like yourself wealthy, whilst using the latest of the desperate mugs you find to sign up to what was described in the Lords as “Legal Blackmail”
I note with interest that one of your many companies, Copyright Collections Ltd, that was originally intended for Golden Eye International, has changed its name to Copyright Management Services and relocated to 43 Berkeley Sq (CMI Business Group t/a Hatton&Berkeley) Curious and curiouser.
Maverickeye, is a 4 man team, technical analyst, an accountant, a systems administrator, and chief executive officer Thomas Novak, who is the main shareholder. How do we know this? From when Maverickeye was ridiculed in Court in the US. This also included evidence of the alleged theft of intellectual property “File Monitoring” from Logistep, where you worked, but that is for another day.
On your Copyright Management Services Website you include the line; “Chances are you have already infringed our rights, if you are reading this”, maybe you should consider editing that line, I know, to this one on the GEIL website, “If you are reading this, then more than likely you have infringed our rights already.“ see, I think you copied it wrong onto your new site.
I consider this a fair rebuttal to your scurrilous Blog Post Mr Achache