TCYK LLC client “Hatton&Berkeley” become more “bogus”? UPDATE 2

Artistic Impression

It has been a busy few months, apologies for the lack of updates.

Robert Croucher of CMI Business Group, (and many others 2) had a real problem, he had joined forced with infamous copyright troll Patrick Achache ², and seemingly with out any “Due Diligence” threw his lot in with a man who has traveled the globe, peddling his dubious “secret system” of identifying “copyright pirates” as he calls them, or as most other right thinking people would prefer to call them, “Innocent until PROVEN guilty”.

Mr Croucher has been called a number of things by people who have contacted me, and none of them good, but I can only judge a person based on their interactions with myself.

Mr Croucher and I engaged each other on an open forum, where I pointed out to him that, he did not own the name “Hatton&Berkely” and so should not be pretending to be something he was not. He did not take this too kindly, and indeed had spend a fair few months before I got involved, telling everyone about a “fraudster” who is under investigation who was using HIS business name for fraudulent means, and that he Croucher was the hard done by person in all this. That is about the time I rolled in, and spoiled his party.

I commented on what I considered to be absolute untruths and bull$hit, so I posted what I believed to be a well researched piece on his “Business activities”, this was posted on a “Whocalledme” website where others had been harassed with phone calls seemingly coming from one of Mr Crouchers business “shells”, West One Business Services. Mr Croucher denied that this was anything to do with his company, but that of a man called Mr Paul Carter, he did not at this time indicate that he knew of this man, but that there was a fraud investigation under way. I smelt a stench and decided to dig.

I started to dig deeper and posted my findings on the public forum, which is when Mr Croucher seemed to object, strongly.

(Part of evidence that seemed to upset Mr Croucher)

WESTONE BUSINESS GROUP LTD

WESTONE BUSINESS GLOBAL LTD

Last one was interesting, need to be more careful with the truth, when it comes to advertising I guess.

ASA Ruling against Westone Business Global LTD

What is REALLY interesting, is that this site was registered https://who.is/whois/www.westone-business.com (Seems to be registered by a Kruger Voltek Systems Ltd  (Katarzyna NIEDZWIEDZ)) seemingly a business partner of Paul Carter? In 2008

Then it seems a different website was registered called www.westone-business.net (.net, NOT .com) purely innocent reasons? In 2014, of course the registrants name is PRIVATE, but lets look.

Here is how it used to look https://web.archive.org/web/20141223035435/http://www.westone-business.net/ look, it was CMI 43 LTD then, look, you (Robert Croucher) and Paul Carter. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08238660/officers , Now I wonder what happens when we look at where the website reroutes today? http://www.westone-business.net ,Oh WOW look at that, it redirects to…. http://www.hattonandberkeley.com/

No matter, the other people to whom your company has dealings with may see the evidence here.

Oh one other thing, remember your threat of Legal action, See this post, https://acsbore.wordpress.com/2015/09/04/rang … is-astonishing/ well, it seems, it was smiled upon by a certain Lawyer, http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading-room/TCYK-trolls Seems he thinks you a Troll, so do I.  Oh and one last thing, when you see your Lawyer, make sure he sees this. http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading-room/injuncti … ative-invoicing

 I pointed out to those on the board, that IF Croucher was as legitimate as he claimed to be, then why, was he using the Hatton&Berkely name to send out letters on behalf of TCYK LLC, instead of using his own CMI Business Group. I then asked him why he was also asking people in the letters to then send money, not to CMI Business Group, nor Hatton&Berkeley, or TCYK LLC but a THIRD company, called Ranger Bay Ltd. This is, as I am sure you can tell already smelling like a bad thing, that smells really bad… It does not sound honest to the author here, just saying. I have covered this in more detail in a previous blog post, but was fair to Croucher and didn’t mention his involvement, as I didn’t have any real evidence of his input at the time, unlike Croucher/Achache, I do like to rely on actual evidence.

Mr Croucher decided the best form of defence was attack, silly mistake really.

Among the points he made, were a couple that I include here;

You and others have been sending false and defamatory Tweets to myself and worryingly the more junior female members of my staff, this is being reported to the MET Police as it is continued harassment (see Malicious Communications Act 1988), I will be seeking that charges be brought against you should you not cease and desist from contacting myself, members of my staff or other officers of any of my operating companies.  This is being taken very seriously and I believe you are underestimating the impact of your actions.

Your accusation that I use ‘shell’ companies, is utterly unfounded and denied, these defamatory remarks are just that. Hatton & Berkeley is not a ‘shell’ company as you’ve stated, it is a well respected brand and a young one at that of which I am extremely proud of all of my staff, consultants and associates who’ve helped build it.

Goldeneye International and Mr Becker, again, I’ve never met anyone from either and nor do I have any knowledge of who they are. Again, your accusations are unfounded and pure speculation without any merit.

The above allegations are clearly ludicrous. My tweets are public, and I have urged Mr Croucher to release the so called;

“ false and defamatory Tweets to myself and worryingly the more junior female members of my staff”.

They have not been forthcoming. Torrentfreak picked up on this threat to call in the authorities, and published a post on their blog, Mr Croucher declined to comment. The assertion that he does not know, and has never met, nor has any knowledge of Goldeneye International Ltd, is plainly laughable, when subsequent actions emanating from Mr Croucher are alleged;

A smear attempt was made against Michael Coyle of Lawdit; A private email was sent by Mr Crouchers client, Patrick Achache, that ended in the possession of a Pornographer client of Goldeneye International, Terry Stephens, Mr Stephens then leaked the email that seemingly showed Lawdit in some kind of collusion with Mr Achache. The date of this email was during the ACS:LAW campaign, that GEIL and TCYK LLC are natural successors of, and Lawdit were and still are, firmly on the opposing side, they have represented those accused of infringement going back to 2007 when Davenport Lyons were running the scam. Indeed for the last 2 years their prominent Lawyer Michael Coyle has run the London Marathon, with the promise of representation for a token contribution towards his chosen charity. This attempted smear without context, has been roundly rejected by all those within the group opposed to “Speculative Invoicing Trolls”.

To me, this smear attempt, and the denials of knowledge of those involved, show a person deeply lacking in transparency and veracity. It simply does not bear any real scrutiny that Mr Croucher knew nothing of this email or its leak.

Mr Croucher, after the smear attempt on Lawdit, cast aspersions on Slyck forums where a number of those in receipt of letters from Mr Croucher and Goldeneye International, meet up for support, I mentioned it was actually owned and run by a lawyer, and that if he had issue with any of the post on there, he should address his concerns to the website admin, again, I have heard nothing back.

CMI Business Group masquerading as Hatton&Berkeley, have seemingly sought to “legitimise” their claim to the “Hatton&Berkeley” name.

On the 25^th April 2016, their appeared SEVEN brand spanking new companies, registered at Companies House, all of them listed as Director, Mr Robert Croucher, and all but one, listed a Secretary, as Ms Brigett Kudor. (One would assume there are rules surrounding similar sounding businesses, but the irony should not be lost with regard to copyright trolls, and copyright infringement!)

HATTON & BERKELEY LIMITED (This is Mr Paul Carters original Company)

08221539 – Incorporated on 20 September 2012

Office Number, 3, Holborn, London, EC1N 8PN

HATTON & BERKELEY TELECOM LTD

10145729 – Incorporated on 25 April 2016

43 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AP

HATTON & BERKELEY EMEIA LIMITED

10145691 – Incorporated on 25 April 2016

43 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AP

HATTON & BERKELEY CUSTODIAN LTD

10145886 – Incorporated on 25 April 2016

43 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AP

HATTON & BERKELEY GLOBAL LIMITED

10145165 – Incorporated on 25 April 2016

43 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AP

HATTON & BERKELEY RECEIVABLES LTD

10145680 – Incorporated on 25 April 2016

43 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AP

HATTON & BERKELEY ADVISORY UK LIMITED

10144912 – Incorporated on 25 April 2016

43 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AP

HATTON & BERKELEY TAX SERVICES UK LTD

10143704 – Incorporated on 24 April 2016

43 Berkeley Square, London, W1J 5AP

UPDATED: 04_06_2016

HATTON & BERKELEY MEMBERS LLP

Company number OC411823

43 Berkeley Square, London, United Kingdom, W1J 5AP

HATTON & BERKELEY PROPERTY LTD

Company number 10168728

43 Berkeley Square 43 Berkeley Square, London, United Kingdom, W1J 5AP

 

I contacted Mr Paul Carter but was told that there was ongoing legal actions concerning Mr Croucher, and that he could not make any comment.

The small-print on the CMI Business T/A Hatton&Berkeley website, has now been changed from this;

© CMI Business Group 2015. ‘Hatton & Berkeley’ is a trading name owned by CMI Business Group Ltd, Registered in the United Kingdom, Companies House Registrar  number: 09387353
Registered Office: 43 Berkeley Square, London W1J 5AP  –  CMI Business Group Ltd is regulated by HMRC under the Anti Money Laundering Regulations of 2007 as a Money Service Business, registration number: 12835500  –  CMI Business Group Ltd is a registered data controller in the UK and regulated by the Information Commissioners Office.

To this

© Hatton & Berkeley Global Ltd. ‘Hatton & Berkeley’ is a trading name owned by Hatton & Berkeley Global Ltd, Registered in the United Kingdom, Companies House Registrar  number: 10145165
Registered Office: 43 Berkeley Square, London W1J 5AP  –  CMI Business Group Ltd is regulated by HMRC under the Anti Money Laundering Regulations of 2007 as a Money Service Business, registration number: 12835500  –  CMI Business Group Ltd is a registered data controller in the UK and regulated by the Information Commissioners Office.

As Mr Crouchers said in his exchange with me;

“Your accusation that I use ‘shell’ companies, is utterly unfounded and denied, these defamatory remarks are just that”

How hollow and shallow he sounds.  I submit my evidence for your perusal.

UPDATE 1: The new name that Mr Croucher has picked to replace CMI Business Group is unusual, HATTON & BERKELEY GLOBAL LIMITED, is VERY similar sounding to the WESTONE BUSINESS GLOBAL LTD, that was run by Mr Carter AND Mr Croucher, and whilst still under Mr Crouchers control was subject to an Advertising Watchdog ruling for being misleading with regard to a claim about being “Award Winning”

04_06_2016: UPDATE2: Just received this email;

“We have changed our lettering again;

“Trading name of Hatton & Berkeley Global Limited, Registered in the United Kingdom, Companies House Registrar  number: 10145165 Registered Office: 43 Berkeley Square, London W1J 5AP. The Company is limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients”

into:

“Trading name owned by Hatton & Berkeley Global Limited, Registered in the United Kingdom, Companies House Registrar number: 10145165.  Registered Office: 43 Berkeley Square, London W1J 5AP. The Company is limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients”

Looks like they won a dispute! Shame, I hate to see bullies win. (Not the most most stable company in the world)

 

“Speculative Invoicing”- Smoke and Mirrors – The connections Part 1

Just thought this would be useful to some who have received letters in the post and have heard of previous actions like this.

The map shows who is connected and how, it IS brief, but we believe useful.

Please comment, suggestions or corrections.

Click below for a LARGE version (Opens in a New window)

The PDF Contains hyperlinks

View this document on Scribd

 

Please feel free to join us at Slyck Forums Trolls and letter recipients both welcome

 

 

 

 

A Gesture From A Law Firm – Let’s Kill Speculative Invoicing

Thanks to Michael Coyle and Hickster.

It is with absolute pleasure for me to provide wonderful news to those who have received a Letter of Claim (“LoC”) from any Limited Company such as Goldeneye International Limited (“GEIL”), TCYK llc (The Company You Keep), Mircom International Content Management & Consulting Ltd (“MIRCOM”) and others who practice the much criticised Speculative Invoicing.

A firm of Solicitors based in Southampton and London who are called Lawdit Solicitors, who specialise in Intellectual Property, have long recognised the dubious practise of Speculative Invoicing needs to be stopped. The practice of Speculative Invoicing has previously been operated by dubious Lawyers in the past and dubious Limited Companies today.

In what can only be considered as a wonderful gesture and will most likely bring an end to Speculative Invoicing, Lawdit Solicitors are offering their services to those who have received an LoC for a one off fee of £90.00 including VAT.

And what does this one off £90.00 including VAT with no strings and no additional fees bring you?

Well, from the pdf document from the Lawdit Solicitors website:

1. Our advice in writing and a discussion with you.
2. Go on the record and draft and send a letter on your behalf – you will receive no more correspondence and we shall take the pressure and embarrassment (if any) from you and it will always remain confidential.
3. Deal with any response and draft and send a second and final letter.
4. Drafting and sending any third letter if applicable.

So, the first nasty phishing letter from those like GEIL you do receive is THE ONLY letter you will receive from them. All other letters from GEIL will have to go to Lawdit Solicitors who handle all replies using their expertise.

This takes away one thing those like GEIL pray on and rely on and that is trying to shame innocent people in to paying their settlement demands which can be £600.00 for one alleged infringement, and if they allege more infringements their settlement demands can be three times more (Subject to a minor discount).

So will that be the end of the matter? To quote from the pdf document on the Lawdit Solicitors website:

Whilst the chances of a court case against you are practically nil we cannot guarantee that a claim will NOT be issued but we promise you free legal advice if the Trolls do decide to litigate.

That is we will represent you for free

So the likes of GEIL will be unable to conduct their shame exercise by sending LoCs to unsuspecting ISP subscribers. Instead they will have to send them to a firm of Solicitors who specialise in Copyright and Intellectual Property.

Also, in the very unlikely event of Court proceedings being issued against you, Lawdit Solicitors will represent you in Court for FREE!

Why is Court proceedings very unlikely? Well in all the time Speculative Invoicing has been around, anyone who replies to an LoC with a denial has never had Court proceedings issued against them. This includes those who had NO legal advice.

The Trolls will know, in having to send their correspondence to Lawdit Solicitors instead of the intended ISP subscriber, that issuing Court proceedings to an ISP subscriber will mean the ISP subscriber being represented in Court by experts.

So where’s the catch? There must be a catch! No, there isn’t a catch. Quite simply, there is only one motivation by Lawdit Solicitors offering this and that is to bring Speculative Invoicing to an end.

Michael Coyle, Solicitor Advocate and Director at Lawdit Solicitors recognises the Legal profession can be an expensive business and the settlement demands from Copyright Trolls are aimed below the potential costs of Legal advice and representation.

Michael Coyle explains the gesture by saying “I am hoping that doing this will in some way be a nail in the coffin of these people”.

So this gesture is to send a message to the Copyright Trolls that operating their Speculative Invoicing scam will no longer be profitable and to bring it to an end.

GEIL tried to ruin innocent peoples Christmas time with stress and worry, and Lawdit Solicitors will hopefully put an end to their plans.

If I was of the type that enjoys a bet, I would be at the Bookmakers putting money on what Michael says!

Over the years that speculative invoicing has been around, which is about ten years, there have been moments which have been truly remarkable.

Think of Andrew Crossley being fined and suspended for two years by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) and The Davenport Lyons solicitors David Gore and Brian Miller being fined and suspended by the SRA also.

The main factors in common with both SRA decisions?  They are all solicitors who were found guilty of “sending intimidating letters to individuals they accused of illegal filesharing.”

It took solicitors to think of Speculative Invoicing and the ill-gotten rewards it brings by sending nasty letters with huge disproportionate settlement demands based on very questionable evidence.

It now hopefully will be a fantastic gesture by law firm Lawdit Solicitors which will finally bring Speculative Invoicing to an end.

How great that would be!

If you have received a Letter Of Claim from Golden Eye International Limited or any other Limited Company, get in touch with Lawdit Solicitors now to put your mind at rest.

Contact them by:

Telephone: 0800 862 0157
Email: info@lawdit.co.uk
Website Enquiry: http://www.lawdit.co.uk/contact-us

So the message is, as from Lawdit Solicitors themselves:

So stand firm against the trolls, don’t pay and instruct us today!

 

Goldeneye International attempts to wreck Christmas….

(Don’t allow it to happen)

Thx Bpaw

Following on from SKY sending out letters informing their subscribers that they would soon receive a letter from Copyright Trolls Goldeneye International (”GEIL”) it has started. GEILs letters, claiming compensation for Copyright Infringement have already started to fall on the doormats across the nation, the equivalent of having a dog turd chucked through by a bored teenager, but this turd will have a cash demand, well the second one will.

Timed to coincide with Christmas, thus giving the recipients unneeded and unnecessary worry over the festive season. Listen to me though, expecting a Troll to care, LOL, they often say I am a Faceless keyboard warrior, I say they are Trolls without a soul.

GEIL, whose Directors Julian Fraser Beck and Lyndsay Honey are quite simply exploiting a Copyright Designs and Patent Act (“CDPA”) from 1988 and a Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”) which was first granted in 1974.

How can their actions be regarded as exploitation of the CDPA act and NPO?

There are many reasons mentioned and explained here on this blog. Three particular reasons I wish to highlight.

1. Why pornography?

Yes, why pornography? It is only pornography producers involved in BitTorrent monitoring and sending speculative invoicing letters. The vague exception is TCYK LLC and their “Works” The Company You Keep which isn’t pornography, but the link with Marcus Auton and GEIL is implicit enough.

So is pornography the only media affected by BitTorrent downloading? Any pornographic producer or even Julian Becker saying so would truly be misguided by saying such a thing. Could pornography be the only media where producers can argue lost revenue through BitTorrent sharing? Again, such an argument is preposterous to even suggest.

So why is it only pornography?

Which leads us on to number 2.

2. Clairvoyance

How can Julian Becker in an interview with the BBC back in December 2012 know for sure he can offer GEILs services to US producers?

“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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20852157

Yes there is BitTorrent use which we know, but to say in a BBC interview that you have an intention seems to suggest a particular confidence which I believe can only come through an intention regardless rather than a belief and hope. Or to put it succinctly, I see it that Julian Becker goes to the US to bring on board US producers in this elaborate well rehearsed 2 exploitation of the CDPA/NPO in the UK. Oh, and whilst Julian Becker was in the US, he could gain the bonus of TCYK LLC as a one hit wonder!

Such confidence from Julian Becker is a real indication of knowing that the exploitation of the CDPA/NPO in the UK rather than any desire to go to Court against any alleged infringers.

3. Overload of explicit material

I think this has some relation to reason 2 above.

To be truly confident of results, the more titles the better. Echo Alpha Inc has 41 pages in their witness statement of pornography titles they list! Most importantly in GEILs attempts at exploiting the CDPA/NPO in the UK and ensuring a payment of their suggested settlement is to bring a claim against their victims of allegedly sharing a very sexually explicitly named video title.

There is an add-on advantage of providing to the Courts thousands of pornography titles. It gives the opportunity to bring multiple claims of infringement against an alleged ISP subscriber. As is in the past with GEIL, the first sanitised Court approved letter will only have one copyright material mentioned. Suddenly, the next letter from GEIL may well list additional titles miraculously!

OK, what do reasons 1, 2 & 3 above make you think?

The logical conclusion is a scam motivated by greed.

I will again repeat the words of Lord (Hansard 1 Mar 2010 : Column 1256 )

“This scam works because of the impossibility of producing proof against this allegation. How can you prove that you did not do this thing? You have an internet connection, and they say that it was done over that internet connection. It is no good producing your computer, because you committed the offence using a different computer. It is no good saying that you are a 97 year-old widow and that you hardly know how to use the telephone, let alone the internet, because, nevertheless, you have an internet connection and they say that it was abused. It is extremely difficult to produce evidence to gainsay this. All you can do is deny it, and one of the things that they say in the letter is, “Don’t bother to deny this without producing evidence that you didn’t do it”

The result is that a very large people of number pay up, as a result either of the first letter or of the letters that follow. As far as I can discover, despite the tens of thousands of orders that have been granted, the solicitors involved have never taken a seriously contested case to court, because getting money out of people on the basis of the compromise offer is actually what is lucrative.”

Stand up, Stand Strong, Do not fear. Reply Deny, Repeat. FIGHT!

Join us at Slyck forums

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:

https://acsbore.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/o2-send-pre-warning-letters-to-customers-whose-data-they-have-sold-to-golden-eye-international/o2received011212-bls_sml/

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:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_07_12_final_letter.pdf

(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:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/723.html

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:

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=57634&start=1725

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

If you wish to ask a question, register with slyck.com 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! Slyck.com LOVES anonymous!

Further help can be obtained from The Citizens Advice:

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/copyright/the-internet-filesharing-and-copyright/speculative-invoicing-and-pay-up-or-else-schemes-for-copyright-infringement/

You can use the Citizens Advice consumer complaints procedure:

https://ssl.datamotion.com/form.aspx?co=3438&frm=citacomplainform&to=flare.fromforms

You can write to your MP:

https://www.writetothem.com/

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/

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.

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

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 http://rangerbay.co.uk/

*Click*

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……. http://copyrightcollectionsltd.com/ Copyright collections Limited (Patric Acache ex of Guardaley and the Anti-Piracy Management Company)

http://copyrightcollectionsltd.com/

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.

http://web.archive.org/web/20150213212222/http://copyrightcollectionsltd.com/terms-conditions/

https://web.archive.org/web/20090510091307/http://www.acs-law.org.uk/

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).

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06546065/GOLDEN-EYE-INTERNATIONAL-LTD

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/908460166

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/912903357

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;

HATTON AND BERKELEY.COM

http://www.hattonandberkeley.com/anti-piracy-july-2015

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

Rangerbay.co.uk

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? https://www.justgiving.com/Marcus-Auton/ (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

http://www.justgiving.com

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, https://www.justgiving.com/Julian-Becker.

Good luck mate….dont let

Julian get ahead of you!

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

http://whois.domaintools.com/ranger-bay.com

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 http://rangerbay.co.uk/ 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?

 

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

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

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, PB3,  PB4

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 mircom.co.uk 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”)

M.I.M.C LIMITED
VAT. No: CY10284970
Address:
Spyrou Kypianou, 32
2nd Floor, Flat/Office 3
1075, Nicosia, Cyprus

MIRCOM INTERNATIONAL CONTENT
MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING LIMITED
(“MICM”) AND (“”)
(“Claimants”)

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 Slyck.com: Link

UPDATE ONE

Knowing that GEIL registered the domain of mircom.co.uk, 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.

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.

END OF.

 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”.

Why?

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.

 

ACS:BORE UPDATE

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:

Link

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.

#SICK

Anti-Piracy? The Truth About Golden Eye International Limited

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.