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/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby bpaw » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:54 am

JustInterested wrote:
concerned100 wrote:a photo of Mr. Honey

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... tions.html


Does anyone know what the last sentence in that report is referring to?

"The legal setback came as BT and TalkTalk were accused of turning a blind eye to illegal downloads after an undercover investigation."

What undercover investigaton?

Probably this one:

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=57397
"Hatton & Berkeley, which provides financial services to small businesses, sent the letters on behalf of its client TCYK LLC to Mrs Drew. Robert Croucher, managing director of Hatton & Berkeley, said: "They [the letters] are part of what's referred to as a pre-action protocol. We send them before action...They don't actually make a demand for money."
Source Link: BBC News
bpaw
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby JustInterested » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:01 am

bpaw wrote:
JustInterested wrote:
concerned100 wrote:a photo of Mr. Honey

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... tions.html


Does anyone know what the last sentence in that report is referring to?

"The legal setback came as BT and TalkTalk were accused of turning a blind eye to illegal downloads after an undercover investigation."

What undercover investigaton?

Probably this one:

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=57397


Oh, so the Mail phones a few ISPs and finds that their clueless sales people will tell you anything to get you to sign up to their broadband package.

To quote Crossley "big whoop"!
JustInterested
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:46 am

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby StripeyMiata » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:36 pm

What did you want O2 to do exactly? BT and Sky have already lost similar actions recently, so it's hard to see what O2 would have gained by trying to fight the case. Are you just saying that they should have fought as a matter of principle, even if they had no prospect of success?


I would have expected them to just write to the Judge something like "Hey, if you look at the ACSLAW/DL disasters you can see this kind of thing always ends in tears so might be a good idea not to grant the NPO."

Obviously dressed up in legal speak but you get the jist. But hey they just went for the money option so that's why I'm leaving them when my contract ends.

I truly think yes he got the NP granted, I felt that could well happen, HOWEVER now he has got that the next step will be more difficult. If he sends a letter and someone say "F$%^K Off, you sad old porn twat", then I dont think he would have much to go on,


I am not a lawyer, but I think that wouldn't be a good idea.

I gather from an old friend of mine who qualified in law but decided to drum in a rock band instead, what you should write is something like this.

Dear GEIL,

Thank you for you recent letter regarding alledged illegial downloading of movies using my internet connection.

My response would be to refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971).

Lots of love,

O2 Customer
StripeyMiata
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:20 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby savetheworld » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:30 pm

Sorry to be a pain in the rear, I've followed these threads for the last how ever many years this has been going on. Is there any info on what period of time the GEIL has captured the IP addresses or is that something that is an unknown? If it's already been mentioned then I apologise.

What I'm trying to get at, have they captured IP addresses during the ACS:Law saga and have held them back, awaiting the outcome of the fall out of ACS:Law, amended their plan, looking to bring this to court, hoping that the court would look in favour of the "kinder approach", all a load of crap I know. It's clear that O2 are a company that arn't "consumer friendly" by way of lack of representation, even after all they know following ACS:Law. Granted there is more restriction on the letter writing, but does this not now open the door for other companies to send out more letters in the same way, creating a whole new world of a letter writing money making scam. If this does prove to be successful, even with a smaller percentage of people paying up, then too many innocent people will just pay up. Full circle, just a different approach.

I know someone who went through the whole ACS:Law issue, who in fairness, can't work a computer to save their life, apart from online banking, emails and updates, they never downloaded anything. Just that small amount of stress had an effect on their mental health, affected their relationship and wont even turn a home computer on. I know this maybe an extreme case, but then how many others have been affected in the same way. I understand that people do download things, but there appears to be no conclusive evidence to support the claims of the the companies who in the past and present have obtained NPO's. I also understand the judges in the cases have been more scrutinising of late, but that's only with public and consumer intervention. Whilst this continues, many innocent people may receive letters having an effect on their health.

Sorry for the rant, it probably doesn't make sense. I too like everyone else is fed up with the letter writing scams and the lack of help / defence from the companies that make millions a year from our pockets.
savetheworld
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:59 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby bpaw » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:55 pm

@savetheworld

Totally agree with your thoughts and sentiments. You only have to go through the 650+ pages of the ACS/DL thread to see the stress and pain it caused to complete innocents.

I am troubled to think that they were suprised that only one so called copyright holder was granted. Would it be that some arrangement will be made with Goldeneye and the others to apply for another NPO?

What troubles me about this is who holds the gathered personal data to be provided? Has there been any provisional notice of who the data controller is, and are they registered with the ICO? I apologise if I missed it if it’s been established, but the debacle of ACS:Law leaked emails should have been prominent in the mind of Judge Arnold.

What sticks in my throat from the judgement is Goldeneye quoting “Human rights” and “Convention rights” with article quotes such as:

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

And

Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss.

This deprived of possessions crap is this argument of theft. They have not been deprived of their possessions. I bet if they look properly, they will find their dirty pile of R18 DVD stash they are so worried about.

It is a clear breach of human rights for these assholes to obtain personal data. To mention one of their quotes:

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 7, Respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.

Rant over!
"Hatton & Berkeley, which provides financial services to small businesses, sent the letters on behalf of its client TCYK LLC to Mrs Drew. Robert Croucher, managing director of Hatton & Berkeley, said: "They [the letters] are part of what's referred to as a pre-action protocol. We send them before action...They don't actually make a demand for money."
Source Link: BBC News
bpaw
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby Mullard47 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:18 pm

savetheworld wrote:Sorry to be a pain in the rear, I've followed these threads for the last how ever many years this has been going on. Is there any info on what period of time the GEIL has captured the IP addresses or is that something that is an unknown? If it's already been mentioned then I apologise.

What I'm trying to get at, have they captured IP addresses during the ACS:Law saga and have held them back, awaiting the outcome of the fall out of ACS:Law, amended their plan, looking to bring this to court, hoping that the court would look in favour of the "kinder approach", all a load of crap I know. It's clear that O2 are a company that arn't "consumer friendly" by way of lack of representation, even after all they know following ACS:Law. Granted there is more restriction on the letter writing, but does this not now open the door for other companies to send out more letters in the same way, creating a whole new world of a letter writing money making scam. If this does prove to be successful, even with a smaller percentage of people paying up, then too many innocent people will just pay up. Full circle, just a different approach.

I know someone who went through the whole ACS:Law issue, who in fairness, can't work a computer to save their life, apart from online banking, emails and updates, they never downloaded anything. Just that small amount of stress had an effect on their mental health, affected their relationship and wont even turn a home computer on. I know this maybe an extreme case, but then how many others have been affected in the same way. I understand that people do download things, but there appears to be no conclusive evidence to support the claims of the the companies who in the past and present have obtained NPO's. I also understand the judges in the cases have been more scrutinising of late, but that's only with public and consumer intervention. Whilst this continues, many innocent people may receive letters having an effect on their health.

Sorry for the rant, it probably doesn't make sense. I too like everyone else is fed up with the letter writing scams and the lack of help / defence from the companies that make millions a year from our pockets.


I imagine that any IP information recorded in the Crossley era would by now be useless because ISP's would have deleted any logs that would facilitate mapping to the account to which they were allocated at the time.

I find it hard to see how all of the safeguards that are apparently required can be incorporated into whatever they do, without at the same time, making the exercise unviable.

Crossley was trying to argue that a subscriber is liable for any use the connection is put to, no matter what the circumstances, and catering only for the contingency that the subscriber produced someone else who would be the defendant. That looks very much to me like what GEIL were up to with their draft Order and LoC.

My perception is that the reality of the matter is that potentially inaccurate evidence with an unknown error rate, if correct, establishes a prima facie case that a connection has been used for copyright infringement, in circumstances where the claimant does not know who has done it, and no-one knows, or has any way of finding out, what the scale of infringement is - unless the person who has done it voluntarily admits it and has also kept and volunteers logs and records from which quantum can be determined.

I am sure that any claimant who went to a solicitor seeking to pursue an ordinary civil claim on that sort of basis would be told to forget it and not throw good money after bad.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby concerned100 » Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:47 am

Will depend on how the letter of claim emerges after court scrutiny, but the exercise seems dependent on the classic speculative invoicing scenario, i.e. people being frightened by the 'legalese' of the letter and and any court order attached and just paying up to make it go away quickly, that is if any damages amount is specified in the letter. Otherwise, the exercise may turn out unviable, but it looks like GEIL is gambling on a few people paying up to make it worthwhile.

However, as the judgment says: '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.'

How many people who get the initial letter are going to admit liability, let alone negotiate how much they've got to pay. Bare denial, I think.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby StripeyMiata » Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:44 am

Was speaking to a friend in the motor trade, one of the possible reasons NG3 Systems is still in this line of work is that their main product Cyberdealer isn't a big seller, he says nearly everyone he knows in the trade uses Dragon 2000 instead.

I'm wondering also how many letters can they send out, if the 9000+ included the other non-Ben Dover companies and if O2 like Sky can only match 75% of the ip addresses to a name (which may be wrong anyway) then it could be in the low hundreds.
StripeyMiata
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:20 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby Hickster » Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:12 pm

Ok guys, I have started to put some stuff together with regard to "The players" involved. I have on the list, apart from Mr Honey of course, Mr Torabi, and also Mr Vogler. Anyone have any others you think should be looked at?

BTW the best laugh I have so far was this classic from Mr Vogler, now bear in mind he is a "Chartered Physicist" and a "Computer Expert", and of course a "Long distance Runner", amongst other things, however based on his "Computer Expert" position, see the following link.

WARNING: You need to be sat down and NOT holding a hot drink, or any other sharp instrument. (I hope you guys have not all seen this before BTW lol)

Ok here goes....

http://bit.ly/H5QEZS

Image
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: 1501
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:25 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby bpaw » Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:14 pm

Pornmeister Becker response to judgement:

http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=146471

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.

I suppose the spanking at birth he got set him in the direction he chose.
"Hatton & Berkeley, which provides financial services to small businesses, sent the letters on behalf of its client TCYK LLC to Mrs Drew. Robert Croucher, managing director of Hatton & Berkeley, said: "They [the letters] are part of what's referred to as a pre-action protocol. We send them before action...They don't actually make a demand for money."
Source Link: BBC News
bpaw
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby Hickster » Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:33 am

bpaw wrote:Pornmeister Becker response to judgement:

http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=146471

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.

I suppose the spanking at birth he got set him in the direction he chose.


Not associated? Hmmm so THIS is not Julian Becker of Ben Dover? http://www.scribd.com/acsbore/d/8679773 ... to-ACS-LAW

Maybe there are TWO Julian Beckers that work at Ben Dover? Or maybe his Mother will now realise he is a LIAR as well as a Pornographer!

My parents, always encouraged me to become a solicitor or an accountant


Why the heck is it always the WANNABEE Solicitors causing all the crap! :roll:
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: 1501
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:25 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby StripeyMiata » Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:23 am

From the article:

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.


Perhaps I'm overreacting but has he just really put his foot in it there? He's admitting the software hasn't got a 100% sucess rate, surely that can be used against them when writing a letter back or even if it goes to court?
StripeyMiata
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:20 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby bpaw » Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:56 am

StripeyMiata wrote:From the article:

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.


Perhaps I'm overreacting but has he just really put his foot in it there? He's admitting the software hasn't got a 100% sucess rate, surely that can be used against them when writing a letter back or even if it goes to court?

What is really absurd about that quote is it regards Richard Clayton stating:

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.

Becker the :wank is basically confirming the fact that there are flaws with the software, just like Richard suggests.
"Hatton & Berkeley, which provides financial services to small businesses, sent the letters on behalf of its client TCYK LLC to Mrs Drew. Robert Croucher, managing director of Hatton & Berkeley, said: "They [the letters] are part of what's referred to as a pre-action protocol. We send them before action...They don't actually make a demand for money."
Source Link: BBC News
bpaw
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby JustInterested » Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:21 am

StripeyMiata wrote:From the article:

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.


Perhaps I'm overreacting but has he just really put his foot in it there? He's admitting the software hasn't got a 100% sucess rate, surely that can be used against them when writing a letter back or even if it goes to court?


Absolutely. And I'm still baffled as to why the court has not demanded the detailed analysis of Torabi's monitoring program which has undergone no detailed scrutiny whatsoever, but merely a black-box test by our esteemed property developer Clem Vogler. A test which any computer savvy 12 year old could have performed.

Where are the checks that any right thinking person would demand?

People's lives are ruined by false accusations like these, as we've all seen on this forum, and indeed as Justice Arnold noted in his summing up.

It beggars belief, it really does.
JustInterested
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:46 am

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby bpaw » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:25 am

One of the other copyright holders, Easy On The Eye, has a director called Anna Imogen Arrowsmith (See HERE). What is troubling is in 2010 she put herself up as the Lib Dem candidate for election as an MP for Gravesham (Campaign website HERE). Thankfully she failed, but she has tweeted thoughts of trying again (Link HERE). She makes no attempt to hide the fact that she is a porn director, and Nick Clegg didn’t have an issue with it.

What I find worrying about this is if she ever elected as an MP. The advice given here at times is to see your MP about the conduct of these speculative invoice scammers. Somehow I can’t see her being sympathetic to your concerns if you went to see her.

If she ever turns up at your doorstep in the future wanting your vote, make sure you tell her exactly what you think!
"Hatton & Berkeley, which provides financial services to small businesses, sent the letters on behalf of its client TCYK LLC to Mrs Drew. Robert Croucher, managing director of Hatton & Berkeley, said: "They [the letters] are part of what's referred to as a pre-action protocol. We send them before action...They don't actually make a demand for money."
Source Link: BBC News
bpaw
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby my2pworth » Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:43 pm

bpaw wrote:One of the other copyright holders, Easy On The Eye, has a director called Anna Imogen Arrowsmith (See HERE). What is troubling is in 2010 she put herself up as the Lib Dem candidate for election as an MP for Gravesham (Campaign website HERE). Thankfully she failed, but she has tweeted thoughts of trying again (Link HERE). She makes no attempt to hide the fact that she is a porn director, and Nick Clegg didn’t have an issue with it.

What I find worrying about this is if she ever elected as an MP. The advice given here at times is to see your MP about the conduct of these speculative invoice scammers. Somehow I can’t see her being sympathetic to your concerns if you went to see her.

If she ever turns up at your doorstep in the future wanting your vote, make sure you tell her exactly what you think!


Ah-ha :wink:

AKA the infamous Anna Span, responsible for these naughty nuggets :)

Eat Me/Keep Me - 1999 First film
Pound a Punnet - 2003 Street market theme
Uniform Behaviour - 2003 Uniform fetish
Toy With Me - 2003
Take This Down - 2004
Hoxton Honey - 2004 Set in Hoxton area of London
A and O Department - 2005 Medical fetish
Hand of the Law - 2006 Police
Hug a Hoodie - 2007 Working class/chav/hoodie theme
Southwark Sugar - 2007 Set in Southwark area of London
Be My Toy Boy - 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Span
:oops:

Thought it rang a bell with earlier posts, and the ACS emails leak :!:
> From: Lee Bowden [mailto:lee@piriltd.com]
> Sent: 19 May 2010 09:07
> To: Robert Pretorius [rob@erigogroup.com]
> Subject: RE: Capturing IP Addresses For Copyright Infringement

No they havent. Our client lists is Darker, Pheonix, Mebray, Liquid Gold, Relish, Pure Platinum, Loadat, & speaking with Scala, Anna Span
I have an introduction into Bluebird as they have just gone into TV with a telephone client of mine.

Would you like me to speak to them?

Thanks

Lee

From the earlier thread, and bpaw's post, back in Dec 2010:-
viewtopic.php?p=566488#p566490
Last edited by my2pworth on Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ACS LAW > DAVENPORT LYONS > DL > Gallant MacMillan > Golden Eye Internaional Ltd. > GEIL > Ben Dover > O2 > BE > Bethere
my2pworth
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:07 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby bpaw » Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:15 pm

She also held director position at Adult Industry Trade Association until Nov 2010. Jason Maskell is currently a director of this organisation. Oh and he is a director of Orchid MG Limited who were another porn outfit at Court.
"Hatton & Berkeley, which provides financial services to small businesses, sent the letters on behalf of its client TCYK LLC to Mrs Drew. Robert Croucher, managing director of Hatton & Berkeley, said: "They [the letters] are part of what's referred to as a pre-action protocol. We send them before action...They don't actually make a demand for money."
Source Link: BBC News
bpaw
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby my2pworth » Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:29 pm

From the earlier thread, and bpaw's post, back in Dec 2010:-


Oh what a tangled web etc. again ....... :wink:
ACS LAW > DAVENPORT LYONS > DL > Gallant MacMillan > Golden Eye Internaional Ltd. > GEIL > Ben Dover > O2 > BE > Bethere
my2pworth
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:07 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby Hickster » Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:48 pm

http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=146471

Where are you FLAW? I need your translation skills. I need a true translation.
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: 1501
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:25 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby ACS SORE » Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:07 pm

I think that Golden Eye has fallen at the first fence in their claims to get money out of people. We are all well versed in ACS and it`s bullying . I for one , as an O2 user, would love a demand. What does worry me is people who have no experience of this, getting a letter of demand. It is clear that a denial is all that is required. I am sure that Honey is well versed in the ACS yarn and would never chance his arm in a court of law.

Now if he sent out a demand for £20 he might have a chance, not that I would give him that.

I would like to some how get the word out. Don`t feel threatened .
ACS SORE
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby Countalucard » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:26 pm

ACS SORE wrote:I think that Golden Eye has fallen at the first fence in their claims to get money out of people. We are all well versed in ACS and it`s bullying . I for one , as an O2 user, would love a demand. What does worry me is people who have no experience of this, getting a letter of demand. It is clear that a denial is all that is required. I am sure that Honey is well versed in the ACS yarn and would never chance his arm in a court of law.

Now if he sent out a demand for £20 he might have a chance, not that I would give him that.

I would like to some how get the word out. Don`t feel threatened .



Well you may want a demand, I want the easiest way out of all my dealings with that shit hole of a company O2.

Fortunately I've only got three months left.
Countalucard
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:29 am

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby StripeyMiata » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:27 pm

Reply is in from O2, as suspected they are spinning the we were forced to line.
-->

Our reference **********

Landline number **********



Dear Mr **********



Thanks for your email. I’m sorry you’re unhappy as we have had to release your details to Golden Eye.



We received a court order to provide details of customers who have completed illegal downloads from their site. We didn’t have to attend the hearing.



I sorry you feel we failed to defend you by not attending a court hearing when Golden Eye made their court application for disclosure of customer details.



We take our customer’s privacy very seriously. However, we have no option but to comply with this court order and will therefore be co-operating fully.



I’m sorry you’re thinking of leaving us as we have had to release detail to Golden Eye.



If you’d like to talk further about your complaint please call me on **********



Yours sincerely


They also seem think I'm complaining because Goldeneye caught me I only have an interest from a geeky/privacy point of view. I'll reply back and post my reply later.
StripeyMiata
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:20 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby thesauce » Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:29 pm

Aye aye, mehearties, its good to see you all again, even if under such circumstances. Here's the rookie worry: even though Goldeneye are clearly a bumbling operation, they somehow manage to open the floodgates for every other garage pornographer and his IP-capturing-outfit to try and get back in on the action. Do the gurus here think that this will be unlikely, given the judicial scrutiny that Goldeneye will be under? Also, BT were saying in the Minstry of Sound case that they only held data logs for 90 days, and yet Plusnet have seemed to imply that they have to hold data for longer. Any opinions on how long ISPs hold their data for? Finally, if BT/Talk Talk get hit with more Pharmacals, will they fight or roll over given their recent appeal loss? (I feel like I'm being slightly ignorant asking that -- sorry in advance!)

Good to read the opinions and analysis of Mullard, Hickster (and the rest) once again, although I thought this little scam had been put to rest.
thesauce
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:56 am

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby Mullard47 » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:41 am

StripeyMiata wrote:Reply is in from O2, as suspected they are spinning the we were forced to line.
-->

Our reference **********

Landline number **********



Dear Mr **********



Thanks for your email. I’m sorry you’re unhappy as we have had to release your details to Golden Eye.



We received a court order to provide details of customers who have completed illegal downloads from their site. We didn’t have to attend the hearing.



I sorry you feel we failed to defend you by not attending a court hearing when Golden Eye made their court application for disclosure of customer details.



We take our customer’s privacy very seriously. However, we have no option but to comply with this court order and will therefore be co-operating fully.



I’m sorry you’re thinking of leaving us as we have had to release detail to Golden Eye.



If you’d like to talk further about your complaint please call me on **********



Yours sincerely


They also seem think I'm complaining because Goldeneye caught me I only have an interest from a geeky/privacy point of view. I'll reply back and post my reply later.


That is a canned response made up of sentences that they have already put into their system. It is clear that the author of those sentences does not understand what they are talking about as some of them are factually wrong and would not apply to anyone, and also the person who has patched the email together also does not understand the issues as it does not address the complaint you made.

I suppose that you could say that this just about sums up Telefonica, although carrying on like that appears to be rife amongst supposedly reputable companies.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discuss

Postby StripeyMiata » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 am

Reply sent, I'll let you know what they say:

Thank you for your email, but I have to say you haven’t really addressed the points I was trying to make, perhaps I am to blame as my original complaint was too vague. Also, looking at the email it doesn’t seem to have been written by a human, seems to be bullet points cut and pasted out of a CRM system, the writing doesn’t flow and there are quite a few grammar mistakes.

First of all, a bit of background, I’m not one of the customers who have received a letter from Golden Eye; I have never downloaded any of their products. I have been watching the Speculative Invoicing saga for a few years now, mostly because I have been in IT for almost 25 years and know how prone to error IP Matching is, plus I don’t like bullies, a label I put on Law Firms doing this kind of work the past. But now O2 are involved and I am a customer, I’m gotten a bit more interested.

My complaint is that O2 had the chance to fight this on behalf of their customers but chose not to. Indeed if you look at this relevant parts of the ruling:





“5: On 7 October 2011 Baker & McKenzie filed an acknowledgement of service on behalf of O2 stating that O2 did not intend to contest the claim.
6: On 18 November 2011 the parties were given notice of a disposal hearing before Chief Master Winegarten on 6 December 2011. On 28 November 2011 Baker & McKenzie wrote to the Chief Master to confirm that O2 did not oppose the making of an order in the terms submitted by Golden Eye, and therefore did not intend to attend the hearing. At the hearing on 6 December 2011 Mr Becker attended on behalf of the Claimants. The Chief Master raised a number of questions about the proposed order, which he asked Mr Becker to relay to Baker & McKenzie. Mr Becker duly did so, and on 14 December 2011 Baker & McKenzie wrote to the Chief Master answering his questions. In the letter Baker & McKenzie stated that, prior to issuing the Claim Form, Golden Eye had provided O2 with a draft of the proposed order and that Baker & McKenzie had made amendments to the draft. A number of amendments were identified and explained. The letter reiterated that O2 did not oppose the making of an order in that form. Having considered the letter, the Chief Master decided to refer the claim to a judge.
120: In consider the proportionality of the order sought, it seems to me that it is important to have regard to the precise terms of that order. The terms of the draft order having been negotiated between Golden Eye and Baker & McKenzie, it is in a form that O2 is content with. Thus it may be regarded as proportionate as between the Claimants and O2
32:1: 4(b) Within 7 days of the date of this Order, the First Applicant, on behalf of all the Applicants, shall pay into an escrow account to be held by the Respondent’s solicitors, Baker & McKenzie LLP, (the ‘Escrow Account’) a sum equal to £2.20 per IP address requested within the initial Batch together with £2500 costs to be held as security for the costs specified in paragraph 5 below.”




It seems to me that O2 are more interested in lining their pockets by asking for £2500 upfront and £2.20 an IP address. In the past firms doing Speculative Invoicing have backed away from other ISP’s who have stood up to them, Talk Talk and Virginmedia as two examples. Other ISP’s who have worked before with Speculative Invoicing in the past have said now they would fight NPO’s, PlusNet as an example - http://community.plus.net/forum/index.p ... 85908.2208

So that is my complaint, it seems to me that O2 should have took the moral high ground and fought this like other ISP’s but instead sold their customers out for a quick buck.

As I don’t think my original complaint has been addressed properly could it be escalated higher up please?

Kindest regards,
StripeyMiata
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:20 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Torrent Download Court Action Threat/Settlement Letter Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com