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).
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.
The most fundamental question here is why?
From my perspective, quite simply GEIL as Julian Becker and Lyndsay Honey haven’t the stomach to continue their reign of terror on the British public by sending more of their begging letters. They certainly have no intention to bring an alleged infringer to Court from their last campaign as predicted on this blog.
Back in December 2012, Julian Becker gloated of his intention to travel to the USA and basically (as I see it) hoodwink USA producers to sign up to their scam so they can gain more 75% commissions. Remember Julian Becker’s quote from the BBC article?
“I look forward to travelling to adult conferences in Los Angeles and Vegas in early January to offer Golden Eye’s services to other producers,” he told the BBC.
I will put this to everyone who reads this (And I know Copyright Trolls read this). A UK adult promotor travels to the USA and mentions to US producers that they can sign up to a reign of speculative invoicing in the UK. The US producers pay no money, and will receive 25% of the revenue collected (Whilst giving up 75% of the revenue to GEIL). All they have to do is basically “give away” their Licence to GEIL. Those US producers are in the USA, and therefor don’t have anything to do with the pain and suffering caused by GEIL on their behalf.
So GEIL recruit a few producers (Not that many as far as I see) in the USA and what happens? They can’t conduct this new scam in their own name because they conducted their own recent scam without doing what they claimed in their letters and interviews and take an alleged infringer to Court.
With all the criticisms from action groups and this blog, GEIL are cowards and don’t come through with their promises. GEIL have ZERO credibility, and bring the whole legitimate argument of copyright infringement into question. This new batch of speculative invoicing, in the way it has been gathered and conducted is the actions from cowards.
And to be absolutely right in this assertion, the new wave of this scam is being conducted by some “organisation” whose address is in Cyprus. Imagine if the magnificent work from TorrentFreak and the TorrentFreak readers hadn’t happened? GEIL would not have been associated with this scam and remained anonymous, and it would have seemed to be a new bunch of scam artists. No, THIS IS GEIL.
This new scam is perverse, dishonest, deceitful, underhand, and false, with the hallmarks of it being operated in a corrupt nature. From Davenport Lyons to Tilley Bailey Irvine to ACS:Law right through to GEIL, it is a scam that has evolved each time an obstacle has been encountered. MICM is the next step. Maybe the next scam will be operated from the Antarctic!
What convinces me more so that this is a scam is the involvement of Wagner & Co law firm. We have seen previously what can happen to a law firm involved in these scams. Imagine the call from Julian Becker to Mr Wagner to ask if they could represent them in Court against an alleged infringer! NO CHANCE! You don’t need a Lawyer degree to tell someone to go and kiss somewhere where the Sun doesn’t shine!
So as far as I am concerned, I will continue from now on to say that this latest scam is not from MICM and is definitely from Goldeneye International Limited. This is not from unknowns from Cyprus but from well-established speculative invoice legends Mr Julian Becker & Mr Lyndsay Honey.
On to the Letter of Claim (“LoC”)
VAT. No: CY10284970
Spyrou Kypianou, 32
2nd Floor, Flat/Office 3
1075, Nicosia, Cyprus
MIRCOM INTERNATIONAL CONTENT
MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING LIMITED
(“MICM”) AND (“”)
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
Join the debate at Slyck.com: Link
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.
Adult Industry Trade Association (AITA) to close – Emails to the Chair RE “Golden Eye International” involvement
It has been announced that the Adult Industry Trade Association (AITA) is to be closed down. The committee it seems feels that it is untenable and has been running at a loss since 2010.
After conducting research and feedback from the “Adult” Industry, that is Porn Industry to you and me, 64% of respondents felt that an adult trade association was needed but only 32% believed that AITA was an effective voice for the industry. These figures seem rather damning. Two Thirds believe their should be an association but that the AITA is rather useless actually acting as that association.
The Official AITA statement reads:
“With the limited resources available to AITA, it did not come as a surprise to learn that the majority of current members felt that AITA is underperforming in its provision of key services when considering their relative importance. It is clear that this cannot be addressed without a significant injection of cash. AITA has significantly reduced its running costs over the last three years, however with corresponding decreasing subscriptions it has been running at a significant loss since at least 2010. Due to the lack of ongoing support for AITA from the general UK adult industry, and after much deliberation, the committee believes that it is no longer tenable for AITA to continue after the end of the membership year (March 31st) and all committee members will resign on that date and the company closed down. The committee would like to thank all members for their support over the years. As individuals they will continue to work to support the UK adult industry where they can, offering ongoing advice in their particular area of expertise and continuing to network at adult industry events.”
This is rather interesting as a statement made by the AITA December 12th reads
Trade body AITA has announced that it has appointed Jason Maskell of JCaz as its interim chairman following the resignation of Jerry Barnett. Maskell’s tenure is scheduled to run until the end of March 2013.
A statement on the AITA website, posted 11th December, read: “The AITA committee would like to thank Jerry for all his time and work he has put in to AITA during his time as a committee member and chairman and wish him well for the future and all his does.”
Now those following the Golden Eye International Legal action may not realise that Jason Maskell is also the head of Orchid MG, one of the litigants in the “Speculative Invoicing” action. Orchid MG were one of the Producers added to the action in Golden Eyes Appeal.
On the suggestion of one of the other Producers, I had written to the AITA before Maskell had taken over, and had received an email from the then head (Barnett), that whilst he did not agree with the action, he could understand why it happened, and that they should make the most of what they could do while they could do it. I thought an interesting response.
After Maskell took over in December 2012, and on realising he was one of the Producers added to the action, I thought, “Hmmm, this sounds like a conflict of interest”, I was however misled into thinking that the AITA was a kind of self regulation group who might actually care for innocent people being targetted by Porn Barons and NOT a pressure group for the Porn Industry, my mistake.
I sent an email to the AITA detailing my concerns with the Golden Eye action and received, what to me was no more than a Golden Eye Press release from the AITA, I then sent a second email and got no response at all.
On Twitter this week Maskell attempted to engage me and offered me an interview on camera, using almost word for word, what Terence Stephens of “One Eyed Jack” had offered, I again politely declined, explaining again why I might not want to break rank, namely the fact I have already been threatened with legal action by Golden Eyes previous legal team. After failing to get me to do the interview, I pointed out to Maskell that he had not replied to my last email, and I would rather he did that, He responded by saying he wouldn’t respond as I was “moaning about a court approved action” in my email, by Maskel of the AITA, I thought how odd (and unprofessional), far from moaning I thought I had laid out my concerns in a fairly cogent manner.
Anyhow, I include our email exchange here, just for the record, and would like to just add, that if the AITA are looking for a big cash injection, why on earth have they not asked Mr Ben Dover? Surely he is interested in the Industry that has made him a multi millionaire? No? Oh….
Was I really merely “moaning”, about a legal action I didn’t like?
Letters from Copyright Troll collective, Golden Eye International (GEIL) have started to land on the nations doormats, throwing those unaware into a fit of panic. Many bewildered recipients have woken to find a letter stating that they are deemed by GEIL to be responsible for infringing the copyright on some obscure pornography title.
GEIL are operating a Speculative Invoicing/Copyright Troll scheme almost identical to that run by notorious Law Firm ACS:LAW, and recently gained an appeal to add a further twelve, also obscure companies to their “Legal” action.
One of the firms RP Films has already folded, although that didn’t seem to affect their seeming victory in Court.
The man responsible for these letters, Julian Becker, has said a few contrasting things when he has made statements to the press, (Not faceless keyboard warriors, you understand as he has described those who oppose him)
“While personally I dislike this nanny state intervention” a ban wouldn’t have any effect on our revenues as those that pay for our product have already registered their details as well as undertaking an age-verification process. It may even assist combating online piracy, therefore increasing our profits,” – Julian Becker (May 2012)
I have tried to contact him but had nothing in return, (One of his clients informed me he would be prepared to have a face to face on film in front of an audience picked by him and the filming would be produced by one of his fellow pornographers, I of course declined, not least as I have had issues with Golden Eyes previous Lawfirm) I have taken to posting open letters 2 counteracting his “economy with the truth”
I contacted the Adult Industry Trade Association (AITA) who are now headed by one of the Golden Eye clients, Jason Maskell of “Orchid MG”, I sent him an email detailing my concerns with regard to these letters, and he dismissed it out of hand. I have tried to contact a number of the people behind these companies but none seem to care with regard to what I feel are the dangers with pursuing these claims and the sheer lack of evidence that should never be sent to an innocent person.
This Blog has also been the subject of a DMCA Takedown by GEIL “Forensic Expert” Clem Vogler which resulted in WordPress having to remove a photo (but not the content) of Mr Vogler from one of the posts. I did not oppose this takedown as on reflection I believe it improves the appearance of the page immensely.
The letters look the part but they have no substance, they are in effect “phishing” letters. They rely on the recipient to incriminate themselves. They are of course a diluted compromise that was forced on them by the Courts, but the letters still have the potential to scare people into paying up.
So what are those in receipt of one of these letters to do?
Well first thing is
DO NOT PANIC.
DO NOT IGNORE
Consumer Focus have done a great job in educating the Citizens Advice Bureau, and the CAB would be one of the first ports of call, they can be contacted on 08454 04 05 06 or you can attend your local Citizens Advice Bureau
For more on Consumer Focus see here for some invaluable information
Read here, for testimonies of those who received letters similar in the past, realise YOU ARE NOT ALONE
UPDATE 2: A letter received by us seems to show GEIL including the filename of the media they allege has been infringed listed on the ISP Report they have received from O2, this seems a VERY dodgy method of making out that O2 are in agreement with GEIL about the file being copied. This is not true, and unless this is a mistake on GEILs part, seems a very desperate attempt to use O2’s name to lend credibility to what is in essence VERY patchy evidence.
Lindsay Honey – Ben Dover Productions
Lindsay Honey is the self serving, self styled, “Biggest Porn star in the UK”, served jail time for “publishing obscene material for gain” and “being in possession of obscene material”. Wants to be considered a “Serious actor”, but comes across as a desperate almost “Big Brother” style attention seeking Z-Lister. Released a Football song for the 2010 World Cup Finals, (yes really), tried his hand at Stand up as well!! and has stated in interviews that he needs to get money from people who will not buy his Pornography.
Of course most people who have grown too old for their profession would gain employment in another field, or retire. Honey has obviously tried and failed as an actor, and a singer, oh and a Stand-up Comic, so must rely on a “Speculative Invoicing” scheme to gain extra money.
Maybe we can use Honeys own words in this April 2011 interview http://www.cherwell.org/lifestyle/interviews/2011/03/09/how-about-you-ben-dover- where he actually tells the real story why there is no money in his profession.
“The internet is the main poison that’s now rapidly killing off the industry. Back in 1986 you could sell a 3-hour VHS porn tape for about £65.00, which would be about £150.00 in today’s money. Now you can get anything you want at the click of a mouse. For free.”
This interview was after Golden Eye Internationals first round of “Speculative Invoicing” letters, and there is no mention of his new career of being a “Copyright Troll”. In fact, another statement he makes in the interview is more close to the truth.
“It’s strange but you could make a great movie with the best looking porn stars in the world, and you’ll probably make a very small profit over several years.”
And yet he goes on to say,
“‘My critics do affect me badly. Sometimes so badly that I have to leave my 6 bedroom mansion in a gated executive park in Surrey, get in my Ferrari and drive to the airport to fly out to my luxury villa in Spain and take a long leisurely swim in my beautiful blue sparkling pool overlooking the Jalon valley!’”
One wonders why, given that he is always bragging about how wealthy he is in interviews,
maybe his recent split from his Wife has something to do with it.
In the interview, it can be seen his sheer opportunism in relation to using other peoples success, “But because of his(teenage Sons acting) career, I’m now in touch with people like Ricky Gervais, Andy Hamilton, people like that….You know, Armstrong & Miller, Rob Brydon, people like that. I’m trying to think of anything that I can do…I’m trying to build up an audience on YouTube then sell it to Channel 5 or let Ricky Gervais..”Hmm good luck with that!
For a view of what other people think of Mr Dover see below
Julian Becker Optime Strategies/Golden eye International
Address of Optime Strategies – Suite 10 Halton Close, Barnet, N11 3HQ
Becker is Director of both Optime Strategies AND Golden Eye International.
Head of Sales at Andromeda Telecoms Ltd
Becker has been Director of THREE other companies all of which are now dissolved
Julian seems to be the perfect statesman. The media savvy guy who is always able to provide the right quote.
One such quote from him in this link from computer active dated May 2012 regarding the Governments proposal for automatic porn filters, he states.
“While personally I dislike this nanny state intervention, a ban wouldn’t have any effect on our revenues as those that pay for our product have already registered their details as well as undertaking an age-verification process. It may even assist combating online piracy, therefore increasing our profits,”
Whilst in September 2012 in this link he says.
More from Becker can be seen here….
Alireza Torabi – NG3 Systems
Torabi is the person behind the controversial tracking software used by ACS:LAW, it is now being used by Golden Eye International, despite it never being scrutinised in a court of law. According to ACS:LAW email leaks there were about 30% of the so called “Alleged infringers” IP addresses that simply did not exist according to the ISPs
In the ACS:Law leaked emails, Torabi was going to be replaced by Guardaley GmbH. You can understand why with just one example of a comment from Adam Glen to Andrew Crossley dated August 2010.
“The recent indication by Ali that he is willing to change his position regarding what protocol/client was used by an infringer causes me alarm.”
Bear in mind that Torabi was described by both ACS:LAW and now Golden Eye Inernational as their “Forensic Expert” How forensic can you be if you are willing to change the very evidence required to fit the accusation?
Torabi runs a number of different “Businesses” online, one of which is XYPY, and rather strangely for someone who seems to make money by selling IP addresses to Copyright Trolls, it is a VPN service, even stranger than that, after a few enquiries from some intrepid Slyckers, the English page was removed and replaced with a Persian language one… Hmmm
VPNs are commonly used to hide the true identity of an internet user, there does seem to be somewhat of a conflict, between a person who on one hand sells Peoples IPs and on the other hand seemingly helps hide them.
The IP addresses of his businesses are all the same
http://www.xypy.net – 18.104.22.168
http://www.aleriza.me – 22.214.171.124
http://www.cyberdealer.co.uk – 126.96.36.199
http://www.ng3systems.com – 188.8.131.52
For how the old XYPY looked see here. http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fa&u=http://www.xypy.net/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dxypy.net%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D1201%26bih%3D919%26prmd%3Dimvns&sa=X&ei=vPkmUOu8N4rD0QXiv4CoCg&ved=0CEkQ7gEwAA
Torabi was Director of one other company that has been dissolved.
Big thanks to Bpaw
This page will be update, as and when! Please comment
This is a response to an interview given by Ben Dover Commercial Director Julian Becker in regard to the O2 sellout of it’s customers. We felt it warranted a response, to correct some of the “mistruths” that occurred in the interview.. (See Bottom of post for original source)
The author, Julian Becker, is Ben Dover Productions’ commercial director. A London jurist decided this week on a key porn BitTorrent ruling in favour of the studio and affiliated company Golden Eye International. The companies can proceed in obtaining IP addresses involving more than 9,000 O2 customers who are alleged to have downloaded Ben Dover movies.
Well actually the Judge ruled that only Ben Dover Productions can pursue this action the other claimants were struck out and told they had to apply themselves. Indeed although you say this is NOT about the money, you were quite willing to take up to 75% of the revenues raised from the other claimants, (The Judges Words not mine) But hey lets not let the truth get in the way.. (2)
My parents, always encouraged me to become a solicitor or an accountant, so I found it most bizarre and ironic that one of the many false accusations that has been directed towards us is that we are a reinvention of ACS Law. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one to raise a smile in court when our barrister produced a pair of Ben Dover boxer shorts as evidence.
It is neither bizarre or ironic for those of us who realize you ARE a reinvention of the “Speculative Invoicing” scheme that was licensed from Davenport Lyons by ACS:LAW, and who collaborated with Tilly Bailey & Irvine, who represented, now who was it? Ahh yes your Company Mr Becker, Golden Eye International. (2) And no, when your barrister produced the underwear most of us saw through this cheap pathetic stunt.
The Hon. Justice Arnold accepted that “there is nothing particularly unusual, let alone objectionable, about the Ben Dover agreement. The mere fact that the copyright works are pornographic films is no reason to refuse the grant of relief, since there is no suggestion that they are obscene or otherwise unlawful. Golden Eye and Ben Dover Productions have a good arguable case that many of the relevant intended defendants have infringed their copyrights. I am satisfied that they do intend to seek redress for those wrongs and that disclosure is necessary to enable them to do so. In these circumstances, 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.”
Well there isn’t anything wrong with it, not all, unless you don’t realize the history of “Speculative Invoicing”, then there is everything wrong with it, but nothing a Judge can do with an organization who presents one argument with the idea of using the information for something else. If you are persuing people who have infringed your copyright, no one would argue, however you are using a flawed system, a system that has already been shown in court as flawed.
I hope this will finally disprove those rumors that associate us with Andrew Crossley, although my mother was disappointed it has been proved that I am indeed a pornographer not a solicitor.
LMAO, well not really, we KNOW you and Andrew Crossley were friends, and I am sure that your Mother is very proud of you, as I am sure the Rabbi of the Synagogue that you provided security to, will be as well.
Its positive that the court acknowledges that we have the right to take this action and protect our content. This action has been inspired by our core business being decimated by piracy and we are pursuing several projects in combating both the Internet sites that facilitate online piracy as well as the end violators and the physical DVD pirates. Our clothing, merchandise and events business was initiated very much in response to our core film business being so negatively impacted by different forms of piracy. Due to the nature of the way most consumers view adult content, the adult business has been affected far worse than mainstream film due to the fact that the pirates cannot replicate the cinematic experience of mainstream movies.
It may be the fact that your films are not watched as from what I understand they feature a disturbing and ageing man, who seduces younger woman in some bizarre amateurish nonsense. Who the hell wants to see a poor Keith Harris lookalike doing porn films… I mean seriously.
The court also accepts that this form of piracy does result in a commercial loss for our business and that we have the right to pursue compensation, I understand it is difficult to quantify how much this loss is due to the nature of how file sharing networks operate. I may not have in depth technical knowledge of the workings of these websites, however my limited knowledge appears somewhat more in depth than Guy Tritton, the Consumer Focus barrister, who calculated that if every violator shared content with every other violator then Golden Eye’s loss would be 9,000 x £10, totaling £90,000.
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.
I am amazed your films sell for more than £10, maybe that is down to you and your poor business model. ACS:LAW who of course you know showed in their leaked emails that it might be hard to prove damages beyond a SINGLE copy. The uploading argument is a misnomer, as you know torrent clients HAVE to upload as well as download, that is straight from Crossleys business model.
I’m still at a loss to understand why consumer groups are so opposed to a company that is merely seeking to protect its core business from individuals who are stealing and distributing its products. The definition of consumers are those that purchase goods or services, the individuals who are infringing our copyright are not paying for our product but are stealing it, I do not understand how they can be described as consumers. My belief is that our actions are actually in the interests of the true consumers as if piracy carries on at the level we are witnessing today, many creative organizations will cease to be commercially able to fund new content, limiting future consumer choice.
Once again straight from Crossleys mantra. Blah blah blah. Crossley had issues with Which? And other less well know consumer groups, who realized he was targeting innocent people. When Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW were investigated by the SDT they were shown to be knowingly targeting innocent people. You are using the same system, why do you think we will trust you to get different results? The definition of insanity in fact!
As regards Richard Clayton’s evidence that the software we use is capable of identifying the correct IP Address but this is not the case every time, I have to listen to my technical advisors who assure me that in the vast majority of the time, the software will identify the correct IP address that has infringed our copyright. The fact that the order was granted implies to me that the judge shared our opinion on this.
It does not imply anything, Alireza Torabis system was not tested and Mr Vogler merely supplied a report that it could work. Hardly scientific, and this is what will be your undoing as it was for the previous exploiters of the scheme. It was certainly one of the undermining factors in the ACS:LAW case.
It is true that we license the same software that ACS used. I was one of the biggest critics of their operation and spoke several times at adult forums and privately to several other companies in our industry of my concerns. The reservations I had were nothing to do with the software that they licensed but everything to do with the references and information I obtained from those that had previously conducted business with both ACS and MediaCat. As well as operating in the adult industry I also work in telecommunications so was able to speak directly to several people who were able to divulge information regarding Lee Bowden and Andrew Crossley.
There is NO EVIDENCE that you criticized ACS:LAW at all, although there is evidence you had a friendly working relationship with him AND encouraged him, (as shown above, even warning him of a letter leaked online, this showed you had support for him), If you had information regarding Andrew Crossley and Lee Bowden, why did you not put it into words and contact the SRA/SDT? No this is a lie until proven otherwise.
The fact you have NO reservations regarding a piece of software which is quite obviously flawed as shown in the leaked ACS:LAW emails, shows again a breathtaking level of either ignorance or arrogance.
I’ve lived in Holland and travelled extensively and I’ve found that attitudes towards pornography in the U.K. can best be summarized by calling them hypocritical. I was told a stat recently that 80 percent of U.K. computers contained porn history, my biggest surprise was that 20 percent didn’t. So often I speak to people about Ben Dover who appear vague as if they have never heard of the company and minutes later are divulging their in depth knowledge of our brand. This very English attitude towards pornography could potentially be used to shame people into paying compensation; however I believe people should be far more embarrassed by the fact they have committed a theft rather than what has been stolen.
I for one had NEVER heard of “Ben Dover” until you started trawling for copyright Infringement through “Tilly Bailey & Irvine”, you might THINK you are big and well known, but deep down you know that is simply not true. You repeat the often repeated lie as well that “Copyright Infringement is theft” this is NOT true, it is just “Copyright Infringment”, to say it is theft is like saying a “Taking a photo of someone is the same as kidnapping them”.
Oh and one more thing, you lived in Holland AND worked in the telecommunications industry… Hmmm would that be http://www.hilftelecom.nl/ (Donation by Ofer Hilf and team at Hilf Telecom on 27/04/11)) who donated money to you on your http://www.justgiving.com/Julian-Becker page?
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.
The letters were designed to encourage communication with the recipient and then we could take an informed decision on next action if any. There were several cases after speaking or email correspondence where it was decided that no further action would be taken. In fact we had several instances where the recipient of the letters was grateful for the information we provided them with.
Yes mmmm uh huh, sure you did, and you have evidence of this? Or do we just rely on the word of someone who at best is rather “Charitable with the truth”
I don’t understand how our letter could be described as “objectionable” as it merely highlighted and asked for more information regarding evidence of an infringement of our copyright that there is no dispute that our company owns. You can argue that our content is objectionable however there is no dispute that it is legal, it belongs to us, our revenues have been decimated because of its theft and that it has been accepted by one of the most senior Judges in the country that we have every right to protect our product.
Not theft, “Copyright Infringement”, again big difference, however I think it more likely your sales have been affected as like Lee Bowden realized, OLD PEOPLE DOING SEX DOES NOT SALE, especially when they look like poor Keith Harris.
The comments attributed that included the term “objectionable” were referring to HHJ Birss QC and his description of the ACS letters. It did state however that our letters “included some (though not all)” of these features. As we stated to the court we are prepared to listen to instruction on amendments to these letters.
Yes well you have to don’t you. Your letters will be toned down, scare some people into paying you, but it will all ultimately fail and you will have destroyed what little reputation you had to begin with.
On the subject that our content is objectionable I would argue that far more people in this country would recognise my partner Lindsay Honey (aka Ben Dover) than Calvin Klein, it’s always surprised me Mr Klein sells more boxer shorts than us. The point I’m making is that regardless of peoples perceived outrage of our content, a large percentage of the population are aware and view pornography on a regular basis, giving the outward appearance of shock and revoltion. Golden Eye is not a company in pornography that has targeted consumers in order to shame them into paying silence money, it operates and always has done in an industry that is hugely popular and is targeted by violators of copyright, in effect thieves, who believe that paying for our product is somehow morally wrong and/or do not perceive stealing it is a crime.
Once again, (you are rather good at perpetuating the idea of telling a lie long enough people will believe you), you state that this is about people stealing, it is COPYRIGHT INFINGEMENT, did Tilly Bailey & Irvine teach you NOTHING?
It is simple to realize why your Boss is not so well know as you think, the ONLY people who would recognise Ben Dover (Lindsay Honey aka Steve Perry) is those who mistook him for someone else and wondered where Orville was. Of course I suppose they do both make money putting their hands up a birds bottom (oh ok sorry, that was poor)
One gentlemen I spoke to apologized for stealing our films and explained to me that he had no issues in paying for our films on the Internet, but had used a file sharing site in order to avoid his wife catching him buying porn with his credit card. This attitude of better to steal porn than get caught buying it is depressingly common in the U.K.
*Sigh* really, steal? Again, come on this is getting silly now, who was this person? Where is the evidence? Of course it DOES expose your business plan for what it is, if as you say, and lets go with that for a moment, is so embarrassed he has to COPY your film, rather than pay for it, then sending letters out to people demanding hundreds of pounds or the chance of going to court to defend themselves, ahh I see how embarrassed would they be then? Why they would far more likely pay up wouldn’t they? I mean even an innocent person would pay up for fear of being accused of watching some of the porn you produce.
As explained previously we are only pursuing those that upload, not just download, so we would never be interested in an individual that was merely just downloading. The letter asks for more information, including whether anyone other than the account holder has been given access to password protected routers. In several cases after liaising with the account holder we were able to identify the violator and cease any action against the original recipient.
Another Andrew Crossley gem, only the uploaders, not the ones who download… Well as you are well aware, you accuse people using Ali Torabis, software of using ONLY clients that can download while uploading. If I am right in thinking Torabi actually accused some people of using a Torrent client that hadn’t even been released at that time, see that is when we realized it was all a scam.
The question of if the violator was a minor would we pursue is an interesting one, not being a solicitor I am unsure of the legal position, however from a moral perspective I believe that the responsible adult has a duty of care to control the usage of a minor when using the Internet. We had more than one case where parents discovered that their children had been infringing our copyright on file sharing networks and were grateful that we had brought this to their attention.
Another Andrew Crossley gem, wow you are really racking these up, and you say you wanted to distance yourself from your friend? There may well be an argument for parents watching their kids online, however that shouldn’t come as a false accusation which is far more likely considering the software monitor you are using. And I am sure the parents were really grateful you had bought it to their attention. Hmmm
Our letters had stated a settlement fee of £700, that for reasons I explained previously I strongly believe can be justified and were decided upon by legal counsel to our previous solicitors Tilley Bailey & Irvine. I need to have the ruling explained to me by a solicitor in the first instance before deciding on what figure we will now be seeking from those who do not wish for the matter to be pursued and are willing to commit to not re offend.
In summary I am very happy with The Hon. Justice Arnold findings and look forward to the day when we once again sell more copies of “Strictly Cum Drinking than Boxer Shorts.”
Ahh now that is not theft of part of a name of a popular BBC programme is it? How non hypocritical of you.
The interview was taken from the http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=146471 website, it is replicated here with a response from us.
Speculative invoicing or “Copyright Trolling” really is the “Turd that will not flush”
Just as Davenport Lyons, ACS:LAW, Tilly Baily Irvine, and Gallant Macmillan, have been roundly ridiculed in the House of Lords, the Media and the High Court, and apart from Gallant Macmillan all been financially punished by the SRA/SDT most of us thought this tawdry practice of sending out letters in the hope of receiving money from people to scared to frightened or not able to afford to defend themselves was well and truly over.
For those who are not aware of this sad saga, please see these links for background.
However, their will always be one arrogant or greedy or indeed both Lawyer and Troll who will chance their arm, and indeed reputation. Step forward Golden Eye International (GEIL), better know as Pornographer Ben Dover, (AKA Simon Lindsay Honey) alongside Barrister extrodianaire (well if his own hype is to be believed) Jonathon Cohen of Littleton Chambers
They were in Court on Friday applying for an order known as an NPO for 9000 names, yep NINE THOUSAND, they want to send demands of £700, to each of these people which will net them a cool £6.3 MILLION
The interesting thing about all this, is that it IS the same sad old scheme “Pay us or else”
Even more amusing, Golden Eye International are using the same “Expert Witness” that ACS:LAW used but considered troublesome in the emails they leaked, Clem Vogler, and if that was not bizarre enough they are using Alireza Torabi of NG3Systems
Alireza Torabi was shown in the leaked emails to have a somewhat troublesome relationship with Andrew Crossley to the point that Crossleys cohort Terence Tsang, consulted and arranged for the monitioring to be done by Guardaley. One would have thought Torabi at least would have learnt his lesson!
Computer Focus are the group who have employed Ralli Barrister Guy Tritton who tore the ACS:LAW/Media C.A.T case to shreds before High Court Justice Birss.
Jonathan Cohen acting for the Pornographer (GEIL) stated that it was not “economically viable for Golden Eye International) to bring a test case”, in other words to show they have a valid case. This should be no surprise as Judge Birss at the ACS:LAW/Media C.A.T hearing stated, that (See her for link)
Whether it was intended to or not, I cannot imagine a system better designed to create disincentives to test the issues in court. Why take cases to court and test the assertions when one can just write more letters and collect payments from a proportion of the recipients?
Media CAT and ACS:Law have a very real interest in avoiding public scrutiny of the cause of action because in parallel to the 26 court cases, a wholesale letter writing campaign is being conducted from which revenues are being generated. This letter writing exercise is founded on the threat of legal proceedings such as the claims before this court.
Judge Birss also made the point In summing up of the ACS:LAW?Media C.A.T case in regard to the Norwich Pharmacal Orders
Wider issues – this kind of Norwich Pharmacal order
111 I cannot imagine that the court making the Norwich Pharmacal orders in this case did so with a view to setting in train an exercise that was to be conducted in the manner that has subsequently emerged. In my judgment when a Norwich Pharmacal order is sought of the kind made in this case, it may well be worth considering how to manage the subsequent use of the identities disclosed. Perhaps consideration should be given to making a Group Litigation Order under CPR Part 19 from the outset and providing a mechanism for identifying tests cases at an early stage before a letter writing campaign begins. When Anton Piller (search and seizure) orders are made the practice is for a supervising solicitor who does not act for the claimant to be closely involved in order to ensure that the orders are not abused. The supervising solicitors are experienced practitioners. Perhaps a court asked for a Norwich Pharmacal order of the kind made here should consider requiring some similar form of supervision from a experienced neutral solicitor.
112 A party seeking a Norwich Pharmacal order in a case like this should also give serious consideration to s102 of the 1988 Act. Although s102(3) clearly provides that s102(1) does not affect the granting of interlocutory relief a Norwich Pharmacal order has some elements of final relief about it. After all the Norwich Pharmacal action comes to an end once the order is made. In any case just because the court has power to grant the relief without joining the copyright owner does not mean it must do so.
UPDATE 1: The ISPs involved in this case are o2 and Bethere, essentialy the same company Telefonica. In the past these Lawfirms have only targetted ISPs who have said they will not challenge the order. In other words, if you are a customer of O2 or Bethere, think, wether you want to remain a customer of a company that thinks so little of you that they put the needs of a Pornographer above yours! The could have challenged the order, but DIDN’T
Maybe you should consider Plusnet as your new ISP.