Golden Eye (International) Ltd - We have a troll trying on for the third time!

[rhino666]

Is there anyway of getting confirmation of this:

Golden Eye would only be granted access to data in relation to Ben Dover Production films, not the titles by twelve other production companies that Golden Eye were acting on behalf

[steampowered]

Hi rhino666

 

From examining the judgment at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1740.html, it looks like that wiki extract is out of date. It describes the High Court decision; but that part of the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal (see paragraph 28). The CoA extended the order for disclosure of IP addresses granted by the High Court to the other production companies.

 

The judgment mentions "Golden Eye intended to send letters of claim to up to 9,124 Intended Defendants". The CoA granted the order GE were asking for. I imagine several thousand others received exactly the same letter. Of course they have no real evidence of anything, just a list of IP addresses.

 

My guess is that Golden Eye will pick some poor sod from the thousands they will be writing to and try to use him as a test case. They are likely to pick the easiest claim they can find, probably someone who responds to the letter foolishly admitting copyright infringement.

 

Personally I would be inclined to respond stating that (1) you have no knowledge or recollection of downloading or uploading the films in question, (2) stating that you do not have and cannot recall having any copies of the films on your hard-drive, (3) stating that any unlawful conduct is denied, (4) stating that you expect to be provided with details of any evidence against you before a claim is issued in accordance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

[rhino666]

Thank you.

[citizenB]

Excellent advice from steampowered - Rhino, please keep us updated

[rhino666]

I will don't worry.

[unclebulgaria67]

Wise advice given.

 

I suspect that any test case will target single occupant households with secure internet connections.

 

The problem however would be to prove that the owner of the IP address was the person responsible.

Who is to say that they did not have friends visiting their address who used their internet on a given date several years ago.

 

It would be very difficult for someone to remember a few hours on a day several years ago.

 

The law as it currently exists does not appear to allow the owner of an IP address to be made responsible for a copyright infringement,

only a person or company who is proved to be responsible.

 

When ACS went to court, the judge who was very clued up about the law,

was scathing about the way they were trying to proceed and that there was not much chance of success with current laws.

 

I think there was some suggestion that only a change in law by parliament to make IP address owners responsible for copyright infringement,

would enable them to recover relevant sums.

[seanamarts]

When ACS went to court, the judge who was very clued up about the law, was scathing about the way they were trying to proceed and that there was not much chance of success with current laws. I think there was some suggestion that only a change in law by parliament to make IP address owners responsible for copyright infringement, would enable them to recover relevant sums.

I really cant see that happening though, not in the near future anyway. It is too easy for some that can hack into some ones secure network. The only real proof would be to have the hard drive looked at, by the time a warrant is issued to seize it, the hard drive could be long gone.

[rhino666]

Exactly!

[rhino666]

I've just done a google search on "breaking into WI-FI" and it appears there's 100's of easy ways of doing this not to mention tutorials on youtube!!!

plus some of the software to do this is free.

Its madness of them to think everyone wants their crass low budget videos using software that can found on the internet with tutorials the encourage wi-fi break in.

Edited August 12, 2013 by rhino666

[panther12]

Give me a while and I'll try dig out some useful stuff for you to use. I helped my brother in the ACS case and prepared a statement for the solicitors acting for the SRA which was used in court to help put the final nail in ACS coffin. I'll have a look through the old files I have.

[rhino666]

Give me a while and I'll try dig out some useful stuff for you to use. I helped my brother in the ACS case and prepared a statement for the solicitors acting for the SRA which was used in court to help put the final nail in ACS coffin. I'll have a look through the old files I have.

Thank you.

[panther12]

This is the letter of denial we sent to ACS. I havn't read in detail the letter you got so edit this to suit and I'm sure you won't here any more. They go after the soft targets (like bullies) so will drop this one like a sack of ****e.

 

Dear Sirs

 

Your Client: Andres Gunnar Ballinas-Olsson, Manuel Reuter, Yann Peifer

Alleged Infringement of Copyright

 

This is my denial to your Letter of Claim dated 15th October 2010 which alleges that my internet connection was used in an infringement of copyright in relation to a musical work sold under the name “Fever” (“the Work”). You allege this occurred on 21/05/2010 allegedly via a peer to peer network.

 

I deny any offence under section 16(1)(d) and section 20 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the “Act”). I have not copied the Work in any format. Furthermore, I have not authorised anyone else to distribute the Work using my internet connection, or any other format. You have not provided any evidence that I either directly infringed the copyright or authorised someone else to do so. All your assertions against me are in relation to an internet connection i.e. an I.P address, which you allege to be mine. I note that you have not personally accused me of the alleged infringement, if you wish to take this claim further, then under the law you need to prove I directly infringed the copyright or authorised someone else to do so. If this is what you allege then please provide evidence in support of your contentions.

 

In accordance with the Code of Practice for Pre-action Conduct in Intellectual Property Disputes (the Code of Practice) I will set out why I deny your allegations. You have failed to supply any evidence in support of a valid claim under the Act. You have simply asserted that an infringement took place. You have not provided any evidence that it was I who infringed the copyright or authorised someone else to do so. I deny that I copied the Work or distributed it or authorised anyone else to do so.

 

If an infringement occurred through my internet connection, (and you have provided no evidence to support such an allegation) then under what statute or Common Law principle do you hold me responsible, when as stated above, I did not directly infringe the copyright in the Work, or authorised anyone to do so. I argue that you have no basis in law for such a claim.

 

If you are intent on pursuing this claim then I invite you to disclose any expert evidence you have in support of your contention that the stated IP address was used to carry out the alleged infringement act (the one page Statement Report is not of course expert evidence). You refer to “forensic I.T experts”, although you have not produced any expert evidence from them that would comply with Part 35 of the CPR. If you have any such evidence then I invite you to disclose the same. Please also confirm the relationship between your “forensic I.T expert” and your client.

 

Please also disclose any documents you have received from my ISP relating to the IP address referred to in your letter of claim.

 

Furthermore, you claim that your letter is in line with the Code of Practice. However, I would like to point out to you that in your last paragraph you state “This letter complies with the Code of Practice for Pre-Action Conduct in Intellectual Property Disputes (January 2004), a copy of which is available on our website”. This does not comply with the requirement of the Code of Practice. I refer you to clause 3.2(b) of the Code of Practice which states “unless the letter is being sent to the legal advisor of the defendant, enclose a copy of this Code”. You sent the letter directly to me, and you did not include a copy of the Code of Practice. Furthermore, the copy of the Code of Practice is not readily accessible on your website.

 

Please provide information on what funding arrangements you have with your client in relation to this matter, as prescribed by clause 3.2(e) of the Code of Practice.

 

Your claim is wholly rejected. If you intend to take this matter further then please provide the evidence I have requested within the next 21 days.

 

Yours faithfully

[panther12]

What a bunch of chancers. I do like the bit where they say: "Once your response to this letter is received, Geil and HF will be prepared if we believe that you have behaved unlawfully to give you the opportunity to avoid legal action by proposing a settlement out of court."

 

Me personally I would go with the Arkell response:

I note that Geil and HF's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of my reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform me what Geil and HF's attitude to damages would be, were it to learn that the nature of my reply is as follows: **** OFF!

[rhino666]

Brilliant and thank you so much.

[Grotesque]

...Arkell v Pressdram. Classic response.

[rhino666]

The thing is there's lots of software ( some free ) out there that allows people to hack into Wifi and tutorials on Youtube on how to do it. Nothing digital is secure anymore. If people can break into the pentagon then cracking some mass produce, and overused consumer password system isn't going to be hard.

 

They might as well go after anyone with a Yale lock key!!!

[Grotesque]

Those are good points, but being new technology, needs to be tested in Court and case law built up.

[renegadeimp]

The thing is there's lots of software ( some free ) out there that allows people to hack into Wifi and tutorials on Youtube on how to do it. Nothing digital is secure anymore. If people can break into the pentagon then cracking some mass produce, and overused consumer password system isn't going to be hard.

 

They might as well go after anyone with a Yale lock key!!!

 

The people who go after the pentagons level of security wont be interested in consumer grade stuff.

[rhino666]

My point being if its possible to get to security of that level then getting round a noddy o2/SKY/BT box isn't going to be hard.

I remember watching a TV program about how easy it is to break into wi-fi quite a few years ago.

[Grotesque]

Imagine some bloke sitting in a car down the road being able to thumb through your porn collection!!!

[rhino666]

Doesn't have to be some bloke , could be next door, and someone passing by if they willing to stay there long enough. The technology for this hasn't moved in years. It's old and vulnerable!

[Grotesque]

On a serious note, it's a fair point that, as I said above, probably hasn't been tested legally yet.

[bernard wallace]

Maybe it is time that we all struck back against the Empire. The Empire of course being the Entertainment Industry.The draconian statutes that have been passed into Copyright Law are all products of the US film and entertainment industry in their attempt to protect their intellectual property. These laws are now being used to frighten and persecute ordinary folk rather than actively pursue the real pirates.

 

This may not have been the original intention of the lobbyists who persuaded the various representatives and members of Parliament, but it is certainly a by-product.However, in their zeal to create protection for themselves, the film-makers may have just stepped over the mark, and now face the possibility of serious action being taken against themselves, their suppliers, their distributors and their retailers.

 

The recently amended Copyright Act imposes unlimited financial penalties on prime infringers of copyright, with also the possibility of incarceration. Secondary infringers now include the box and label makers and printers; who make the packaging; the retail and wholesale distributors; who sell the DVDs; the agents who make money by promoting the product, and any publishers and broadcasters, which will include the BBC and Sky. Poor BBC, but isn’t it about time that the good Lord Patton at last took a bit of responsibility for something, and fell gracefully on his sword ?Returning to copyright and the film-makers.

 

 

Films have been mass produced for more than a hundred years and have processed through a number of metamorphosi, or is the plural .......es ? During this period the film stock has given way to video tape, which in turn has been overtaken by DVD, Blu-ray, fibre optic and hard drives. All new processes and undreamed of when the first reels were dunked in developer. These developments, and the renaming, coloration, sub-titling, dubbing etc., of original films, constitute, under the terms of the recent Copyright Act, new publications.

 

 

As these works are usually carried out by the current owners of the films they are not infringing their own copyright, as they are the beneficial owners.Many films were produced in outdoor locations, the Keystone Kops, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy used, used again and reused the suburban streets of Los Angeles and Hollywood. But, moving into the 1930’s, films were becoming more serious and longer, and still using outdoor locations where possible and, with the advent of faster film stock, the bright Californian sunshine was no longer necessary.

 

 

Films, or photographs, taken from a public place, of a structure or a building, unless specifically protected; as for example a military installation; become the property of the cameraman, and the copyright rests with him, or his employer, and he is free to use it at will. If however the film-maker moves onto private property then he needs permission; a simple “location agreement” is usually sufficient; and many hundreds of householders have been flattered by the attention of the film crews, been in awe of the film stars, and been grateful for the cash that they received for the use of their property, over which they had, and still have, copy rights.

 

A survey has been undertaken and it has been found that in the UK alone there are some 500 films made over the last seventy-five years where ordinary folk’s homes have been used as scenes in major features. It is to be supposed that all the location releases were signed, sealed and paid for in full.

 

But, here’s the rub, in the 30’s, those agreements could only have been made for the existing technology, usually 35mm film, by the 70’s, video film, by the 90’s, DVDs and so forth. Agreements would not have covered the new “publication” of the transfer from 35mm – video tape – DVD – fibre optic etc., etc., and as such the entertainment industry , under the terms of the amended Copyright and Related Rights Act 2003 are prime infringers of the householder’s intellectual property and will certainly be called to account.

 

Bernard Wallace

Edited August 28, 2013 by citizenB
formatting

[Grotesque]

Interesting post BW, just a bit hard to read!

[citizenB]

Bernard, if you are going to be posting again, could you please pop some paragraphs in. If they don't format first time, you have 24 hours in which to edit in order to do this.

 

We have found that when faced with a wall of typeface, people tend to skip over the post, regardless of how valuable it might be