Discussion thread created. Here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?455533-GoldenEye-2015-threatograms-discussion-thread

To the op

Can we please see the letter

Dx

Lots of odd posts above, I have a keen interest in this so Ill add my views.

1. As with parking charges for overstaying and RLP claims it would appear to me that the claimant in these cases does have at least SOME legitimate right for damages for the loss he has incurred, we could of course argue that its the cost of one DVD in this case (£20), but as weve seen in Beavis, the supreme court can and does make judgements that surprise everyone, in Beavis they DID allow damages that are far higher than any actual loss.

2. The Norwich Pharmeucitical process has been discussed at length before and it appears quite simple for a party to obtain name and address information of BILLPAYERS relating to IP addresses (In one recent story though, it is claimed the downloads were in 2013 but the IP data is recent, it is quite likely that the IP in 2013 may relate to someone different in 2015, it certainly would in a standard DHCP setup).

3. In the ACS Law case there were many people who claimed that they did not download the films in question, some clearly lied but others had a very good defence (i.e elderly couples who had no knowledge of bit torrent sites let alone how to use one).

4. IP addresses can be incorrect, the system used by these companies to harvest IP address has been proved in some tests to show errors, after all a single digit is of the utmost importance here.

5. An IP address identifies the bill payer NOT the downloader, problems would arise if there were multiple people using same connection, a shared house, a bedsit, college, workplace, unsecured or hacked routers, etc

6. In ACS Law it wasnt clear who the actual copyright owner was and whether the claimant had an actual right to start the action, the Judge thought not, this is why ACS Law then attempted to discontinue the action.

7. The previous attempt by ACS Law ended up with them and Mr Crossely being hacked by Anonymous, their entire unencrypted emails being leaked onto the internet (I have them and they are worth a read !), being fined by the ICO and then Mr Crossley fined and banned by the SRA, ACS Law went bankrupt, it would be a brave/foolish person to attempt legal action again.

I have a keen interest in this so Ill add my views.

1. As with parking charges for overstaying and RLP claims it would appear to me that the claimant in these cases does have at least SOME legitimate right for damages for the loss he has incurred, we could of course argue that its the cost of one DVD in this case (£20), but as weve seen in Beavis, the supreme court can and does make judgements that surprise everyone, in Beavis they DID allow damages that are far higher than any actual loss.

2. The Norwich Pharmeucitical process has been discussed at length before and it appears quite simple for a party to obtain name and address information of BILLPAYERS relating to IP addresses (In one recent story though, it is claimed the downloads were in 2013 but the IP data is recent, it is quite likely that the IP in 2013 may relate to someone different in 2015, it certainly would in a standard DHCP setup).

3. In the ACS Law case there were many people who claimed that they did not download the films in question, some clearly lied but others had a very good defence (i.e elderly couples who had no knowledge of bit torrent sites let alone how to use one).

4. IP addresses can be incorrect, the system used by these companies to harvest IP address has been proved in some tests to show errors, after all a single digit is of the utmost importance here.

5. An IP address identifies the bill payer NOT the downloader, problems would arise if there were multiple people using same connection, a shared house, a bedsit, college, workplace, unsecured or hacked routers, etc

6. In ACS Law it wasnt clear who the actual copyright owner was and whether the claimant had an actual right to start the action, the Judge thought not, this is why ACS Law then attempted to discontinue the action.

7. The previous attempt by ACS Law ended up with them and Mr Crossely being hacked by Anonymous, their entire unencrypted emails being leaked onto the internet (I have them and they are worth a read !), being fined by the ICO and then Mr Crossley fined and banned by the SRA, ACS Law went bankrupt, it would be a brave/foolish person to attempt legal action again.

Ha. This link about sums it up..

http://goldeneyeint.com/your_case.jsp

What a pathetic website. It even looks amateurish.

Perhaps they threw it together overnight to make them look legit. FAIL!

The other issue is whether buying the copyright allows you to take action for breach of the copyright, which happened before the copyright purchase took place. It is not the same as buying a consumer credit debt, where there is a contract with terms and conditions. A debt can be sold on and the new owner of the debts has rights in line with the original contracts t&c's.

If the original copyright holder did not take action near the time of the infringement, what right has a new owner to take action ? A prospective copyright owner could look at a torrent download site, look at the files downloaded to see what has been popular and then look to purchase the copyright, purely to take forward legal action to make money. It is possible the courts may not like this type of action.

Have a read here:

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/copyright/the-internet-filesharing-and-copyright/if-you-re-accused-of-online-copyright-infringement/

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/consumer/copyright/the-internet-filesharing-and-copyright/what-to-do-if-you-re-accused-of-copyright-infringement-s/

You can admit the claim, deny it, or ask for more information before making a full response. You need to write back to Golden Eye and not Sky. If the letter does not have details of the work in question and the exact date and time you were alleged to have downloaded it, you should write to ask for these details. If they cannot provide them, they have no right to claim a settlement or damages from you. If it does show these details, check whether you can prove you were not at home when the downloads happened. There may be other people using your internet connection, and you are not responsible for what they download. Bear in mind that they need to be able to prove that it's you who downloaded films illegally. If they can't do that, they cannot sensibly take you to court.

What a pathetic website. It even looks amateurish.

 

Perhaps they threw it together overnight to make them look legit. FAIL!

Yes I'd refer a Judge to it as it does question their technical ability to track down the correct 'offenders'.

Have a read here:

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/copyright/the-internet-filesharing-and-copyright/if-you-re-accused-of-online-copyright-infringement/

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/consumer/copyright/the-internet-filesharing-and-copyright/what-to-do-if-you-re-accused-of-copyright-infringement-s/

 

You can admit the claim, deny it, or ask for more information before making a full response. You need to write back to Golden Eye and not Sky. If the letter does not have details of the work in question and the exact date and time you were alleged to have downloaded it, you should write to ask for these details. If they cannot provide them, they have no right to claim a settlement or damages from you. If it does show these details, check whether you can prove you were not at home when the downloads happened. There may be other people using your internet connection, and you are not responsible for what they download. Bear in mind that they need to be able to prove that it's you who downloaded films illegally. If they can't do that, they cannot sensibly take you to court.

A previous story did say alleged downloading was in 2013 so this adds further complications.

If Goldeneye are threatening to pursue a claim through MCOL, then it should be challenged on the grounds that the Patents County Court is the proper place for copyright claims. If Judge Birss is in the chair, Goldeneye can expect another stiff reprimand. See: Golden Eye (International) Ltd v Mr Mohamed Maricar and Golden Eye (International) Ltd v Mrs D Vithlani* (Judge Birss; [2011] EWPCC 27; 23.09.11)

Then of course, there is the Appeal Court case where Goldeneye were seeking an NPO back in 2012: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1740.html

The judge was also critical of Goldeneye's proposals for pursuing alleged infringements:

1. The other aspect of the letter which had to be considered was the claim for a payment of £700. This was criticised by counsel for Consumer Focus as excessive. The judge agreed. He said that the scale of the infringements appeared to be largely unknown and could not be quantified without further disclosure. There was therefore no established basis for a claim for substantial or additional damages. The figure quoted was arbitrary. The judge said:
   
   "138. Accordingly, I do not consider that the Claimants are justified in sending letters of claim to every Intended Defendant demanding the payment of £700. What the Claimants ought to do is to proceed in the conventional manner, that is to say, to require the Intended Defendants who do not dispute liability to disclose such information as they are able to provide as to the extent to which they have engaged in P2P filesharing of the relevant Claimants' copyright works. 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."

   
   

Goldeneye are even hosting on a shared box with around 600 different sites, and also have their whois info protected by a privacy service. Looking a bit deeper, it seems they could be a shady setup, exactly like RLP are.

We need to be more like the Australian courts - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-33923482