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: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby concerned100 » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:02 am

I agree. I don't see how a competent Chancery judge could ignore all the info available re IP addresses not identifying people, especially with the Mediacat cases, the SDT Crossley judgment which is pretty clear about IP addresses, authorising etc. And Guy Tritton there to set it all out.

'Neither MCAT nor the Respondent had evidence that the “Work” had been made available. They had a report from the monitoring company which showed that its software had captured pieces of the two pornographic videos being made available from an IP address at a particular second in time.'

'It was the Applicant’s case that the Respondent did not have any evidence as to who had made the work available. He merely had the IP address through which it was made available.' [Crosslely SDT]

I don't know how what influence the Court has on the LoC, given what Crossley was allowed to write. And of course, if the LoC specifies that an IP address isn't conclusive evidence, who wouldn't give a bare denial if they think that will work. And those that don't reply to letters prob. wouldn't get default judgments against them even if they didn't show up in Court, if HHJ Birss or whoever didn't accept the IP evidence, although in the absence of denial....who knows.

Might end up not worth GEIL's while, depending on what happens with the NPO.
Last edited by concerned100 on Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Hickster » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:41 am

This is what happened when the interepid Cameron of Being Scammed, attempted to halt an NPO hearing.

Bear in mind this is from the ACS:LAW Website at the time.

ACS Law were successful in obtaining Norwich Pharamcal court orders today for its computer game clients
Although this was routine hearing, ACS Law instructed Amanda Michaels of Hogarth Chambers, one of the premier league intellectual property barristers’ chambers in England and Wales to ensure our clients intellectual property rights are protected online
The arguments admitted by Ms Michaels on behalf of ACS Law clients were described by the presiding judge, Chief Master Winegarten as “terrifically persuasive” and dismissed the alleged infringers application and ordered him to pay £1,000 in costs
We are a law firm which specialises in assisting intellectual property rights holders exploit and enforce their rights globally
We have taken instructions from our clients to issue the next batch of proceedings early in the New Year, and we would urge anyone who has not settled at this stage to consider doing so before further costs are incurred


Of course things have changed GREATLY and the irony was is that to me this very action is what galvanised the movement that became BeingThreatened. The community collectivly paid the fine. (For all those who didnt know this already)
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: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:21 am

Hickster wrote:This is what happened when the interepid Cameron of Being Scammed, attempted to halt an NPO hearing.

Bear in mind this is from the ACS:LAW Website at the time.

ACS Law were successful in obtaining Norwich Pharamcal court orders today for its computer game clients
Although this was routine hearing, ACS Law instructed Amanda Michaels of Hogarth Chambers, one of the premier league intellectual property barristers’ chambers in England and Wales to ensure our clients intellectual property rights are protected online
The arguments admitted by Ms Michaels on behalf of ACS Law clients were described by the presiding judge, Chief Master Winegarten as “terrifically persuasive” and dismissed the alleged infringers application and ordered him to pay £1,000 in costs
We are a law firm which specialises in assisting intellectual property rights holders exploit and enforce their rights globally
We have taken instructions from our clients to issue the next batch of proceedings early in the New Year, and we would urge anyone who has not settled at this stage to consider doing so before further costs are incurred


Of course things have changed GREATLY and the irony was is that to me this very action is what galvanised the movement that became BeingThreatened. The community collectivly paid the fine. (For all those who didnt know this already)


Was it not a barrister named Ms Michaels who had given DL the opinion that was not conducive to what they were doing, a barrister named Ms Michaels whose opinion was said by Crossley to not fit in with his business model, and a barrister named Ms Michaels whose bill Crossley only partly paid?

I wonder if they are the same person, or if there are loads of barristers with that name.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Hickster » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:47 am

@Mullard

It was the VERY same Ms Michaels. Your mind is razor!
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: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Renegade » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:37 pm

It should be noted that Cameron was denied for not having the legal standing to challenge an NPO, as he could not know if he was party to it. This brilliant logic meant no individual could challenge an NPO before a fact, as by definition no parties have been identified at that stage.

This differs from the application by Consumer Focus, as they can claim to be an 'interested party' as a consumer rights organisation, on the basis that it acts on behalf of consumers generally, and at least one consumer will be party to the NPO. Splitting hairs perhaps, but that's how the system works.

Cameron's arguments could therefore not be heard or ruled on by the judge, Consumer Focus's will be. What I'm trying to say, is don't read into the previous press release/results to guess the way this one will go. I'm hoping this attempt will be considerably more likely to succeed in causing problems for the applicant!
Renegade
 
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 12:37 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:57 pm

This particular threat from GEIL I see as possibly one part of an overall attempt by this nefarious copyright aspirant to frighten people and organisations in to paying them money. They are not lawyers, and claim on their website that they are a holder of numerous film copyrights. They also mention about “The jewellery and fashion industry” and say it causes their “clients” financial loss, like they are some kind of solicitor!

If they succeed with their NPO, then their LoC campaign may contribute to an overall campaign of similar scams. Just like the “Getty Images” scam (See ELI website HERE), it shows that there are other ways to scam money by threatening people.

One particular interesting part of GEILs website. Their Eye Of Horus logo is absolutely a modified version from HERE. This is under a Creative Commons Attribution – Share Alike (CC-SA) licence which I believe if you make any alteration to the original work, you must attribute the original artist. I’m not sure if this should be acknowledged on the GEIL website. Maybe someone could enlighten further on this.
"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: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Hickster » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:28 pm

Renegade wrote:It should be noted that Cameron was denied for not having the legal standing to challenge an NPO, as he could not know if he was party to it. This brilliant logic meant no individual could challenge an NPO before a fact, as by definition no parties have been identified at that stage.

This differs from the application by Consumer Focus, as they can claim to be an 'interested party' as a consumer rights organisation, on the basis that it acts on behalf of consumers generally, and at least one consumer will be party to the NPO. Splitting hairs perhaps, but that's how the system works.

Cameron's arguments could therefore not be heard or ruled on by the judge, Consumer Focus's will be. What I'm trying to say, is don't read into the previous press release/results to guess the way this one will go. I'm hoping this attempt will be considerably more likely to succeed in causing problems for the applicant!


Thanks Ren for the clarification, I certainly did not wat to mislead. I am confused myself to how it all works, the NP application and that is AFTER reading up on it!

All I know I know is another disreputable character attempting an exploititive campaign against another bunch of innocent peeps. Oh and the fact they may well screw up the Digital economy Bill is just a bonus lol.

Goldeneye, theres mud-in-yer-eye
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: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Hickster » Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:26 am

Golden Eye Int Judgement TOMORROW (Hope someone can attend, Dinah and Will can't make it)

http://t.co/VL2futyi
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: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:23 am

GoldenEye judgment is at

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/723.html

GoldenEye had applied for disclosure where the owners are Ben Dover productions (who have been properly identified) and twelve other copyright owners.

Subject to a range of controls and conditions, an NPO has been made (subject to finalising terms and the details of loc) relating to the Ben Dover claims, but the court has refused to order disclosure relating to the other twelve.
Last edited by Mullard47 on Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby concerned100 » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:30 am

I had a quick read thru it. At least the judge seems to have dealt with appointing a supervising solicitor and tackled the letter of claim. Will make interesting reading for later.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Hickster » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:33 am

Had a quick look, I wonder if this is a real big deal as we might think, sure the NPs are granted although on a conditional basis, thing is will people who are innocent pay up this time?. We will see, I think the moment this goes to Court a similar thing will happen as to what happened before, it will fail.

Looking at the report their are a few issues of point:

Counsel for Golden Eye particularly stressed the following differences:

i) ACS:Law has not been involved in Golden Eye's claims. Golden Eye brought the present claim itself, albeit that it instructed solicitors and counsel for the purposes of the hearing before me. There is therefore no question of a solicitor acting improperly in the various ways that Mr Crossley did.


Well true however "TIlly Baily Irvine" DID use ACS:LAW templates and advice.

63: An additional difference which was not mentioned by counsel for the Claimants, but which I regard as relevant, is that the Claimants appear to be taking a somewhat less ambitious approach than Media CAT to the scope of their potential claims of infringement against the Intended Defendants. I shall return to this point below.


Well maybe at the moment, but then they hadnt got a 9000+ database to send out from!

I am sure there are more strange points like these that those of a smarter nature could pull out, however I think we need to wait now until Easter for the proper Judgement, and interestingly a review of the letter that Golden Eye will be permitted to send out!
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: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby StripeyMiata » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:00 am

As an O2 Broadband Customer, I'm curious, did they fight the NPO or just roll over? If they rolled over sod them, I'm leaving at the end of my contract and I'll tell the retentions girl why.

Not that I've anything to hide, I've never downloaded anything from Mr Dover. Then again, knowing how shoddy IP matching has been in the past I might get a letter after all......
StripeyMiata
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:20 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:04 am

Assuming an even split of the 9,124 between all Copyright holders, then it’s around 700 letters to be sent. A 100% pay up ratio of £700.00 each nets half a million. To be conservative, let’s say a 50% pay up ratio nets £250K.

Oh, and there’s what Mike O’Connors said:

It is very welcome that the court has recognised the bill-payer should not be automatically assumed to be guilty when a copyright owner believes they have detected copyright infringement on that internet connection. Consumers should not be subject to the type of threatening letters Golden Eye intended to send to more than 9,000 O2 customers.

So hopefully an amended letter will be a bit more clearer on this and make their pay up ratio even less.

Then there is from the judgement:

137. Fifthly, I think that Mr Becker's response in his second witness statement to the point made by counsel for Consumer Focus referred to in sub-paragraph 60(v) above is telling:

"... it assumes that £700 will be successfully obtained from each of the 9000, when that is plainly wrong. In fact, it is likely that only a small proportion will result in a successfully obtained payment of any sum."

This comes quite close to an admission that the figure of £700 has been selected so as to maximise the revenue obtained from the letters of claim, rather than as a realistic estimate of the damages recoverable by the relevant Claimant from each Intended Defendant. In any event, that is the inference I draw in the light of the matters discussed above and in the absence of any disclosure of the information referred to in paragraph 88 above.

I think (Or more importantly I hope) GEIL will be lucky to make £700.00 in total.
"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: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby factual » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:18 am

StripeyMiata wrote:As an O2 Broadband Customer, I'm curious, did they fight the NPO or just roll over? If they rolled over sod them, I'm leaving at the end of my contract and I'll tell the retentions girl why.

Not that I've anything to hide, I've never downloaded anything from Mr Dover. Then again, knowing how shoddy IP matching has been in the past I might get a letter after all......


From the judgment:

In his statement, Mr Becker said that O2 had been put on notice of the claim and had stated through its solicitors (Baker & McKenzie LLP) that it did not oppose the making of the order sought provided that the order was in the terms approved by Baker & McKenzie on O2's behalf.


and

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.

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.


In the header to the judgment it states:

The Defendant [TELEFÓNICA UK LIMITED] did not appear and was not represented


...so, yes; you're best rid of them. ISPs that can't be trusted to look after their customers are not worth your business.
factual
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:13 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby concerned100 » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:28 am

GEIL seems to have just copied TBI's letter (surprise) which will be amended, but even so, a lot of people receiving an official looking letter about pornography, backed up with Court docs, a package which a lot of them will have trouble getting to grips with, will no doubt just pay up.

I'm not sure the legal nicities of the difference between 'application' to have the internet connection turned off, and 'request' to have it turned off will mean much to the recipient. The letter will still look as threatening and frightening as ever.

At least the £700 figure has got challenged. Maybe the real figure for each IP address will be so low that it's not worthwhile for GEIL to undertake the exercise.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby StripeyMiata » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:10 am

Thanks factual.

I'm going to email a complaint to O2, I'll let you know what their response is, I'm sure it will do no good, just curious how they will justify themselves.

I'm in contract until November, I fancy a small ISP instead of the big boys. I've heard nothing but good things about Andrews & Arnold, they are pricey but I assume you get what you pay for.
StripeyMiata
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:20 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby factual » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:05 pm

StripeyMiata wrote:Thanks factual.

I'm going to email a complaint to O2, I'll let you know what their response is, I'm sure it will do no good, just curious how they will justify themselves.

I'm in contract until November, I fancy a small ISP instead of the big boys. I've heard nothing but good things about Andrews & Arnold, they are pricey but I assume you get what you pay for.


You're welcome.

Although it took them a little while to wake up and smell the coffee, Plusnet have shown themselves to be an ISP with decent enough understanding of customer service and recently have displayed quite a determined effort to act ethically in respect of these issues.
factual
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:13 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Hickster » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:32 pm

@Factual

Yes PlusNet, love their interaction on their forums by some of their workers.

Factual, I wonder wether you feel that this NP hearing although disappointing on first sight, will be as I stated earlier, an issue where although people will receive a letter, the actual letters wont themselves stand up under scrutiny of a Court, if the recipient does as we used to say, STAND STRONG and say "No Sir", I did NOT do what you accuse me of doing.

Can we try to crystalise some of these issues as far as we can?

I agree BTW that Customers of O2 should resign as we called for those of other ISPs in the past that rolled over to do the same. Although GEIL have sought to frame this in a legitimate manner, I still smell rancid barrels of fish over this subject. They uses TBI after all, TBI only quit due to "Negative publicity", the scheme is the same as DL and ACS:LAW, I don't see any difference apart from an attempt to "Fine tune" it.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Some other amusing moments..

Enclosed with Mr Becker's letter were an expert report by Clement Vogler dated 27 June 2020 and a witness statement of Alireza Torabi dated 3 February 2012


Clem Vogler comes back from the future :tinfoilhat:

EDIT: See here for the letter from GEIL, see much difference? between the other :wank
Spoiler: show
The intention is that Schedule 1 will consist of a copy of the CD-ROM in Exhibit 1 to Mr Becker's statement. Schedule 2 contains a draft letter in the following terms:

"Dear

GOLDEN EYE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED ('GEIL')

Nature of GEIL's rights

It is with regret that we are writing this letter to you. However, GEIL is very concerned at the illicit distribution of films over the internet.

GEIL has the exclusive licence of all of the rights in the film sold under the name '[E]' ('the Work'). The Work has been made available for sale in the United Kingdom.

This letter is written pursuant to the Code of Practice ('the Code') for pre-action conduct in intellectual property disputes. This letter follows the Code and your response should also follow the Code. Applicant copy of the relevant part of the Code is enclosed with this letter.

This letter will set out the claim made by GEIL. In accordance with the Code, you are required to provide a full written response as soon as is reasonably possible. We draw your attention to paragraph 4.1 of the Code.

Forensic Analyst

We have obtained the services of a forensic computer analyst to search for and identify internet addresses from which out copyright works (including the Work) are being made available on so called 'peer to peer' (P2P) internet sites for the purposes of making them available for download by third parties without our client's consent or licence.

Evidence

GEIL's forensic computer analyst has provided us with evidence that the following UK date and time, [B] [C], all or part of the Work was made available from the internet protocol (or IP) address [Applicant], specifically for the purpose of downloading by third parties. We attach a copy of his report. We showed this evidence to your internet service provider Telefonica UK Limited ('O2') who would not supply us with any information without a Court order. We therefore made an application to Court asking for an Order against O2 that they disclose the names and addresses associated with the IP address on the date and time in question. On 2011 Mr Justice , sitting in the High Court, ordered O2 to give us disclosure of your name and address for the purpose of this letter. For your information we enclose a copy of that Order. In accordance with that Order, O2 identified you as the subscriber noted in their systems as on their network associated with the IP address on the date and at the time in question. Please be assured that we have stringent security measures in force to ensure that, so far as is humanly possible, the data we hold is fully protected.

Infringing Acts

The act of file sharing the Work without the consent of GEIL is unlawful and, in particular, has caused damage to our business. In effect, every copy of the Work that is downloaded represents a potential lost sale. Whenever the Work is made available for download to other parties there is the opportunity for multiple downloads to take place resulting in lost revenue. In addition to GEIL selling direct, we also enter into licensing agreements for third party organisations to distribute our content. File sharing also results in lost royalty revenue and weakening of the brands saleability.

We have set out below the infringing acts you are liable for to GEIL:

1. either for copying the Work on to the hard drive of your personal (or office) computer ('PC') (pursuant to the sections 16(1)(a) and 17 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) ('The Act'); and/or for

2. making the Work available to third parties for downloading (pursuant to sections 16(1)(d) and 20 of the Act). Please note that such making available can be caused simply by a person connected to your internet connection downloading the Work, during the course of which the part downloaded is then made available to other third parties connected to the network in question.

In the event that you were not responsible for the infringing acts outlined above, you should make full disclosure to us of the other parties at your residence using your internet connection to make the Work available for download.

Legal Consequences

As we have stated above, the extensive file sharing activity is causing damage to GEIL's business. We are therefore left with no alternative but to monitor carefully its intellectual property rights and enforce them against infringers.

In the event that this matter cannot be resolved, it may become necessary for GEIL to being a claim against you for copyright infringement. This claim would be brought in the civil court, where liability is determined on the balance of probabilities. In that event, we must make you aware that if successful, we will be entitled to recover from you damages and possibly a contribution towards the legal costs if you choose to instruct lawyers. If GEIL secures a judgment, and in the event that you were not able to pay whatever sums the court may order you to pay, we would have no option but to take steps to enforce the debt against you.

Proposed Settlement

GEIL is prepared to give you the opportunity to avoid legal action by proposing a settlement offer, the details of which are set out below. Our offer to resolve the claim against you is intended, on this occasion, to focus your attention on the potentially serious consequences of your actions (or inaction, by permitting a third party to use your internet connection). We also trust that these actions will not be repeated. Our offer is that you:

1. promise in a written undertaking not to upload, download, make available or otherwise share the Work or any of GEIL works (or other intellectual property) and/or permit others to do the same using your internet connection, at any time in the future, either from the above IP address or any other;

2. agree to delete any copies of the Work (and any other intellectual property of GEIL from your hard drive and/or operating system and/or any copies saved to disk (or other media), other than those that were purchased by you from a legitimate source; and

3. pay £700.00 as compensation to GEIL for its losses.

Next Steps – payment and undertakings

You can provide the undertaking (referred to at 1 and 2 above) by signing the written undertakings enclosed with this letter and returning them to us, together with your payment, using the attached payment form. Payment must be made either by cheque, bank transfer, credit card or debit card. No other form of payment will be accepted.

Alternatively you can make payment or speak to a member of our Copyright Infringement Department on 0871 990 6500 or pay online at www.goldeneyeint.com.

For the avoidance of doubt, these undertakings will represent an agreement between you and GEIL and if you act in breach of that agreement, we will have no option but to take further action against you. In accordance with the Code, a response is required as soon as reasonably possible. We consider 14 days to be a reasonable period. Accordingly, if this matter is to settle, the payment and undertakings must be made and received by us within 14 days of receipt of this letter.

In the event that either the payment or undertakings are not received within fourteen days of the date of this letter, GEIL reserves the right to take further action which could include commencement of proceedings and possibly an application to your ISP to slow down or terminate your internet connection.

Legal Advice

If you are in any doubt about the contents of this letter and its seriousness, we would recommend that you seek legal advice as a matter of urgency. All submissions from you must be in writing. You may also contact us by email at info@goldeneyeint.com (quoting the reference at the top of this letter) or by fax on 0871 990 6510.

Yours faithfully

Copyright Infringement Department

Golden Eye (International) Limited"
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: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Countalucard » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:24 pm

Just when you thought it was all over.

I'm going to ring up O2 tomorrow and tell them why my mobile and broadband won't be with them again. Maybe if enough people do that O2 will start to behave with a semblance of decency.

Does anyone have any tips on persuading them to let me out of their contract early?
Countalucard
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:29 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby hardrockcakes » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:34 pm

Add another to the "annoyed with 02" club.

I have influence with at least one account holder who will not be renewing over their spineless display.

If anyone finds a way of complaining so they are released from their contract, please do post and advise others. (Unlikely, but you never know)

From the Consumer Focus blog, it seems clear it was the High Court not 02 who asked for CF to look over the case. It appears the court itself was uncomfortable that no one was making any attempt to put forward the interests of the subscribers who will be dragged into this. This is quite incredible considering the drop in 02 subscribers due to the faster BT Fibre and Virgin services means they should be fighting harder for their remaining customers.

Sadly all 02 customers, despite maybe never knowing the rubbish produced by goldeneye, may have a fear they will get pulled into another ACSLaw fiasco because of IP mismatches, questionable info gathering etc.

I hope the helpful community here and others like "beingthreatened" will be updating th ere links to highlight this new menace and give any innocent victims the support they need.

This might appear worse than it really is as Hickster has pointed out. There do seem to be some positives, most of which have been highlighted here and at Consumer Focus.

The one that stands out from my quick read was that a condition of the order will be that any future court battle must be undertaken at the Patent Courts. Have I got this wrong or would that mean they would have to go up against the knowledgable Judge Birss? Also didn't they already pull out of a previous hearing that was switched to that court?
hardrockcakes
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby MrFredPFL » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:16 pm

welcome to slyck, cakes. i too hope that our community will continue to keep the public apprised of the sleaze these people try to pass off as something that doesn't smell like a septic tank.

it has occurred to me that it might be time to start a new thread or threads. how does everyone feel about that?
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15773
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Renegade » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:43 pm

Definitely a good plan :)
Renegade
 
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 12:37 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Hickster » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:18 pm

MrFredPFL wrote:welcome to slyck, cakes. i too hope that our community will continue to keep the public apprised of the sleaze these people try to pass off as something that doesn't smell like a septic tank.

it has occurred to me that it might be time to start a new thread or threads. how does everyone feel about that?


I think that is a great ides, although leave a link to this thread at the top. There is some GREAT info on this thread and it is the root of the issue these people will be facing.

It would be good however to tackle a new threat with a a new thread!

I will be updating my Blog soon, with a focus on how much a disgrace O2 have been in this. And no I dont see this as being any different from what we have seen before, just an attempted refining of the scheme.
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: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:28 pm

hardrockcakes wrote:Add another to the "annoyed with 02" club.

I have influence with at least one account holder who will not be renewing over their spineless display.

If anyone finds a way of complaining so they are released from their contract, please do post and advise others. (Unlikely, but you never know)

From the Consumer Focus blog, it seems clear it was the High Court not 02 who asked for CF to look over the case. It appears the court itself was uncomfortable that no one was making any attempt to put forward the interests of the subscribers who will be dragged into this. This is quite incredible considering the drop in 02 subscribers due to the faster BT Fibre and Virgin services means they should be fighting harder for their remaining customers.

Sadly all 02 customers, despite maybe never knowing the rubbish produced by goldeneye, may have a fear they will get pulled into another ACSLaw fiasco because of IP mismatches, questionable info gathering etc.

I hope the helpful community here and others like "beingthreatened" will be updating th ere links to highlight this new menace and give any innocent victims the support they need.

This might appear worse than it really is as Hickster has pointed out. There do seem to be some positives, most of which have been highlighted here and at Consumer Focus.

The one that stands out from my quick read was that a condition of the order will be that any future court battle must be undertaken at the Patent Courts. Have I got this wrong or would that mean they would have to go up against the knowledgable Judge Birss? Also didn't they already pull out of a previous hearing that was switched to that court?


From the bit about O2 wanting pre-payments into an escrow account for disclosure, you can see where their priorities are.

As to the cases in the Patents County Court.

The Civil Procedure Rules stipulate that copyright claims may only be issued in the Chancery Division (of the High court), a County Court that has a Chancery District Registry, or the Patents County Court. The claims in question were all issued at Northampton County Court - which has no Chancery District Registry - and at least two of them were issued using Money Claim on Line - which, apart from not meeting the court criteria, is also unsuitable for this type of claim. In the circumstances, and given these were all in the SE circuit, it was inevitable they would end up in the PCC.

In differing circumstances, GEIL discontinued the claims. One they got away with, one they had progressed to default judgment which was set aside, and in the third the defendant objected to discontinuance without joining the copyright owner. In the second two cases, they did join the owner and discontinue. There is at least one other case where they got default judgment which is thought to have been set aside followed by discontinuance.

There is one resident judge in the Patents County Court, and that is HHJ Birss QC, although some recent hearings have been before a recorder whose name is Amanda Michaels.

Quite honestly, it remains to be seen whether the financial viability of what they are up to was relying on doing work for the other twelve copyright owners and so it will be interesting to see what happens at the next hearing which will precede an order and which is not likely to be before June.

The Consumer Focus report is at
http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/news/hi ... fringement
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby ACS SORE » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:51 pm

Hi guys. Been off the site for a while. See Golden Eye has been about as successful as ACS. Just wondering if anyone knows what Andy is up to these days. All very quiet.
ACS SORE
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:17 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Torrent Download Court Action Threat/Settlement Letter Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com