Posts Tagged ‘copyright’

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.



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.


2.1 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:

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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:
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:

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:

Judge: Arnold J.  (NPO Judge) Clerk: Alison Lee, Tel: 020 7073 1789, email:

Judge: Birss J.  Clerk: John Curtis, Tel: 0207 947 7379, email:

Write to your MP or Lords representative:

Find your MP:

Consumer Complaint – Citizens Advice:

Open Rights Group:

Which? or

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:

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:

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:


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.

Response to Golden Eyes Appeal “Success”

December 31, 2012 2 comments

Thanks to Bpaw!

On the 21st of December the Appeals Court found in favour of Golden Eye International (GEIL) and sanctioned what the original Judge had refused saying it would be tantamount to the court sanctioning the sale of the intended defendants’ privacy and data protection rights to the highest bidder”.

GEIL intend to keep 75% of all monies collected, their Director Julian Becker has now responded to the successful appeal.  We think we should respond too!

 “I am delighted that the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Golden Eye, albeit that I am still confused that the initial ruling allowed us to act for Ben Dover but fell short in permitting the right to protect the other producers that I represent”

“The other producers that I represent”?  Maybe you should be aware that other Pornography Producers tried this method of “monetizing alternative revenue streams” before, Darker Enterprises, Pure Platinum/Liquid Gold, Mebray, Phoenix, Relish and  Load XXX amongst others, and they all fell flat on their faces, when Media C.A.T and ACS:LAW screwed up by taking a case to actual Court where their lack of evidence was exposed , and their methods were derided, and it resulted in their collapse.

 “Having now studied the case, I’d like to say that there was more chance of the end of the world occurring on Dec. 21 than Golden Eye losing this appeal.”

So you won an appeal.  An appeal that was given by default to other applicants in the past.

Such as the following

 01 Feb 2007 – Davenport Lyons – Judge Behrens – Topware Interactive
22 Nov 2007 – Davenport Lyons – Chief Master Winegarten – Reality Pump
30 May 2008 – Davenport Lyons – Chief Master Winegarten – Atari
30 Jun 2008 – Davenport Lyons – Chief Master Winegarten – Digiprotect
12 Nov 2008 – Davenport Lyons – Chief Master Winegarten – Digiprotect?
19 Nov 2009 – ACS:Law – Chief Master Winegarten – MediaCAT
19 Nov 2009 – ACS:Law – Chief Master Winegarten – Digiprotect
27 Jan 2010 – Tilly Bailey Irvine – Justice Warren – Media & More GMBH
17 Feb 2010 – ACS:Law – Chief Master Winegarten – MediaCAT
07 Jul 2010 – ACS:Law – Chief Master Winegarten – MediaCAT

 “I believe there is always going to be a bias against this genre of film production”

Well no, that is a “non sequitur”, whatever problems that this “genre of film production” has had in the past,  has absolutely nothing to do with the material you produce, but the actions you take.  When other industries, (games 2 , music  2 etc) took the same actions, they too were derided in  the same manner.   They had the sense to bail out.  It is actions like what you are doing, resurrecting  a hated and hurtful legal action that is known  to target to many innocent people in its dragnet  is what is likely to drag your industry through the mud again.

“So although in legal terms we are actually no further forward than in 2010”

Erm, NO.  You are further back than you were in 2010.  You have been neutered in Court.

You called the account owner an infringer, the Court said NO!

You wanted a default £700 per letter,  the Court said NO!

You wanted the account owners  internet to be slowed down, The Court said NO.

You wanted to confuse with reference to the Code of Practice, The court said NO

You wanted to give the recipient only 14 days, the Court made it 28 days

The previous Law firm that represented you, halted their action in 2010, and you then attempted to pursue alleged infringers through the “Money Claim Online system” , when it seems you come up against Judge Birss, the Judge who presided over the ACS:LAW/Media C.A,T cases.  You deemed your actions inappropriate and that is what has led us to this ruling.

 “Golden Eye has now been successful after the most severe of legal scrutiny, combined with bias and manipulation from some areas of the press and mistruths and lies from faceless keyboard warriors in several Internet forums.”

 I would question in light of the restrictions placed on you by the Court how successful you have been, but yes you have been successful in obtaining an NPO in light of what I believed the agreement the ISPs had after the ACS:LAW debacle, in at least challenging these orders.  You were greatly helped by O2 NOT challenging you.  If they had I don’t think you would have been granted the order.

Your  only defence of criticism is to say your critics, be it the press or “faceless keyboard warriors”, are biased or spread “mistruths and lies”.  My comment on this is simple.  You would say that, wouldn’t you?  Is it a shame you use “sound bites” rather than provide actual evidence.  This Blog has detailed the number of contradictions you have spoken to different organisations.  What are the “lies and Mistruths” that I have spread?

“In some respects Golden Eye finds itself back where it was two years ago, having correctly followed legal procedure after submitting technical evidence that has been accepted by the courts that there is an arguable case that Ben Dover and other rights holders content that we represent has been infringed by Internet users on file sharing networks and obtaining the names and addresses of these alleged infringers,” said Becker, calling Friday’s ruling a “positive judgment [that] is very much a bitter sweet, moment.”

May I provide a quote from your statement in the original Court case (15):

“Originally, the only evidence filed in support of the claim was Mr Becker’s first witness statement. In paragraphs 1-3, headed “Introduction”, he explained that the Claimants sought disclosure by O2 of the names and addresses of the subscribers associated with the IP addresses shown in the CD-ROM attached as Exhibit 1, that the Claimants believed that those IP addresses had been used by the subscribers to make available copyright material for P2P copying and that O2 did not oppose the making of an order in the terms set out in Exhibit 2.”

Hmmm…..“the Claimants believed that those IP addresses had been used by the subscribers to make available copyright material for P2P copying”.   Now you say alleged infringer.  This is plainly wrong, the subscriber as the Court has said is not necessarily the Infringer, alleged or not.

 “Two years ago these cases were merely procedural and heard on paper without any formal hearings. This judgment has been debated by leading barristers, funded by government organizations and presided over by some of the most eminent judges in the U.K.”

Two years ago, we didn’t have a case that actually went to Court. ACS LAW tried to take people to Court for a default, but screwed up when those people said they would contest.  This had a clued up Judge who completely tore apart the “evidence”.  Your latest attempt at obtaining an NPO has been scrutinised because of this.  This statement from you is showing that what you took for granted two years ago is now not so straight forward.   And remember , the only reason this was debated at all was that O2 acquiesced rather than saying “No”.

This was an NPO hearing, that is all, yes you have gained the rights to exploit other Producers work, however as Rt Hon Judge Birss stated in his Court case with ACS:LAW/Media C.A.T who represented many Porn Producers)

“Media CAT don’t know who did it and know that they don’t know who did it,” said Birss.

Birss said Winegarten granted the (NPO) order based on the facts put before him, adding that the chief master did not have to decide whether Media CAT would ­succeed in its claims.

“I can’t 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,” Birss said at the time.

He also added ..”nothing less than authorisation suffices for infringement, at least in the context of a claim for damages

Nothing has changed, it is the same.  I will believe you are different when you actively take a contested claim to Court, I for one do not believe you ever will.

Julian Beckers quotes are taking from an article that can be viewed here

O2 send Pre Warning letters to customers (whose data they have “sold” to Golden Eye International) UPDATE 3

December 1, 2012 4 comments
o2received011212 (bls)_sml

Letter from O2


Letter from BeThere

It has emerged today that O2 and BeThere, have sent out letters of warning to their Customers in light of the Norwich Pharmacal (NPO) they failed to defend against Pornographers Golden Eye International/Ben Dover Productions (GEIL/BDP).

The letter is quite generic, but interestingly does point the recipient to the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB).  This is actually significant, as Consumer Focus (who intervened on behalf of O2 customers at the Court Case when O2 acquiesced to GEIL/BDP) won a good victory in ensuring that the CAB would be informed and would have all the relevant information ready for anyone who contacted them when they received a letter.

The fact that O2 and BeThere have included this in their warning letters, must come as a blow to GEIL/BDP as this will give  an effective “heads up” for those receiving the letters that they will send.  In the past campaigns of Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW and also Tilly Baily Irvine and Gallant Macmillan, the ISP was forbidden to contact their customers in advance, this seems like a real oversight by GEIL/BDP and could cost them dear.

The Speculative Invoicing model that GEIL/BDP are pursuing relies on people being uninformed and paying up out of fear of Court action, that fear in the past has been fuelled by the previous law firms involved insinuating that an alleged infringer had a choice of paying between £500 and £700, OR face Court action that they could not possibly win, with the threat of thousands of pounds in court costs being awarded against them.  One can easily see the stark choice and why so many even innocent people paid up.  The evidence against them however was nothing like what they had been told.

Davenport Lyons, ACS:LAW, Tilly Baily Irvine and Gallant Macmillan, were all punished to a lesser or greater extent by their regulatory body the Solicitors Regulation Authority.  GEIL/BDP are not bound by this although their solicitor Mark Wagner of Wagner and Co is.

Around December the 10th GEIL/BDP will be back in court to try to appeal against the ruling that they can only claim copyright for their own films, another ten producers are waiting to join the action.  As things stand around just under 3000 letters will be sent out soon by GEIL/BDP, however if they win their appeal a further 6000 could be sent.  As can be seen in the NPO O2 are charging £2.20 per ip address.

Open Rights Group (ORG) is taking over the appeal role from Consumer Focus, they are seeking support from those outraged by this continuing practice. Contact them here. (I am NOT affiliated with the Open Rights Group in any way, but do agree with the support they give and the reasons they are doing it)

It remains to be seen how this will pan out, but apart from the CAB a good source of info for all this is Slyck Forums and Torrent Freak

The NPO is here.


The NEW update to the Speculative Invoicing Handbook has now been released… Thanks to “Beingthreatened”

UPDATE 2: It is being reported that out of the 2800 IPs that Golden Eye applied for from O2, O2 are saying they have been able to match less than 1000, this is a VERY POOR return by any measure and really undermines the confidence in their Monitoring System.

UPDATE 3 The “Speculative Invoicing Handbook Part 2″ can be seen here, with PDF download link

A response to Ben Dover and Julian Becker

June 28, 2012 4 comments

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 (Donation by Ofer Hilf and team at Hilf Telecom on 27/04/11)) who donated money to you on your 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. 

We know what your letters say, they will be a copy of what Davenport Lyons, ACS:LAW, and Tilly Bailey & Irvine sent out, of course, they will be slightly more refined and toned down (Like here)

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.

Yes but you fail to point out that Tilly Bailey & Irvine were FINED by the SRA for this assertion amongst others, including harassing people with their aggressive letter campaign.

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 website, it is replicated here with a response from us.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 298 other followers