Archive

Posts Tagged ‘ben dover’

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

May 3, 2015 3 comments
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 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

May 25, 2014 16 comments

 

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:

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

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

January 10, 2014 9 comments
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.

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

October 5, 2013 3 comments
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.

Regards

Julian
julian@ben-dover.biz

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. GRANT OF RIGHTS

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:
Link1
Link2

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
Link1
Link2

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
Link1

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

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:
Link1

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
Link1
Link2
Link3

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
Link1

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:
Address: 27 OLD GLOUCESTER STREET, LONDON, WC1N 3XX
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:
Link1

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: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/rcj-rolls-building/chancery-division/the-chancery-judges

Judge: Arnold J.  (NPO Judge) Clerk: Alison Lee, Tel: 020 7073 1789, email: alison.lee2@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Judge: Birss J.  Clerk: John Curtis, Tel: 0207 947 7379, email: john.curtis3@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Write to your MP or Lords representative: http://www.writetothem.com/

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

Consumer Complaint – Citizens Advice: https://ssl.datamotion.com/form.aspx?co=3438&frm=citacomplainform&to=flare.fromforms

Open Rights Group: info@openrightsgroup.org

Which? http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/contact-us/email/ or which@which.co.uk

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: civilappeals.listing@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

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: civilappeals.associates@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Golden Eye International Claim To Follow Court Procedure……Really?

July 2, 2013 4 comments

Meter1After all the efforts of Golden Eye International Limited (“GEIL”) to “protect their copyright” by applying for disclosure from O2 for subscriber names in their Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”), we get to the situation where GEIL leave those who deny their claim in limbo.

GEILs replies vary, but one constant in all replies remain the same.  A sort of “GEIL are very nice people who follow rules and judgements and would never harm anybody or anything”.

That constant in their letter is:

 We have followed the procedure laid down by the Court when corresponding with you.

Such noble words, but what does that really mean?

From the NPO Court Judgement, let us see what Justice Arnold said about the monitoring:

For the results to be reliable, it is important to ensure that the monitoring software is functioning correctly. In particular, it is vital that the computer on which it is running has a correctly synchronised clock.

Who knows that?  Who officially knows that?  GEILs “forensic” expert says he “has identified the clock synchronisation source he used, which he says is accurate to 0.1 second”.  Who officially saw that when they did the monitoring?  We have to take their words for it.

Any more thoughts Justice Arnold?

Even if the monitoring software is functioning correctly, ISPs sometimes misidentify the subscriber to whom the IP address which has been detected was allocated at the relevant time. This can occur, for example, because of mistakes over time zones.

Maybe I am reading a different Court judgement than the one GEIL are saying they are following.

We have seen from one of GEILs letters:

The evidence we have shows the following:

1) Hash of the content being uploaded by you, along with the content name, size and Torrent name. This will uniquely identify the file/movie that was being shared over P2P network.

2) Percentage of the file/movie that was being shared at the time of capture and detection of the infringement.

3) If you are seeding (or partially) more than one content, we have those identified by the ISP.

4) The P2P software, name and version, you were using and the hash that was generated by your software during that session of seeding or partial seeding.

5) The date and the time of seeding of any piece of the content by you with the index of the piece which shows where in the content that piece of data is.  As we ask for just one identification by the ISP, this is a snapshot of this as it was happening.  All of this could again be sent to the ISP to further identify you.

If we proceed to Court, we will be able to produce the following in digital format:

1) All the pieces seeded by you in a raw format that can then be inspected and further analysed.

2) The raw capture of the packets sent by your P2P software to the Internet at the time of identification.  This is raw data that can be analysed further that will essentially show the piece of the content being seeded by you.

I don’t see this as following procedures laid down by the Court.  The Court said that ISPs sometimes misidentify the subscriber.  GEILs words are specific and accuse the subscriber as the infringer.

Not enough to convince?  Let us look also at what Justice Arnold said:

Even if the monitoring software is functioning correctly and the ISP correctly identifies the subscriber to whom the IP address which has been detected was allocated at the relevant time, it does not necessarily follow that the subscriber was the person who was participating in the P2P filesharing which was detected.

Damn!  It’s not looking good for GEILs evidence is it?  Directly accusing the subscriber of infringing when the Court mentions very plausible issues as regards the monitoring, it escapes me.  I’m beginning to think that Court judgments are not worth following any more.  If you are sentenced to imprisonment in Court, ignore it and just be free and go home.

So let us use our imagination a bit and say that the monitoring software is perfect and the “Expert Witness” is clever and the ISP is useful.  Let us believe in GEIL for one moment.  They had 2,845 IP addresses that were monitored by Mr Torabi (Not NG3 Systems because they were crap for MediaCAT) for Ben Dover Productions (“BDP”).  How many subscribers were disclosed by O2?  Apparently less than 1,000!  33% hit rate!  That’s it.  I tried.  I tried to believe in GEIL and it lasted for all of 3 seconds, which is less than the difference between the monitoring software timestamp and O2s timestamp (Ouch! Low blow!).

Let’s get back on to Court procedures and get back to the Court judgement and what Justice Arnold says:

I agree with counsel for Consumer Focus that the figure of £700 is unsupportable. My reasons are as follows. First, the Claimants know that an unknown percentage of the Intended Defendants are not infringers at all. Intended Defendants who have not in fact committed any infringements are not liable to pay any sum.

Let me re-align my reality sensors.  How silly I was to try and imagine GEIL are right in their claim!  I have to agree with Justice Arnold when he says “the Claimants know that an unknown percentage of the Intended Defendants are not infringers at all” and Justice Arnold is specific to say “Intended Defendants who have not in fact committed any infringements are not liable to pay any sum”.

But…..Justice Arnold says more:

Secondly, in the case of those Intended Defendants who are infringers, the Claimants have no idea about the scale of the infringements committed by each infringer. Some might have infringed on a very substantial scale indeed, while others might only have infringed to a minor extent.

Hmmm, I see.  So why do GEIL ask for £350.00 per infringement?  Oh yes, in the original draft letter GEIL asked for £700.00 per infringement.  Why not £699.99?  Why is £350.00 per infringement acceptable as a settlement based on the Justice Arnolds words?

I need more information Justice Arnold!  Ah, he provided it:

I think that Mr Becker’s response in his second witness statement to the point made by counsel for Consumer Focus referred to in sub-paragraph 60(v) above is telling:  “… it assumes that £700 will be successfully obtained from each of the 9000, when that is plainly wrong. In fact, it is likely that only a small proportion will result in a successfully obtained payment of any sum.”

Mr Beckers words are “it is likely that only a small proportion will result in a successfully obtained payment of any sum”.  That is a telling statement.  What did Justice Arnold say to that?

This comes quite close to an admission that the figure of £700 has been selected so as to maximise the revenue obtained from the letters of claim, rather than as a realistic estimate of the damages recoverable by the relevant Claimant from each Intended Defendant

Mr Becker, please!  Justice Arnold seems to have figured that an awful statement to make!  Whatever actions are taken after the judgement, Mr Becker has been shown by Justice Arnold what could be considered a charlatan.

So Justice Arnold says £700.00 is unrealistic and GEIL think £350.00 is realistic.   I think Justice Arnolds words “the Claimants have no idea about the scale of the infringements committed by each infringer” gives an excellent clue to what the suggested settlement should be from GEIL.  They have the “Evidence” of one download from the alleged infringer and that is the only “Evidence”.  That is the value of one video.

Having accepted before Justice Arnolds words that innocent subscribers will be targeted, it is fair to say that the monitoring software will capture those who did infringe GEILs copyright.  In this situation, a subscriber will accept GEILs claim and what happens then Justice Arnold?

Accordingly, I do not consider that the Claimants are justified in sending letters of claim to every Intended Defendant demanding the payment of £700. What the Claimants ought to do is to proceed in the conventional manner, that is to say, to require the Intended Defendants who do not dispute liability to disclose such information as they are able to provide as to the extent to which they have engaged in P2P filesharing of the relevant Claimants’ copyright works. In my view it would be acceptable for the Claimants to indicate that they are prepared to accept a lump sum in settlement of their claims, including the request for disclosure, but not to specify a figure in the initial letter. The settlement sum should be individually negotiated with each Intended Defendant.

Hmmm.  But we have seen a settlement figure from GEIL sent to subscribers who deny their claim.  GEIL are not following Court procedures so much that it would be enough to get Justice Arnolds wig spinning!

Before I start to lose faith in the Courts and justice, I will quote one last statement from Justice Arnold:

I conclude that the Claimants’ interests in enforcing their copyrights outweigh the Intended Defendants’ interest in protecting their privacy and data protection rights, and thus it is proportionate to order disclosure, provided that the order and the proposed letter of claim are framed so as properly to safeguard the legitimate interests of the Intended Defendants, and in particular the interests of Intended Defendants who have not in fact committed the infringements in question.

The most important two words in that paragraph are “the order”.  That says it is an Order to GEIL as well as the intended defendants.  The “proposed letter” was drafted and approved by Court, and any subsequent actions taken by GEIL after the proposed letter are governed by the judgement of the Court.

I will re-write that paragraph which would be more appropriate for GEIL:

I wish we would have followed the procedure laid down by the Court when corresponding with you.

O2/BE There Send More Pre-Warning Letters In Anticipation Of Further Golden Eye International Claims

May 3, 2013 Leave a comment
Golden Eyes Pounds

Golden Eyes more Pounds – Lacks Proof

In a repeat of last Decembers warning letters in anticipation of Golden Eye International Limited (“GEIL”) Letter Of Claim (“LoC”) of copyright infringement on behalf of Ben Dover Productions (“BDP”), O2/BE There have started to send out the same warning letter to their customers in what can only be in anticipation of further LoCs from GEIL on behalf of the other 12 producers.

GEIL successfully gained disclosure of O2/BE There subscriber details (Which was un-opposed by O2) from their Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”) application in March 2012 for BDP, but were unsuccessful with the other 12 producers.  They subsequently won their appeal for the 12 producers in December 2012.

The 12 producers (Listed in the NPO Court case) in question are:  Celtic Broadcasting Ltd, Easy On The Eye, DMS Telecoms Limited, Gary Baker, Harmony Films Limited, Justin Ribeiro Dos Santos t/a Joybear Pictures, Orchid MG Limited, Kudetta bvba, RP Films Limited, Sweetmeats Productions t/a S.M.P,  SLL Films Limited & Terence Stephens t/a One Eyed Jack Productions.

For the new recipients of these imminent LoCs, many will be completely unaware of what is effectively a “phishing” campaign by GEIL.  This is because GEIL have only the evidence of a “monitored” IP address and with this they “bought” the subscriber details from O2/BE There.  The letter under “Infringing acts” starts:

This letter assumes that you, as the internet account holder at your address, were the user of the relevant computer on the day and time in question

After making such a statement, the letter goes on to say:

In the event that you were not responsible for the infringing acts outlined above because, for example, another member of your household was the user of the computer, you should make full disclosure to us of the other parties at your residence using your internet connection to make the Work available for download

So they assume the subscriber is the infringer then say they may not be responsible, to which they say:

A failure to make such disclosure may lead to a claim being made against you with the court being asked to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that you were the user of the computer

A completely innocent subscriber who has not committed the infringement, and not authorised anyone else to commit the infringement may receive a follow up letter demanding a disproportionate settlement simply because they respond with details of who also lives at their address.

The subscribers who will receive the latest letters GEIL are sending out can see from the NPO judgement that Judge Arnold said:

Furthermore, it will expose them to receiving letters of claim and may expose them to proceedings for infringement in circumstances where they may not be guilty of infringement, where the subject matter of the claim may cause them embarrassment, where a proper defence to the claim would require specialised legal advice that they may not be able to afford and where they may not consider it cost-effective for them to defend the claim even if they are innocent

This is the Judge who presided over GEILs NPO application, and this Judge knows innocent people will be targeted.

The Judge goes on to say:

What the Claimants ought to do is to proceed in the conventional manner, that is to say, to require the Intended Defendants who do not dispute liability to disclose such information as they are able to provide as to the extent to which they have engaged in P2P filesharing of the relevant Claimants’ copyright works

So from the words of the Judge, those “who do not dispute liability” are “to disclose such information as they are able to provide”.  The Judge does not say that those who do dispute liability should disclose such information.

The man who has perpetrated this phishing campaign is Mr Julian Becker who is a director of GEIL along with Ben Dover (a.k.a. Mr Simon Lindsay James Honey).  Mr Becker has been known to make rather odd quotes to the Adult Media Press, such as:

Fundamentally we are pursuing those that are uploading not downloading, they are potentially uploading to millions of others who are also using these networks.  How many they upload to is impossible to calculate, but in effect these violations are unauthorized distribution, we are not pursuing those who have simply downloaded one film.

Now the words there are totally misleading and could lead a subscriber who is innocent or guilty in to a false sense of assurance.  “pursuing those that are uploading not downloading” is completely irrelevant because the nature of BitTorrent software IS downloading and uploading.  And as I have found out, GEILs response to those who admitted one infringement is a demand of £350.00 which contradicts his statement of “we are not pursuing those who have simply downloaded one film”.

For those who have received the warning letter from O2/BE There and may receive an LoC from GEIL, what can you do?

As is always the advice:

BE CALM, DO NOT PANIC and DO NOT IGNORE.

The Citizens Advice Bureau (“CAB”) would be one of the first ports of call, they can be contacted on 08454 04 05 06, their website at adviceguide.org.uk or you can attend your local Citizens Advice Bureau.

The Open Rights Group (“ORG”) are there to give guidance and advice also.

The Speculative Invoicing Handbook Second Edition provides valuable information and a recommended read.

Read up about these people and this Copyright Trolling / Speculative Invoicing on this Blog, Torrent Freak, and also the Forums at Slyck with a goldmine of information.

Read here for testimonies of those who received letters similar in the past, and realise YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

Golden Eye Respond To Those Who Admit Infringement

April 8, 2013 11 comments

Without doubt the whole “Speculative Invoicing” operation employed by various participants with various roles has proven to be flawed and has targeted innocent people.  That is proof alone that there has been no justification in operating such a scheme, even if infringers are caught.

Sadly, I know of certain people involved in the GEIL operation who have stated that “Collateral Damage” is acceptable if it catches the infringers.  I take this to mean that no matter how many innocent people are targeted and pay up through fear, this “Justifies” their actions if they catch infringers.

As regards GEILs Letter Of Claim (“LoC”), the one small problem in what happened to be an excellent outcome of their original LoC being neutered is there is no initial settlement figure, and thus the real threat of the LoC is dumbed down.  That could be a problem because an infringer (Or an infringer who seeks legal guidance) may see a figure of compensation far differently than GEIL.

It now transpires that unsuspecting subscribers who admitted the infringement have immediately received another letter from GEIL demanding a settlement figure which is more close to their original LoC and completely ignores everything that was decided by the Judge in GEILs original Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”) back in March 2012.  I suppose GEIL are not going to let a decision from an “unimportant” High Court Judge dissuade them from carrying on their absurd claims!

So what can a subscriber who has been led in to admission of guilt take from it?  And what can they do when they receive the unjustified claim of compensation from GEIL?

If the alleged infringer admits GEILs claim then I believe clarification must be given to what extent.  Admission could be:

1. An actual download took place by accident and cancelled quickly.

2. An actual download took place by accident and cancelled eventually.

3. An actual download took place in completion in anything from X hours to X days and removed by the infringer from the p2p software.

4. An actual download took place in completion in anything from X hours to X days and not removed by the infringer from the p2p software.

What about the infringement?  It may be accepted that “Two acts” of infringements occurred:

1. The alleged infringer has admitted to downloading the copyright material.

2. The alleged infringer has made the copyright material available for GEIL to download a small part.

What is in dispute is GEILs value of compensation of a demand for £350.00 per infringement or £700.00 for four infringements.

Let us start by looking at GEILs letter of claim under the section “Our claim for damages”:

The act of file sharing the Work without the consent of GEIL or BDP has caused damage to our business. We contend that every copy of the Work that is downloaded represents a potential lost sale. Whenever the Work is made available for download to other parties there is the opportunity for multiple downloads to take place resulting in lost revenue. In addition to GEIL selling direct, we also enter into licensing agreements for third party organisations to distribute our content. File sharing also results in lost royalty revenue and weakening of the Ben Dover brand. The court has power in such circumstances to award GEIL and BDP damages for our loss and, in appropriate circumstances, additional damages where the unlawful file sharing has been flagrant

The level of damages we claim will depend on the extent to which you have downloaded the Work and/or made it available for the download by others.

Now the decision from the Judge Mr Justice Arnold in the Court case:

134. Secondly, in the case of those Intended Defendants who are infringers, the Claimants have no idea about the scale of the infringements committed by each infringer. Some might have infringed on a very substantial scale indeed, while others might only have infringed to a minor extent.

Now I will look at particular aspects of GEILs evidence, claim, proposed settlement and their claim of legal consequences.

Evidence

The single most important fact is GEILs evidence has a small part of an upload from an IP address.  This is very evident from GEILs claim of “Whenever the Work is made available for download to other parties there is the opportunity for multiple downloads to take place resulting in lost revenue”.  This is backed up by the Judge when he states “the Claimants have no idea about the scale of the infringements committed by each infringer”.

So making a claim of “the opportunity for multiple downloads” when the Judge quite rightly says that they have no idea how much, is where GEIL have the major problem of lack of evidence.  GEIL have the evidence of one upload.

Lost Revenue

What about GEILs claim of lost revenue?  Surely lost revenue must be taken in to account after all relevant costs are taken out for sending a DVD to a consumer.  Compiling a DVD and packaging costs need to be considered, then the sale value to a distributor and finally the postage costs to post it to a distributor.

After all this is taken in to consideration, even a 30% gross profit on the £30.00 sale of a DVD to a distributor is £9.00 profit.

This is also on the basis that you can actually buy the film if it is at all available through Distribution.  It cannot be deemed lost revenue if the film is not available to purchase.

Disproportionate

Although it is the case the Judge declared GEIL have the right to protect their copyright, it is certainly not right for GEIL to claim disproportionate compensation.  If GEILs claim to an alleged infringer is lost revenue through sharing and uploading, making the same claim against other alleged infringers is double-counting.

If 10 alleged infringers were asked to pay compensation, each alleged infringer would be asked to pay for the infringement of the others.  This would in the case of the 10 alleged infringers make them pay for a total of 90 infringements.

Legal Consequences

From the Judgment, Mr Becker makes reference to “the reasonable royalty should be assessed on the basis of a ‘time limited license [sic] to exploit a work by providing copies of it on an unlimited worldwide basis’ “, whilst the LoC claims “In addition to GEIL selling direct, we also enter into licensing agreements for third party organisations to distribute our content. File sharing also results in lost royalty revenue and weakening of the Ben Dover brand”.

It now transpires that GEIL are making the claim that the Court will grant their claim for a “One year” standard licence agreement for one film which they would typically grant for Distributors.  This could be as much (If not more) as £1,500.00.  Exactly how they can equate sharing one film to a one year licence is baffling!  It can only be considered the basis of a licence for as long as the download took place.  If it took two days to download the film by the infringer, it can only be a licence for that amount of time, which would be no more than £10.00.

It may be argued by GEIL that they would only ever negotiate the minimum term of a licence to be one year, but negotiation is precisely the point when it comes to an agreement for a licence.  It cannot be one way.  A Distributor can make the decision if they wish to agree to those terms or not.

It also has to be taken in to consideration that you have the disproportionate situation (Above) of infringers having to pay for all other infringements resulting in double-counting again.

Flagrancy

The particular claim of flagrancy in GEILs LoC relates to their claim that an infringement has damaged the Ben Dover Productions (“BDP”) brand.  I will set aside the notion that this is a possibility as it could be argued that is what GEIL are doing.  This claim fails again through the evidence situation (Above).  To what level can GEIL claim an infringer has damaged the BDP brand?  Again no evidence to back up such claim.

Summary

My summary of GEIL and their latest claim against those who admitted the infringement are:

1. To what level of infringement has GEIL established from the infringer?

2. What evidence does GEIL have to prove an infringers level of infringement?

3. Why do GEIL quite directly ignore the Judges opinion?

4. Do GEIL consider the profit only aspect of lost revenue?

5. How can GEIL consider the idea of multiple uploads, licencing and flagrancy when it results in double-counting?

6. How can GEIL impose the one year licence on an infringer without negotiation when a download may take up to two days?

Special thanks to Hickster

ADDITION

Mr Becker was quoted here:

Disregarding the fact that our films when purchased sell for far in excess of £10, he totally missed the fact that file sharing occurs not in a closed user group of those circa 9,000 Telefonica customers, but in a far larger community of millions of users. Fundamentally we are pursuing those that are uploading not downloading, they are potentially uploading to millions of others who are also using these networks. How many they upload to is impossible to calculate, but in effect these violations are unauthorized distribution, we are not pursuing those who have simply downloaded one film.

“millions of users”………Oh dear God.

“potentially uploading to millions of others”……..Oh dear God, please!!!

“How many they upload to is impossible to calculate”………..No evidence?

“we are not pursuing those who have simply downloaded one film.”………Untrue!!!

Demanding £350.00 for one infringement makes what Mr Julian Fraser Becker says as untrue.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 298 other followers