Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discussion

For discussion of the threatened legal action surrounding the alleged filesharing of pornography, computer games and music. (Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK)
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

Welcome to this forum, should you have received a letter do not panic, read the threads and make a (hopefully more informed) decision on how you want to proceed.

To avoid repeating previous posts, please familiarise yourself with the following information before posting.

Summary site (BeingThreatened.com) and Chat (IRC) or Chat (WebClient)

Speculative invoicing and “pay up or else” schemes for copyright infringement - Citizen's Advice Bureau

Speculative Invoicing Handbook

I've received a letter, what should I do? and Davenport Lyons - What can we do as a group?

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby MrFredPFL » Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:57 am

realwheel wrote:I think one of the things that is bothering me is say i had to provide proof it wasnt me, how do i do this? how can i reasonably provide proof it wasnt me other than an abscence of the material anywhere on my PC . How other than denying it can I defend myself?


i'll add to what KOTN said:

this is a part of the scam. it is their obligation to prove their claims, not yours. u do not have to prove u didn't do something, they have to prove u did do it.

if u didn't do it, say so. that's all u have to do.

telling people they are obligated to do something they are under no actual legal obligation to do, in the context of financial demands, sounds like an actionable offense in and of itself. i am astonished these various firms are allowed to continue to do this kind of thing without legal consequence.
User avatar
MrFredPFL
I am Spartacus
 
Posts: 14762
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby Mullard47 » Fri Jan 01, 2016 6:45 pm

MrFredPFL wrote:
realwheel wrote:I think one of the things that is bothering me is say i had to provide proof it wasnt me, how do i do this? how can i reasonably provide proof it wasnt me other than an abscence of the material anywhere on my PC . How other than denying it can I defend myself?


i'll add to what KOTN said:

this is a part of the scam. it is their obligation to prove their claims, not yours. u do not have to prove u didn't do something, they have to prove u did do it.

if u didn't do it, say so. that's all u have to do.

telling people they are obligated to do something they are under no actual legal obligation to do, in the context of financial demands, sounds like an actionable offense in and of itself. i am astonished these various firms are allowed to continue to do this kind of thing without legal consequence.



If we look back at what happened in the past, after the balloon went up with the ACS saga, BT went back to court relating to a number of disclosure orders that had already been granted. BT announced the consequences of the outcome at the url below, but I don't think that the substance of what went on was ever publicised.

https://community.bt.com/t5/The-Lounge/ ... d-p/152543

I suspect that SKY have liberty to apply, and could raise what is going on. Whether they actually would is another matter.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby Mullard47 » Sat Jan 02, 2016 5:39 am

There is a section of advice relating to denying this sort of allegation on the Citizens Advice website.

A general overview is at

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consu ... ringement/

and the situation of denail and repeated letters is at

see https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consu ... pensation/

Their advice is summed up on the second page as:-

If the copyright owner ignores your denial or explanation of what’s happened, and just repeats demands for money, you may be being threatened or pressured. If this happens you should report them to Trading Standards.

Can anyone who has had a second letter, state whether in that letter GEIL explain WHY they doubt the denial.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby Falcontrainer » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:57 am

I am wondering what the procedure is for GEIL in processing their letters. It appears that some people whom after receiving the Sky letter have yet to receive one from GEIL. I am supposing they are doing this in batches maybe, or which supposed suspects have seeded/downloaded the most apparent copyrighted content, location in the country of infringer's etc etc. n Food for thought.

I am certain there is a reason why some people have yet to receive the GEIL letter yet, while others are one their first or second from them. I myself received the Sky letter back in mid November yet have heard nothing as yet and I assumed that I would have had one before Xmas in an attempt to shame me or intimidate me. I couldn't care less what they send me, I know my innocence and that of my family (14 year old boy maybe not withstanding!).

I actually want them to send me something as it's the not knowing that for most people, myself included that find it the worst part. I am not going to be intimidated by them, infact, they have partially assisted me as once I got the Sky letter I checked my router and it had absolutely no security enabled as I have been sent a new router by Sky a couple of months prior; so the letter from Sky prompted me to check.
Falcontrainer
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:04 am

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby gettingshafted » Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:59 am

Thanks to those who replied. To be clear I don't give a shit about the letter or that 'C U Next Tuesday' Ben Dover as a couple of years ago I picked up a few quid when uncle Jim died, bless him, so this couple of hundred doesnt phase me. Not that i'm paying but the family solicitor will handle these mugs if need be.

No, what i'm worried about is my missus finding about the curry porn i've getting spicy over. Spose i'll just to wait and see what creamy sauce comes through the post and face the music when it does.
gettingshafted
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 8:30 am

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby gettingshafted » Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:08 am

jesus not-a-pot-to-piss-in christ!

what kind of shithole outfit are these people? Call this a company?

Image

full link http://i.imgur.com/qTI1ApC.jpg
gettingshafted
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 8:30 am

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby KingoftheNorth » Sat Jan 02, 2016 4:17 pm

gettingshafted wrote:Thanks to those who replied. To be clear I don't give a shit about the letter or that 'C U Next Tuesday' Ben Dover as a couple of years ago I picked up a few quid when uncle Jim died, bless him, so this couple of hundred doesnt phase me. Not that i'm paying but the family solicitor will handle these mugs if need be.

No, what i'm worried about is my missus finding about the curry porn i've getting spicy over. Spose i'll just to wait and see what creamy sauce comes through the post and face the music when it does.

To be fair gettingshafted, why would she find out anyway? Surely you would have to show her the letter for her to find out. If you get your solicitor to sort it out, surely no letters have to come to you after you instruct your solicitor to send a letter of denial, everything would all go through your solicitor. Also if you do go through the solicitor I would be interested to see what they say about these cases, as many of us are talking either based on research/experience and don't have the legal experience (speaking for myself here mainly).

Either way I would look not to pay otherwise you fund the bastards to do it again.
KingoftheNorth
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:44 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby bpaw » Sat Jan 02, 2016 8:36 pm

Talking about balance of probabilities.

Much that was ever discussed about balance of probabilities in the past was to do with anyone providing further information to the ones sending the letters. If you say "Me and my wife didn't do it, and I know my 19 year old son would never do it", then you are giving a tid-bit of information they didn't have. They would most definitely raise that in Court (If it got to Court).

The multiple infringement scenario is unique to GEIL because it was GEIL who were first imposed with having to send the dumbed down letter of claim from the Courts. It was a shock from my perspective when seeing follow up letters having additional titles added along with a more forceful attitude that it "adds more to their argument" and would likely persuade a Judge in the balance of possibilities that a subscriber did commit the infringement.

Despite all this, the balance of probabilities most definitely is that denying their claim without providing further information to them has always ended up with GEIL doing nothing. I have seen many follow up letters which GEIL have sent, and they all are worded in an intimidating way. When obvious wording has been pointed out to them that it is bull, they change it when sending letters to others. If they are so sure of their evidence and accusations, why change the wording in their letter?

As for those who haven't received a letter yet. It can only be a tactic to try and unsettle. Think of it. Send letters before Christmas to some and let it take affect, then send letters after to try and take advantage of the effect. It is just tactics from GEIL. To those receiving the letters, get used to desperate tactics. That is all it is.

Oh, and the balance of probabilities may be that GEIL read this forum and thread and as with ACS:Law in the past, some people may like to play games to mess with those who are actually receivers of such letters of claim from GEIL.
bpaw
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby Mullard47 » Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:08 am

bpaw wrote:Talking about balance of probabilities.

Much that was ever discussed about balance of probabilities in the past was to do with anyone providing further information to the ones sending the letters. If you say "Me and my wife didn't do it, and I know my 19 year old son would never do it", then you are giving a tid-bit of information they didn't have. They would most definitely raise that in Court (If it got to Court).

The multiple infringement scenario is unique to GEIL because it was GEIL who were first imposed with having to send the dumbed down letter of claim from the Courts. It was a shock from my perspective when seeing follow up letters having additional titles added along with a more forceful attitude that it "adds more to their argument" and would likely persuade a Judge in the balance of possibilities that a subscriber did commit the infringement.

Despite all this, the balance of probabilities most definitely is that denying their claim without providing further information to them has always ended up with GEIL doing nothing. I have seen many follow up letters which GEIL have sent, and they all are worded in an intimidating way. When obvious wording has been pointed out to them that it is bull, they change it when sending letters to others. If they are so sure of their evidence and accusations, why change the wording in their letter?

As for those who haven't received a letter yet. It can only be a tactic to try and unsettle. Think of it. Send letters before Christmas to some and let it take affect, then send letters after to try and take advantage of the effect. It is just tactics from GEIL. To those receiving the letters, get used to desperate tactics. That is all it is.

Oh, and the balance of probabilities may be that GEIL read this forum and thread and as with ACS:Law in the past, some people may like to play games to mess with those who are actually receivers of such letters of claim from GEIL.



I think we need to appreciate the distinction between the "evidential standard" and "evidential burden" which are two related but different things.

In the final reported case involving ACS, a number of issues were raised. The issue arose as to the manner in which ACS had implied at the disclosure stage that it was probable that the subscriber had conducted the infringement. Amongst other adverse comments about that, HHJ Birss said:-

Notable by its absence is any reference to the fact that an IP address does not identify an infringer at all but only an internet connection which is capable of being shared by many people.

To succeed with a claim, the claimant would have to adduce evidence from which it could be concluded that it was more probable than not that the subscriber had conducted the alleged activity. But the only evidence the claimant has is the IP address evidence which, as HHJ Birss said "does not identify an infringer at all".

(ACS recognised that and tried to get round it by inventing a number of arguments to the effect that the subscriber was strictly liable for all use of the connection, irrespective of what had happened. But that relied on arguments which were not supported by statute or case law and would have involved overturning decades or more of case law including House of Lords rulings. Although those arguments were never tested in court, solicitors maintaining them in pre-action correspondence ended up in serious trouble with their professional bodies, and they are generally regarded as being discredited.)

So where does that leave GEIL. They appear to be in the same position as ACS, except that they cannot rely on (now discredited) invented subscriber duties, the success of which were said by one judge to be critical to the claims.

I would contend that not only is there now a lack of evidence such that the claimant could not prove on the balance of probabilities that the subscriber had done it (the evidential standard), but the case against the subscriber is non-existent in that there is nothing there to show that the subscriber did it at all. (evidential burden).

The Civil Procedure Rules contain a number of processes whereby a case can be stopped before anything has been heard in court, and some of them can be implemented by the court acting on its own initiative. I suspect that a claimant issuing claims founded only on IP evidence runs a risk of that happening, and that, I suspect, is why they discontinue claims at the first hint that they are not going to get a default judgment, and why they discontinued even where a default they already had was the subject of an application to set aside.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby Hickster » Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:09 pm

@Mullard, again thankyou for your lucid thinking and explanation on these issues. I sometimes, look at some of your posts on here, and think it would make a Blog post for me. :D


@Bpaw
bpaw wrote:Oh, and the balance of probabilities may be that GEIL read this forum and thread and as with ACS:Law in the past, some people may like to play games to mess with those who are actually receivers of such letters of claim from GEIL.


Yes, some DO register on slyck and post stuff and PM others to stir up hopelessness or bad advice, I think that most of the time they are obvious, but of course, not always :tinfoilhat:
Please feel free to email me at:
acs.bore@gmail.com

Read the BLOG Here
http://acsbore.wordpress.com

Faceless Keyboard Warrior
User avatar
Hickster
Faceless Keyboard Warrior
 
Posts: 1470
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:25 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby alphadog2520 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:13 pm

So my 3rd letter came its getting quite boring now.

The high court granted goldeneye ltd an order against sky uk ltd to provide us with your personal details on the grounds that they had an arguable case for infringement of copyright material by you.

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

The burden of proof in the civil court requires us to show, on the balance of probabilities it was either yourself or someone authorised by you. Who allowed the infringement to take place via your internet connection.

We are not harrasing you. We are setting out a legitimate claim that we have against you for infringing our copyright. You may have a view but just because we take a different view and explain the reasons for our claim. Does not constitute harrassment.

We remain confident of our evidence against you and will revert to you once your file has been reviewed if a decision is made to progress matters against you through the legal system.

If you intend to ve represented by a solictor please forward contact details so we may liase directly with them.


Boring! Do i need to even reply to this?and why would i have a solicitor before they have even decided to take me to court? So if i do reply can i just say i will give my solictor details when proceedings begin?

Thanks for the help as always
alphadog2520
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:40 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby MrFredPFL » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:44 pm

"We remain confident of our evidence against you"

right. this explains why they've take zero people to court. :roll:
User avatar
MrFredPFL
I am Spartacus
 
Posts: 14762
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby alphadog2520 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:54 pm

I know these goldeneye people are muppets

I just want to reply with an a4 page of abuse but i am holding back.
alphadog2520
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:40 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby treetrunk » Wed Jan 06, 2016 2:57 pm

There is a section of advice relating to denying this sort of allegation on the Citizens Advice website.

A general overview is at

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consu ... ringement/

and the situation of denail and repeated letters is at

see https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consu ... pensation/

Their advice is summed up on the second page as:-

If the copyright owner ignores your denial or explanation of what’s happened, and just repeats demands for money, you may be being threatened or pressured. If this happens you should report them to Trading Standards.

Can anyone who has had a second letter, state whether in that letter GEIL explain WHY they doubt the denial.


I received second letter from GEIL and can confirm they do not state why they doubt the denial, nor to they even recognise my denial but they simply state all the "evidence" they have in numbered bullet points. They claim I have an absence of a defense and that if they request more information from the ISP they can provide more proof to identify my connection. They then provide a sum they wish me to pay and how I can pay them.

So frustrating as if I were tech savvy enough to actually know how to file share, I wouldn't be downloading porn with it!!

It's so unfair that I'm being threatened when I've done nothing wrong. I really appreciate this thread though as it's really helpful to know I'm not the only person being attacked. Do I need to keep responding to their letters?

I'll respond back to the second one still stating that I did not do it and I still don't see how their evidence "proves" otherwise. I've read another article saying there is a law firm willing to handle all of this for £90 but I feel that I shouldn't even have to pay that as I'm being unfairly accused and harassed!
treetrunk
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 2:17 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby Mullard47 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:53 pm

treetrunk wrote:
There is a section of advice relating to denying this sort of allegation on the Citizens Advice website.

A general overview is at

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consu ... ringement/

and the situation of denail and repeated letters is at

see https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consu ... pensation/

Their advice is summed up on the second page as:-

If the copyright owner ignores your denial or explanation of what’s happened, and just repeats demands for money, you may be being threatened or pressured. If this happens you should report them to Trading Standards.

Can anyone who has had a second letter, state whether in that letter GEIL explain WHY they doubt the denial.


I received second letter from GEIL and can confirm they do not state why they doubt the denial, nor to they even recognise my denial but they simply state all the "evidence" they have in numbered bullet points. They claim I have an absence of a defense and that if they request more information from the ISP they can provide more proof to identify my connection. They then provide a sum they wish me to pay and how I can pay them.

So frustrating as if I were tech savvy enough to actually know how to file share, I wouldn't be downloading porn with it!!

It's so unfair that I'm being threatened when I've done nothing wrong. I really appreciate this thread though as it's really helpful to know I'm not the only person being attacked. Do I need to keep responding to their letters?

I'll respond back to the second one still stating that I did not do it and I still don't see how their evidence "proves" otherwise. I've read another article saying there is a law firm willing to handle all of this for £90 but I feel that I shouldn't even have to pay that as I'm being unfairly accused and harassed!


As I have said before, I would refer them to the reply they have already had. I would not start getting involved in arguments about what their evidence is or is not capable of proving.

As regards the post further up, the third GEIL letter contains the following passage: "The high court granted goldeneye ltd an order against sky uk ltd to provide us with your personal details on the grounds that they had an arguable case for infringement of copyright material by you."

That is not what was said in the reported lead disclosure case, and if Judges/Masters are granting disclosure on that basis (which I doubt), then it needs pursuing. Alternatively, the letters are misleading and that needs pursuing.

The actual words in the judgment were to the effect that there is an arguable case that many, but not all, of the subscribers have infringed copyright. That is a generalisation. It is quite possible to have an arguable case that some of a group of people have done something, but that does not equate to an arguable case that anyone in particular has done so. That would require case specific evidence beyond IP address/timestamp evidence - evidence that they do not have.

I would contend that their assertion about the disclosure judgment is false and misleading, and that there is enough in that letter alone to justify a complaint to trading standards.

Does anyone know if these disclosure cases are between just the claimant and the ISP, or are they also between the claimant and "persons unknown".
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby Strawman » Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:37 am

The precedent set by disclosure cases is only really going to matter if a claim is actually filed. Until then, there are only the existing orders on which TCYK/Golden Eye etc can rely.

The TCYK order lists persons unknown as a respondent; the GEIL order does not (presumably because they have realised that such an order cannot compel a speculative third party). The relevant clause in both is the first clause, and nothing therein allows them to seek further information from Sky after the initial disclosure, or requires Sky to provide anything further.

Best thing to do is to deny once, and unless TCYK/Golden Eye actually engage in meaningful discussion acknowledging your position and your defence (they won't, of course), then end the correspondence there. Feel free to state that you will be corresponding no more after your first or second letter.
Strawman
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:15 am

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby one eyed jack » Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:02 pm

Hickster wrote:I apologise if I was unclear earlier. Let me attempt to clarify.....

Goldeneye and TCYK LLC (Possibly the same people involved) are a bunch of Scamming :wank :wank who are knowingly carrying out a scam based on fear and intimidation, and the uncertainty of people who may not understand how the internet works.

DO NOT PAY, STAND STRONG, REPLY, DENY, Demand they take your case to Court, and have the evidence heard by the Court.

Post on here, email me or Bpaw, or PM other members if you wish, but just dont be frightened into paying up.



Hi Hickster...

Terry here. One Eyed Jack . GEIL supporter. Hello everyone

So this is where you do your recruiting and telling people not so pay up is it? These are where the "victims" of "speculative invoicing" come to get advice from Hickster not to pay.

This is the same Hickster that told me you lot are poor victims of copyright trolling. Grannies who cant pay their gas bills living g ther disability cheques etc.

I can tell you this. GEIL is no copyright troll nor scam merchant business that Hickster tiressly spends a marathon amount of time convincing you it is.

If its such a scam then why are you seeking advice not to pay it?

Youve seen the press. Youve seen it mentioned in Parliament but yet the data was bought above board and legal and found you those who recieved the letters in breach of copyright infringment and here you all are (well...a few of you)

Of course my advice would be to pay up. Its all been moderated by the courts and again how some of you carry on within these forums what gives you the sense of entitlement to download any movie, be it Ben Dover mine or otherwise just because its there.

I'm sure you would want to do more than just fone me if I had the same entitlement to come around and take the keys to you car, or put my feet up on your couch, help myself to your wife or worse...help myself to the beers in your fridge

Youre starting to see pictures now aintcha?

Pornographer. In your house. Helping himsef to your beers. Driving your car..... Me. Laughing :D

Fact is Hickster has been messaging me for years about how immoral I am for being part of GEIL. For being an idiot because I'm not making the big money returns he is assuming we are in it for.

I signed up for the prinipals and to make a dfference. To send the word out that downloading is not ok

Fact is, piracy has got to such a point that it seems its acceptable now because everyone does it.

GEIL is here to say it isn't acceptable. The people behind it put a lot of work into what they do to make sure things are above board and as far as Im concerned theyre doing their job earning it. Why should pay for it out of my own pocket?
Freeloaders clealry dont. Why should they cost me more money for this service?

I'm not with GEIL to make a load of cash out of you uploaders/ downloaders but what I dont understand here is the justification for the act and "How dare these peope try to defend their commercial interests"

If you are wondering why you? Then the answer to that is "why not?" You got caught. This isnt a piracy lottery.

You think the fine is unfair? Thats what content owner/ producers feel about their products being downloaded by the thousands or in some cases millions and all you can do is try and shirk your responsibilities that you got caught hook line and sinker and despite stealing....Call it by any name you want, its still stealing.

Its like walking down the road and seeing a car door open with the key in the ignition. You jump in and drive off. Is this what you use for an excuse when questioned by the police later?

"It was just there officer. Its not really stealing is it?"

Now, if you paid for it then there are certain rights to protect you by contract of agreement in paying for it. You were caught in violation of that agreement.

Its interesting that Hickster was fit to point out that I was being out of order for tweeting a picture of a couple fucking tonight but then, while you lot was busy freeloading, did you all think of the poor children that would need counselling downloading videos for free of more than just an image of a man and woman fucking?

My advice is...Just pay up or contest it. Lets take it to court. Even better, Hickster suggested a while back that someone should come out and sue the whole lot of us at GEIL for the emotional stresses we cause with these letters ...Aint that right Hickster? Remember that? What did I say?

Bring it on.

Lets play double or quits. It Only takes one case to make a difference and shake things up. So who is going to be the first among you to lead the way and set that example?

Do not mistake GEIL for ACS Law or Davenport Lyons that Hickster or his alter ego @BPaw tries to convince you not to pay

You should check out Hicksters exchanges with me on twitter or maybe you have as I'm full aware he does it to get some sound bites to mince and bend to his own anti GEIL propaganda

I even offered him a chance to do a public podcast with Julian Becker. i asked Julian first and he agreed. Hickster refused because he felt I would edit it to undermine what he was doing and make GEIL look good.

So, you have it in print, right here on this forum. I know I will be as popular around here as a tax man doing an audit. I dont really care about being liked by people who download my content because theyre not my fans. Real fans pay and thats what Ive told people in the business who are afraid of the hassle of not being liked for taking this kind of action.

It would be interesting to hear what the "victims" among you have to say and whether this post actually stays up

If you want to make a public display of your argument then you can do so @NakedTruthGuy (Thats me) so if you are truly not guilty of downloading and have a case to state. Do it public and do it at me. If you want to meet me in person to chat then that can be arranged too. I've offered it to Hickster and he's refused the offer.

Seems to me one of the things GEIL are accused of is that the person accused of downloading isnt the person who did the downloading. Aren't you responsible for what goes on in your home? If you are a parent and your child is downloading porn then what kind of a parent must you be to let them do that at home?

If I come aross as a self righteous prick (I've been called worse) then its only because Ive had a lot of experience with bullshit excuses to make me some kind of a veteran being a self righteous prick

Over to you ladies and gents.
one eyed jack
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby MrFredPFL » Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:32 pm

It would be interesting to hear what the "victims" among you have to say and whether this post actually stays up


as far as i am concerned, your post(s) will stay up unless and until u break the forum rules.

:popcorn:
User avatar
MrFredPFL
I am Spartacus
 
Posts: 14762
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby MrFredPFL » Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:59 pm

and i will remind everyone that those rules apply to all. let's keep this civil, please.
User avatar
MrFredPFL
I am Spartacus
 
Posts: 14762
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby bobthebuilder » Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:35 am

If you wanted to end it, surely it would make sense to cross reference the IP of the uploaded with your members IP addresses?

If GEIL have the ability to track IP addresses then surely this is within their reach.

If you don't take out the root, the weed will just regrow.

There is a reason UK courts don't hold the bill payer responsible for the actions committed on his/her connection.

Oh yeah... 18+ material on Twitter and kids INTENTIONALLY searching for tube sites is a little different. I can see Why you would have a problem with tube sites, maybe you should take it up with them instead of exposing more children to content they should never see.

At the end of the day, it's your MEMBERS that are sharing stuff in the first place, how else would it get there?
bobthebuilder
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby alphadog2520 » Tue Jan 12, 2016 5:49 am

Haha one eyed jack

Sounds like hickster has got to you has there been an increased in denial letters?because of the good work hickster does! You dont seem to mention anything about the lawfirm who are taking on these cases at a reduces rate because of this scam?and also the advice from citizens advice. Sounds like you are bitter.
alphadog2520
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:40 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby one eyed jack » Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:34 am

Yes he has got to me by making me aware of his presence through his marathon post exchanges on twitter.

I wouldnt say he has got to me through any of this good work you think he is doing.

All hes telling you is dont pay. Thats easy for him to do because he isnt walking in your shoes.

Its easy for him to stand there behind you and goad you on because he sounds like an embittered victim of ACS Law or some other outfit living his online personae vicariously through you so called poor "victims" He hasnt even the courage to face those he accuses so any man that lacks he courage of his convictions is not doing good work because anyone can shay what they want and be soemone important online.

I'd wager that being a "victim" of speculative invoicing through some outfit he has made it his mission to confuse GEIL with ACS Law but if thats the case, you should ask yourself that if GEIL is a scam why hasnt it gone the way of ACS Law?

Is Hickster there to tell people not to pay their gas or telephone bills or even parking fine tickets too?

You know what happens when you ignore those right?
one eyed jack
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby one eyed jack » Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:45 am

bobthebuilder wrote:... 18+ material on Twitter and kids INTENTIONALLY searching for tube sites is a little different. I can see Why you would have a problem with tube sites, maybe you should take it up with them instead of exposing more children to content they should never see.

At the end of the day, it's your MEMBERS that are sharing stuff in the first place, how else would it get there?


To my knowledge none of the people following me on my twiter account is under the age of 18 and why would an under 18 follow me to be offended by one picture anyway? There are plenty of places using Google as a search engine they can get pictures of all kinds of (quoting Hicksters tweet) "nasty" pictures all day long

You dont accidentally see my posts unless you are in my network. Hickster found me and followed me then expresses shock but this is how he operates. he'll pick on me for everythign since I told him I was resolute in my support for GEILs work. So if anyone has got to amnyone it is clealry me who has got to Hickster. Dont take my word for it, go look. He's made personal and disaparaging comments that gives rise to his motives when he has to excuse those for downloading my content stating "who would want to download old crap porn anyway?"

Exactly!

Why would they? Is that an excuse? You have time to download old crap porn? it maybe my members sharing stuff but its not your right to download it. Isnt this the same thing as passing off stolen goods?
one eyed jack
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby Strawman » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:42 pm

one eyed jack wrote:
bobthebuilder wrote:... 18+ material on Twitter and kids INTENTIONALLY searching for tube sites is a little different. I can see Why you would have a problem with tube sites, maybe you should take it up with them instead of exposing more children to content they should never see.

At the end of the day, it's your MEMBERS that are sharing stuff in the first place, how else would it get there?


To my knowledge none of the people following me on my twiter account is under the age of 18 and why would an under 18 follow me to be offended by one picture anyway? There are plenty of places using Google as a search engine they can get pictures of all kinds of (quoting Hicksters tweet) "nasty" pictures all day long

You dont accidentally see my posts unless you are in my network. Hickster found me and followed me then expresses shock but this is how he operates. he'll pick on me for everythign since I told him I was resolute in my support for GEILs work. So if anyone has got to amnyone it is clealry me who has got to Hickster. Dont take my word for it, go look. He's made personal and disaparaging comments that gives rise to his motives when he has to excuse those for downloading my content stating "who would want to download old crap porn anyway?"

Exactly!

Why would they? Is that an excuse? You have time to download old crap porn? it maybe my members sharing stuff but its not your right to download it. Isnt this the same thing as passing off stolen goods?



I think the salient point in bobthebuilder's argument is that within the judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in Golden Eye (International) Ltd & Anor v Telefonica UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 723 (Ch) (26 March 2012), it is quite clear that GEIL are not pursuing downloaders, but uploaders/seeders of the file. Voila - your members.
Strawman
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:15 am

Re: Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK Threat Discuss

Postby whatisatorrent » Tue Jan 12, 2016 1:11 pm

I've received a 3rd letter saying they'll keep my details on file etc etc. Do I reply to this? Or do I let my cat sht on it as it did the 2nd letter?
whatisatorrent
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 6:06 am

PreviousNext

Return to Torrent Download Court Action Threat/Settlement Letter Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com