Golden Eye Int Ltd/Ben Dover letter/legal threat discussion

[Renegade]

As it is in California and not Canada, the judgement is not in a primarily common law country. This makes it unlikely the UK courts would give it any attention at all. So if there is another NPO hearing I doubt this will feature at all unfortunately, even if the cases are practically identical. However I suppose if a UK judge or master reads of it, it may help to inform their decision. Unlikely to know, until the next application.

[Hickster]

I had forgot about this piece.... http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/27.html

This was Judge Birss in regard to Goldeneye. Not sure how it will affect anything, however, as I have said before I am sure that no cases will ever be brought by GEIL to Court for a full hearing, that is NOT how the scheme works, even a refined version of it.

BTW I was reminded of this by a story on http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/ ... g-for.html

Funny enough they did NOT welcome my comment about one of the Blog owners, Annsley Merelle Ward being herself involved with the "Speculative Invoicing/Copyright Trolling" debacle when she was of course at Gallant Macmillan

They just dont like the truth these people!

[bpaw]

This is probably a rather silly question to ask, but still, it would be useful in my mind for clarification purposes. I am a bit confused with the “trading as” aspect of a company. I have seen individuals and couples trading as a company. I am wondering what a company “trading as” a company actually means?

We have Optime Strategies Limited trading as Ben Dover Productions. We have UK trade mark 2316214 “Ben Dover“ owned by Golden Eye International Limited. We have Ben Dover Productions claiming to be copyright holders joined with Golden Eye International Limited obtaining an NPO in the High Court. We have ben-dover.biz registered by Julian Becker of Optime Strategies Limited with a contact email address of bob.stamegna@archangel.co.uk (Where Robert Stamegna trades as Archangel which is a dissolved company).

More questions:
1. Should there have been ANY clarification in the High Court that Ben Dover Productions is Optime Strategies?
2. Exactly how is copyright ownership established in the High Court?
3. If “Ben Dover” is a registered trade mark of Golden Eye Int Ltd, is there a technical issue regards their representation of Ben Dover Productions (Optime Strategies)?

1 In the NPO case, "Ben Dover Productions" as owner of the copyright of the films in question is a partnership between the Honeys. (i.e. them in person and not a limited company)

2 If a claim is issued in the Patents County Court, then they have to include from the outset "all facts and arguments to be relied upon" which would include properly establishing ownership. The manner as to how ownership is established is specified in the 1988 Act. Presumably, that was also done with these applications. The claims they issued at Northampton County Court did not, by any stretch of the imagination, comply with the relevant rules for issuing intellectual property claims.

3 The owner of a registered trade mark can use it themselves and/or allow someone else to use it. As regards a situation where a group of related businesses use the same trading name to mean different entities (i.e. the personal partnership is called BDP and Optime also trade as BDP) does invite adverse inferences, although it might be that they have done that without anyone objectively assessing what they are doing.

An individual can, and often does, have several businesses with different trading names, and the same applies with registered domain names.

Thanks Mullard, again!

Get ready o2 broadband customers for the Easter extravaganza! Your IP address may come up in the draw for a free Letter Of Claim! Please bear in mind that this is no Nigerian based scam. This scam was made legal here in the Courts of the United Kingdom!

The flawed IP monitoring from Alireza Torabi will bring up thousands of IP addresses from many different IPSs, and it was o2 who were decided individually for this NPO application. It is obvious from an IP address which ISP issued it for their subscribers.

From my perspective, Sky (From the leaked emails) were the most complicit with agreeing a fee with ACS:Law for providing personal details from their subscribers. You can only speculate why o2 were chosen on their own.

Is there any way now for anyone to ask the most obvious question at the next Court appearance?

If you are wanting to seek recompense for anyone who you regard as sharing your copyright material, why do you limit it to one ISP?

[Mullard47]

If you confine the GEIL disclosure to those relating only to BDP titles, and then work on the footing that "infringement" is defined in accordance with well established principles and not Crossley's, or anyone else's, controversial and untested assertions, then several of the comments and possible propositions that HHJ Birss made would become inapplicable or inappropriate, and this is reflected in the GEIL NPO judgment.

However, there are issues that CF did not raise, and on the face of it, the Judge himself raised in the NPO case.

To start with, there is the issue of seeking damages by reference to a licence fee which the claimant might reasonably set to allow the defendant to do what they did. In those circumstances, damages could arise where the reality is no loss at all. But that sort of approach is, in this context, contingent on some controversial and untested issues which are far more complicated than might first appear, and it is highly questionable whether someone ought to be seeking pre-action settlements against the public on that basis. You get back to the sort of position where MediaCAT were trying to hinge liability to start with on similarly untested and controversial arguments. Well established principles applied to this sort of claim indicate that damages should reflect actual loss, and that if there is no loss, then there are no damages.

The other issue is the Bonnier Audio reference to the ECJ. AIUI part of that argument is that IP logs that an ISP has kept for one reason, should not be be disclosed to to a civil claimant for another, unless national legislation explicitly requires the logs to have be retained for that purpose, and that legislation requiring they be retained for some other purpose is not good enough. I might not have that exactly right, but the tenor of various articles on the topic suggests that if the ECJ follows the opinion of the Advocate General, then in some countries (including, they say, the UK) fresh legislation would be needed to allow logs to be disclosed for this purpose, and I don't think it would be retrospective.

As the judge said, no-one raised that issue in the case, or suggested the application be adjourned pending the outcome of the ECJ ruling.

An article by Francis Davy that looks at the various aspects of the DEA and which refers to the Bonnier Audio reference can be seen HERE. The costs sharing aspect of DEA appeals has been affected by the Court of Appeal ruling since he wrote that article, but afaiaa that is the only material change at present.

Another point is how any litigation that was issued should be managed. In the closing paragraphs of the original MediaCAT case, HHJ Birss suggested that the use of the Request for Judgment process was inappropriate for these sorts of situations even it accorded with the Civil Procedure Rules, and that he though that a Part 23 Application for Judgment is the way that a default should be sought. I think that it would be appropriate if any NPO requires, not only that any claim is issued in the Patents County Court, but that it also requires that any seeking of a default is by way of a Part 23 Application, and not a Request for judgment.

As to the fact that it is known at the outset that some of the recipients of LoC's will have not done anything wrong and are also not in a position to have any information that would identify the correct defendant (assuming that the evidence so far is correct), the court can choose to either (a) refuse disclosure altogether, or (b) allow disclosure with safeguards designed to prevent innocent people from being coerced to settle. The court has here chosen the latter, although I think that there are huge and very difficult problems that have to be resolved in going down that road.

I would have thought that having been allowed to intervene to start with, it may be that CF can continue to be involved, but it is not clear as to if or how they could develop any of the above arguments.

[thesauce]

Any idea when the ECJ ruling will be made?

[Mullard47]

Any idea when the ECJ ruling will be made?

The European Court of Justice is due to rule in the Bonnier Audio case on 19th April 2012 (the Thursday after next, at the time of this post) and so that ruling will (if that date is kept to) be given before GEIL get back to court with their proposed Order and LoC.

If articles about the potential consequences are correct, and depending on the judgment, it is possible that GEIL will not go back to the High Court at all (except, possibly, to have a debate about costs), and not get any disclosure at all.

That potential issue has been known about since the Swedish Supreme Court made the reference in September 2010, and the Advocate General's opinion was publicised in November 2011. But when you get a claimant that doesn't even know what court to issue a claim in, you do not expect them to be aware of issues like that. Any IP lawyer worth their salt would have suggested that a would-be NPO applicant awaited the outcome of that case.

The reference by the Swedish Supreme Court dates back to just before BT changed their tune on the NPO issue and MoS did not continue to press the matter. I suppose it is possible that the reference could have been a factor in the decision making that went on at GM/MoS at that time.

[JustInterested]

Does anyone have a copy of the LoC that GEIL was going to send out that was roundly criticised in the current O2 NPO?

Is it the one that they were sending out at the end of last year?

[Mullard47]

Does anyone have a copy of the LoC that GEIL was going to send out that was roundly criticised in the current O2 NPO?

Is it the one that they were sending out at the end of last year?

I believe that at one stage they were sending out letters where they were saying that they would apply for a connection to be disconnected etc and quoted the Digital Economy Act. On the face of it, the reference to the DEA was removed from the draft LoC that was submitted for the purpose of this application, although the reference to the pre-action protocol for IP claims (when there is no such thing) remained, together with a cornucopia of other questionable and objectionable material.

(The pre-action protocol that they refer to in their letter was a draft proposal formulated in 2001, but it was never adopted by the CPR's. It was published in 2004 as a code of practice to guide practitioners dealing with IP disputes.)

I think they were sending out LoC's at the end of 2010, as these were referred to by HHJ Birss, but I haven't seen anyone refer to LoC's sent out late 2011.

The text of the proposed LoC is quoted in full in the recent judgment and can be seen HERE.

[concerned100]

pretty much a cut down version of the TBI letter

http://acsbore.wordpress.com/2010/03/03 ... ow-acslaw/

[Hickster]

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/i-asked- ... le-sharers

The man himself speaks.... Hmmmm

There could be some awkward conversations between couples when you send letters out to people telling them to cough up for pirating DP Darlings or Fancy An Indian?
It wouldn't surprise me. At the end of the day, if you wanna keep the fact that you keep porn from your missus, go in the shop and buy it. Or join my website and download it from there. You could pay £20 to join my website and within a month download every movie on there.

Yes or be blackmailed for £700....

And isnt it strange how these "Porn People" seem to steal the names of other people without compunction

[bpaw]

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/i-asked-ben-dover-why-he-wants-to-sue-file-sharers

The man himself speaks.... Hmmmm

There could be some awkward conversations between couples when you send letters out to people telling them to cough up for pirating DP Darlings or Fancy An Indian?
It wouldn't surprise me. At the end of the day, if you wanna keep the fact that you keep porn from your missus, go in the shop and buy it. Or join my website and download it from there. You could pay £20 to join my website and within a month download every movie on there.

Yes or be blackmailed for £700....

And isnt it strange how these "Porn People" seem to steal the names of other people without compunction

It is also strange where these grubby porn peddlers Becker and Honey choose to provide their respective responses. Their adamant arrogant viewpoints are relatively safe where they were published.

I remember at the time of our first knowledge of Golden Eye Int, I heard grubby Honey on a national radio station. I made efforts to contact the show and ask why he targets innocent people but to no avail. It was no surprise that he didn’t volunteer such information either, which was strange as it was a recent development in his career as a Copyright Troll.

What do you think about people downloading porn for free?
At the end of the day, if I can't make money out of porn, the only way I can make money is to get to the people who are not buying it.

.....and who don't download it.

As for the title of the article, if anyone is a it's Mr Honey.

The arrogant tripe they spew wouldn’t be given the effort of typing up for any reputable website.

[A Certain Smile]

So the stylised X that he's displaying on his XXX factor "works" - doesn't it bear a close resemblance to the one used by the X Factor TV franchise? Here

Room for confusion?

Passing off?

Blatant copying?

Not so far from copyright theft?

[Mullard47]

So the stylised X that he's displaying on his XXX factor "works" - doesn't it bear a close resemblance to the one used by the X Factor TV franchise? Here

Room for confusion?

Passing off?

Blatant copying?

Not so far from copyright theft?

The expression "The X Factor" together with a range of logos that are used in connection with the TV shows are the subject of various UK and EU registered trade marks that Simco and FreemantleMedia (the companies behind those shows) own.

Whether or not a visually similar logo with the expression "The XXX Factor" is an issue, is something that those owners would have to investigate and action, if they felt so inclined. I wonder if they actually know about those logos.

[Hickster]

Looks like people are pissing on Mr Honeys new shop window.... http://youtu.be/DAIH40nl19I
If you are on youtube, let him know what you think, if you are not, sign up and do so...

Great piece by Enigmax on this sad old interview... see here... http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-trol ... ey-120417/

Just one more though, I wonder if he will enlist Bowden on all this, I mean Bowden did seem very keen on Granny Style porn didnt he...

[Mullard47]

Looks like people are pissing on Mr Honeys new shop window.... http://youtu.be/DAIH40nl19I
If you are on youtube, let him know what you think, if you are not, sign up and do so...

Great piece by Enigmax on this sad old interview... see here... http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-trol ... ey-120417/

Just one more though, I wonder if he will enlist Bowden on all this, I mean Bowden did seem very keen on Granny Style porn didnt he...

What about a series of films along that sort of idea, based on the antics of elderly residents in a semi-rural area. A sort of R-18 equivalent of "Last of the Summer Wine". Who knows? - With the right scriptwriter and performers, that type of thing might be quite successful.

[Countalucard]

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.

At least you got a reply

I spoke to a nice lady in CS who knew nothing of the matter but promised to get a manager to phone back

They didn't

I then called CS again and was told that unless my details were released then they wouldn't allow me to quit penalty free

I sent an email to the CS address detailing my concerns and apart from an acknowledgement of receipt I heard nothing.

Not really surprising, O2 appear to be masters of doing nothing.

So today I've sent a copy of the email to the CEO of O2

And I shall see if this still results in nothing being done.

[JustInterested]

Just seen this on http://www.techdigest.tv/broadband/

"In O2's defence, the ISP at least put up a good fight, trying to defend the privacy of their users. O2 fended off twelve court orders from the porn producers before unlucky number 13 forced their hand."

it continues:

"O2's fight however may have strengthened the rights of pirates in the future however. O2 may have set a new precedent, having fended off so many court orders demanding the personal details of their users."

What's all this then? Fending off twelve court orders?

When did that happen?

Edit: Sorry, answered my own question: it's referring to the other twelve claimants that weren't allowed an NPO.

[Mullard47]

Just seen this on http://www.techdigest.tv/broadband/

"In O2's defence, the ISP at least put up a good fight, trying to defend the privacy of their users. O2 fended off twelve court orders from the porn producers before unlucky number 13 forced their hand."

it continues:

"O2's fight however may have strengthened the rights of pirates in the future however. O2 may have set a new precedent, having fended off so many court orders demanding the personal details of their users."

What's all this then? Fending off twelve court orders?

When did that happen?

Edit: Sorry, answered my own question: it's referring to the other twelve claimants that weren't allowed an NPO.

Today's newspaper is tomorrows chip paper, and the accuracy of most journalists reflects that.

[Countalucard]

Well you wait for a reply and then you get two at once.

had a letter off o2 today along with an interesting chat with someone from head office.

The letter makes quite a few errors, such as stating that o2 had legal representation at every hearing and that should they feel it appropriate then submissions will be made (which they can't now make on the recent order).

it would appear that o2 are taking the line that what subscribers download is completely up to them but that should anyone attempt to raise a court order then o2 basically want to get out of the way as quickly as possible and leave it up to the courts to decide if a person is guilty or not.

Hence their unwillingness to contest an application.

What they seem unwilling to answer is the fact that these scam's are not based upon taking anyone to court to debate the evidence or lack thereof but to merely humiliate people into paying.

That makes sites like this even more important to o2 subscribers. Information is power here.

Just remember people, the onus is on GEIL to prove that you are guilty of any infringement and that the evidence is shaky at best.

AIUI as a subscriber you are only guilty if you downloaded what you are accused of or if you explicitly facilitated someone else to do so on your behalf.

Anything else and under the law as it stands you haven't done anything wrong.

The good news is that I've been heard at the top level. if you are feeling as aggrieved as me then make sure that O2 know exactly why you are leaving them. Make your voice heard and perhaps O2 may change their policy and swing in line with pretty much every other UK isp.

BTW They still wouldn't let me out of my contracts early.

[JustInterested]

BTW They still wouldn't let me out of my contracts early.

Perhaps you approached it the wrong way.

It's made quite clear in the judgement that innocent parties (quantity unknown) will be targeted by GEIL and have to suffer the humiliation of being (falsely) accused of distributing porn.

I'd be pointing O2 to the judgement and telling them that you're not prepared to chance being one of those innocents and want out.

[Countalucard]

Nope, if I am willing to pay the early exit charges on the bb and mobile then I can leave pretty much immediately.

They conceded that if my details are transferred to GEIL then they are willing to discuss an early exit at that time.

To the best of my knowledge I'm not going to be targeted due to me not downloading anything. My wishing to leave O2 is a moral judgement rather than a reaction to a letter from GEIL.

Fortunately my mobile contract is up in August and the bb in September, so not long to wait.

Incidentally does anyone know when the modified letter gets submitted for approval?

[Hickster]

...To the best of my knowledge I'm not going to be targeted due to me not downloading anything.

Well that does not mean a thing if they are like ACS:LAW, and we already know they are using the same Data monitors, so the fact you have NOT downloaded anything should not make you so sure you wont receive a letter regardless!

Thanks though for taking the time to contact O2 and get some info from them...

[Countalucard]

...To the best of my knowledge I'm not going to be targeted due to me not downloading anything.

Well that does not mean a thing if they are like ACS:LAW, and we already know they are using the same Data monitors, so the fact you have NOT downloaded anything should not make you so sure you wont receive a letter regardless!

Thanks though for taking the time to contact O2 and get some info from them...

Quite correct Hickster, however as I was monitoring my data usage around the time that GEIL seem to be fishing in I'm pretty confident that there were no illegal torrent downloads taking place. Or at least no sizeable ones. Certainly none that I authorised or performed myself.

Should GEIL send me the letter I will make them the same offer I made ACS, in that they are welcome to pay for independent forensic examination of my computers....otherwise go forth and multiply.

In a way I do have a better understanding of the O2 position now, without necessarily agreeing with it.

If people are illegally downloading copyrighted material then as it stands they have the legal right to take action. O2 want to see this tested in court but have the view that they are not being accused of breaking copyright and that it's a matter between GEIL and the subscriber.

If only the likes of GEIL actually wanted to see the insides of a courtroom then this would at least clarify the issue for all concerned.

Incidentally I wonder if Mr Dover has actually considered that he may be seeing shrinking porn revenues because it is a) easy to find free porn on the web without resorting to illegal downloads and b) that the majority of people aren't interested in seeing a wrinkly old man shagging girls young enough to be his grand daughter.

[JustInterested]

Billy Bunter's in the news again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17843371

"The private sector company singled out was ACS: Law. Its data controller was fined £1,000 after failing to prevent a hack attack which resulted in sensitive details about 6,000 people being published on a third-party website.

Some of the emails stolen included references to people's sex lives, health and financial status.

The ICO said at the time that it would have imposed a larger £200,000 fine had the firm not ceased trading and its owner not been of limited means."

Poor lad, down to one luxury car and a £600,000 house (and whatever else he managed to squirrel away)!

[Mullard47]

Billy Bunter's in the news again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17843371

"The private sector company singled out was ACS: Law. Its data controller was fined £1,000 after failing to prevent a hack attack which resulted in sensitive details about 6,000 people being published on a third-party website.

Some of the emails stolen included references to people's sex lives, health and financial status.

The ICO said at the time that it would have imposed a larger £200,000 fine had the firm not ceased trading and its owner not been of limited means."

Poor lad, down to one luxury car and a £600,000 house (and whatever else he managed to squirrel away)!

The position that the ICO was in was that a penalty is not a fine, and as there was a pending bankruptcy order, any penalty would have been a debt of the estate. It was HMRC who had filed the bankruptcy action and the net result would have been that any penalty imposed by the ICO would have increased the percentage of whatever assets there were that went to the government (in one way or another) and reduced whatever was left for other unsecured creditors. The position with that car and house are for the trustee in bankruptcy to address. One does not appear to have been appointed, and so the inference is that there was nothing worth pursuing and/or the costs of pursuing anything would have exceeded any benefit

That article is also factually wrong. The data was leaked because it was published on the home page of the ACS-Law web site, and not because of any "hacking". It was there as a link for any visitor to the site to click on and in those circumstances, the exposed data can hardly be said to have been "stolen".