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 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:39 am

para 134: "I appreciate that it may not be cost-effective for disclosure to be pursued if the Intended Defendant is unwilling to cooperate, but I do not consider that that justifies demanding an arbitrary figure from all the Intended Defendants in the letter of claim.'

How many recipients of the LoCs who really have infringed are going to admit that and go thru disclosure by themselves, let alone hire a lawyer to handle the disclosure.

Looks like a case of GEIL getting a lot of 'bare denials' which may make the exercise uneconomical, especially if they know they can't get away with writing harassing follow up letters like Crossley did, claiming 'one way or another, you are liable.'
Last edited by concerned100 on Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

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

Postby factual » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:03 am

Mullard47 wrote: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.


I knew that name rang a bell.

From an ACS:Law 'statement' back in the day:

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.


It's a small world.
factual
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:13 pm

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

Postby StripeyMiata » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:13 am

Telegraph reporting that O2 fought the case - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/b ... aders.html

I've corrected them in the comments, you can see what I look like now :)

Edit: This is my email sent to O2, you are only allowed 1500 Characters to had to be brief. I'll let you know what they say.

"Yesterday there was a ruling in GOLDEN EYE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED
Vs TELEFÓNICA UK LIMITED, more details at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/723.html

I'm just writing to complain that O2 did not fight and indeed never turned up in court on behalf of their customer for what I believe is just another speculative invoicing scam and I shall be leaving because of this as soon as my contract is up."
StripeyMiata
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:20 pm

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

Postby Hickster » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:27 am

@Factual

Even smaller world is that Guy Tritton also works at ..... Hogarth Chambers.

Small and STRANGE world!
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 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:06 am

StripeyMiata wrote:Telegraph reporting that O2 fought the case - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/b ... aders.html

I've corrected them in the comments, you can see what I look like now :)

Edit: This is my email sent to O2, you are only allowed 1500 Characters to had to be brief. I'll let you know what they say.

"Yesterday there was a ruling in GOLDEN EYE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED
Vs TELEFÓNICA UK LIMITED, more details at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/723.html

I'm just writing to complain that O2 did not fight and indeed never turned up in court on behalf of their customer for what I believe is just another speculative invoicing scam and I shall be leaving because of this as soon as my contract is up."


I think they are wrong on the numbers. My reading of the judgment is that the 9124 related to all thirteen parties, and not just the BDP ones.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

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

Postby Mullard47 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:21 am

factual wrote:
Mullard47 wrote: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.


I knew that name rang a bell.

From an ACS:Law 'statement' back in the day:

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.


It's a small world.


It is a small world.

And to continue the deja vu theme, I note that one of the applicants in the case is a company called RP Films Ltd. I have never heard of them before, but when you look on the Companies House web site, an application for voluntary strike off was made for them on 20th January 2012. A company at that stage should not be indulging in High Court actions, and that striking off should be suspended.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

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

Postby Hickster » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:23 am

O2 sells out it’s customers to Pornograph​er WITHOUT a fight
http://acsbore.wordpress.com/2012/03/27 ... t-a-fight/

Sorry, just got fed up of all this BS about O2 "fighting" the order.
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 hardrockcakes » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:53 am

Mullard47 wrote:From the bit about O2 wanting pre-payments into an escrow account for disclosure, you can see where their priorities are.


Thanks for the answer to my Patent County Courts question. At least Judge Birss seems level headed and isn't afraid to go after those he thinks are abusing the letter of law to an unfair advantage.

My feeling is GEIL have been and rightly should be wary of him tearing a hole through the techinical merits of IP address determining an actual individual, not to mention the natural rate of errors etc.

I also can't help feeling that alot of GEIL's plan rested on using the cheaper and less techincal small claims system, with sheer weight of numbers pushed through this to maintain profit on the venture.

Regarding O2, I do appear to have been wrong in my assumption that they seemed to have learnt nothing from the ACSLAW situation last year.

It is clear they have - They are asking for safe money upfront before they start processing the IP addresses at £2+ a time.

They clearly learnt from Sky's error, that if you are going to sell out your customers without a fight to protect them, get the promised silver first. You don't want the situation where your customers details have been clumsly leaked online and the fallout from it when all you have to show for it is the unpaid invoices for your work as the outfit you chose not to contest files for bankruptcy.

Slow hand clap for O2.

I don't care if you offer 12 months free broadband next time, the accounts I care for will be moving away from O2. I DO care what my people think, and I will not even take a 1% chance their details will be handed to a pornographer or worse for a few pounds.

UPDATE - Found todays announcement of massive stamp price rises from the end of april quite funny. A week ago it would have been one of natural annoyance, but now I can't get out of my mind how much extra this is going to cost GEIL. So thanks for the laugh Ben Dover.
hardrockcakes
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:05 pm

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

Postby concerned100 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:06 am

GEIL may also have counted on saving money by not using solicitors for the letter writing campaign i.e. sending the letter in their own name and dealing with recipients themselves. This obviously avoids scrutiny by/complaints to the SRA and they probably hoped the Court wouldn't edit the letter of claim which is virtually word for word TBI, with the 'you're liable one way or another' provision, and the 'one price for all' damages.

Counsel for GEIL may have pointed out that this case differs from Mediacat in that no solicitor/Crossley is involved in the letter writing, but that wouldn't stop GEIL from trying to do exactly what Crossley did with a TBI worded letter and a call centre telling people that they ought to pay up, further harassment follow up letters etc.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

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

Postby hardrockcakes » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:25 am

concerned100 wrote:GEIL may also have counted on saving money by not using solicitors for the letter writing campaign i.e. sending the letter in their own name and dealing with recipients themselves. This obviously avoids scrutiny by/complaints to the SRA and they probably hoped the Court wouldn't edit the letter of claim which is virtually word for word TBI, with the 'you're liable one way or another' provision, and the 'one price for all' damages.

Counsel for GEIL may have pointed out that this case differs from Mediacat in that no solicitor/Crossley is involved in the letter writing, but that wouldn't stop GEIL from trying to do exactly what Crossley did with a TBI worded letter and a call centre telling people that they ought to pay up, further harassment follow up letters etc.


True.

If I had a wish on things as they stand, I would wish that Justice Arnold would lay some type of foundation to stop unfair harrassment from occuring.

Something along the lines of if the the defendant clearly states they did not commit or authorise the said infingment and indicates the same position in a second communication, that the accuser must accept this as a final postion and then decide to press forward in court or not from this.

Even better worded letters can be harrassment if the accuser sends one each month because they dont like the defendants response and they have no desire to go to a judge.

I hope this type of event can be stopped by Consumer Focus.
hardrockcakes
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:05 pm

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

Postby DukePPUk » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:33 am

Typical, I take a day off and miss a major judgment. So, a few points from me (some may be covered above):

Firstly, the judgment makes it clear O2 weren't remotely interested in fighting this, and were happy to go along with a scheme that was "tantamount to ... the sale of the Intended Defendants' privacy and data protection rights to the highest bidder." [146] The only reason Consumer Focus was involved was that Arnold J invited them (over Golden Eye's objections - go Arnold J!).

Golden Eye seemed reluctant (strangely enough) to provide any details of their "tracking service", or any evidence of their claims. However, it seems they used a service run by Alireza Torabi (who works for NG3, according to LinkedIn) called xTrack or Transmission. The system was "tested" by Clement Vogler, who seems to have admitted that he had no idea how it worked. [26]

Interestingly, this time the trackers were paid by the hour (suggestions that in the MediaCAT cases, they were paid a percentage, which could be illegal); which seems to support my suspicious that the whole DEA letter-writing campaign will end up effectively being a scam run tracking services to get paid for providing a useless system to copyright owners.

As mentioned above, O2 will be paid £2500, plus £2.20 per IP address, plus any reasonable costs not covered by that. [33]

There appears to have been a bit of an argument between Dr Richard Clayton (Consumer Focus's technical expert) and Golden Eye as to their evidence, but it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. [101-106]

The judge notes that £700 is a stupid amount to claim (both at [110] and then fully around [131]). Consumer Focus argued that it was stupidly high (which it certainly is), suggesting £70 (which I still think is way to high in most cases), but Arnold J pointed out that there should be no flat fee, and each case should be settled on an individual basis, based on evidence gathered.

The judge heavily criticises the proposed draft letter on seven separate grounds (other than the number), covering a range of issues. [123-130]

Finally, he allowed only the claims with respect to Ben Dover and GoldenEye [145], not all the other claimants [146], so those 9,000+ data points could only result in 1,000 or so defendants; although that's still 999 too many for a test case.

So, the thing people need to do now is start warning O2 customers that these letters might be coming, and that they should be prepared and ready to fight (if they wish to).
DukePPUk
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:45 am

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

Postby rammie » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:02 am

So I guess I am going to start all the worry again now? Nearly 2 years ago I received a letter from GoldenEye claiming I had downloaded movies, which I sent them a recorded denial and never heard anything since. I am guessing they will re-visit all the old ones they tried harrasing now? or can they given the time gone by since 1st letter and my response that they never followed up?
Thanks in advance guys and thanks for past information that helped one worried person at that time.
rammie
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:18 am

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

Postby Countalucard » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:07 pm

Well I tried to get out of my O2 contracts for bb and mobile today.

No surprise that as I am not directly affected (to the best of my knowledge) they are refusing to let me out early.

To be fair I can't blame them as I am leaving O2, the only matter up for debate is when.

Nonetheless I will be writing to the CEO and making it very clear as to why I am leaving.

Can I suggest that everyone who is moving away from O2 does the same.

Hopefully we can cost them more than the £22k that they would have gotten from GEIL in lost custom.

Not a lot of consolation but it would appear to be the only way that they will learn to support their customers rather than selling them out at the first opportunity.
Countalucard
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:29 am

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

Postby StripeyMiata » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:16 pm

OK< posted this at

http://forum.o2.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=73734

If like myself you are an O2 Broadband Customer, you may be interested to hear that O2 lost a court case yesterday and have to hand over customer details to a porn company. Well, when I lost O2 disappointedly never even fought the case, they instructed their solicitors not to turn up.

More details at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/b ... aders.html

Court Ruling is at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/723.html

If your details are given to this company and you recieve a letter and are innocent, I recommend visiting http://acsbore.wordpress.com/ or viewtopic.p ... tart=17225 for how to fight it.



In case the moderators delete it.

Edited to change the tone a bit down.
Last edited by StripeyMiata on Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
StripeyMiata
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:20 pm

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

Postby StripeyMiata » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:17 pm

Countalucard wrote:Well I tried to get out of my O2 contracts for bb and mobile today.

No surprise that as I am not directly affected (to the best of my knowledge) they are refusing to let me out early.


Did they have any idea what you were referring to?
StripeyMiata
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:20 pm

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

Postby Countalucard » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:25 pm

Strangely enough no.

I would have thought that there was more than just me ringing to cancel but the lady I spoke to had no knowledge what so ever of the issue.
Countalucard
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:29 am

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

Postby StripeyMiata » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:58 pm

Well, it only really starting hitting the main stream media today, so give it time.

BBC website now has it up.
StripeyMiata
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:20 pm

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

Postby concerned100 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:49 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17525349

This article implies that o2 fought the npo which isn't accurate.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

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

Postby StripeyMiata » Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:53 pm

Hickster and I have both twitted Dan about this so waiting to see if he replies I guess.
StripeyMiata
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:20 pm

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

Postby Hickster » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:51 pm

Image

If anyone would like to improve this I would love to see it! I am not good with logos.

@concerned100

That is why I posted the post on my Blog, to combat this BS

@StripeyMiata

We will indeed see if DanW comments on his faux pas

Anyway off to bed! see you all soon!
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 concerned100 » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:31 am

It's early days as the Court hasn't published the revised LoC.

But once GEIL starts sending out letters, it would be useful for people who get them and have never heard of speculative invoicing or ACS Law, to have a one stop shop like Beingthreatened, explaining the background, legal basis of claim and defences. Plus a guide as to what to do next, how to respond (draft template letters maybe not a good idea) who to complain to if unreasonably pursued after initial LoD (Which? Consumer Focus?). Beingthreatened is still relevant but won't correspond exactly for people who get a letter from GEIL, not solicitors, and have no idea what to do, maybe phone the GEIL number given the the loc, get frightened by what they say, and consider paying to make it all go away. That's assuming they're not liable of course.

Even the revised loc with its formal wording and Court order will be pretty opaque for a lot of people who have no idea of the background. E.g. will changing 'permitting' to 'authorising' really help or will people just assume that somehow they are being held liable even if they haven't uploaded any works themselves.

And of course the first thing that should come up in a Google search for these people should be the Hickster Blog/Beingthreatened equivalent.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

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

Postby JustInterested » Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:07 am

Hickster do you have a page on your Blog dedicated to Alireza Torabi of NG3?

He is the backbone of these scams after all. Without his monitoring system (Xtrack), that hasn't been tested by any real-world expert, they can't carry out these scams.

He has a linkedin presence here where you can get his mugshot: http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/alireza-torabi/25/888/a33

It even says he was the network manager for DL! Now who could that be I wonder?
Last edited by JustInterested on Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
JustInterested
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:46 am

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

Postby JustInterested » Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:13 am

concerned100 wrote:It's early days as the Court hasn't published the revised LoC.

But once GEIL starts sending out letters, it would be useful for people who get them and have never heard of speculative invoicing or ACS Law, to have a one stop shop like Beingthreatened, explaining the background, legal basis of claim and defences. Plus a guide as to what to do next, how to respond (draft template letters maybe not a good idea) who to complain to if unreasonably pursued after initial LoD (Which? Consumer Focus?). Beingthreatened is still relevant but won't correspond exactly for people who get a letter from GEIL, not solicitors, and have no idea what to do, maybe phone the GEIL number given the the loc, get frightened by what they say, and consider paying to make it all go away. That's assuming they're not liable of course.

Even the revised loc with its formal wording and Court order will be pretty opaque for a lot of people who have no idea of the background. E.g. will changing 'permitting' to 'authorising' really help or will people just assume that somehow they are being held liable even if they haven't uploaded any works themselves.

And of course the first thing that should come up in a Google search for these people should be the Hickster Blog/Beingthreatened equivalent.


I don't see this one as being in the same league as the other scamsters.

If you read through the judgement it's clear that there will be far more controls on this one than there were on the others. Also it seems clear that a bare denial will suffice in cutting them dead.

The only ones who may be at risk are the people who are completely unaware of such scams and unfortunately there just may be enough of them to make it worth GEIL's while continuing.
JustInterested
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:46 am

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

Postby Mullard47 » Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:59 am

JustInterested wrote:Hickster do you have a page on your Blog dedicated to Alireza Torabi of NG3?

He is the backbone of these scams after all. Without his monitoring system (Xtrack), that hasn't been tested by any real-world expert, they can't carry out these scams.

He has a linkedin presence here where you can get his mugshot: http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/alireza-torabi/25/888/a33

It even says he was the network manager for DL! Now who could that be I wonder?


NG3 refers to NG3 Systems Ltd. which appears to be a shell company with a what is probably a virtual office address in London. You can find out more about NG3 HERE.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

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

Postby JustInterested » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:09 am

Mullard47 wrote:
JustInterested wrote:Hickster do you have a page on your Blog dedicated to Alireza Torabi of NG3?

He is the backbone of these scams after all. Without his monitoring system (Xtrack), that hasn't been tested by any real-world expert, they can't carry out these scams.

He has a linkedin presence here where you can get his mugshot: http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/alireza-torabi/25/888/a33

It even says he was the network manager for DL! Now who could that be I wonder?


NG3 refers to NG3 Systems Ltd. which appears to be a shell company with a what is probably a virtual office address in London. You can find out more about NG3 HERE.


Yes I'm well aware of who and what NG3 is Mullard.

I was merely asking if Hickster had devoted any pages on his blog to Ali, in particular, as he is essentially a driving force, by virtue of his Xtrack software, behind these scams.
JustInterested
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:46 am

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