Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1516 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

You don't have to tell GEIl anything. If you want to respond, you could just say that as a Healthcare professional, you have a legal duty to maintain patient confidentiality and would be able to supply a Judge in confidence of evidence that showed that you were not at home, at the time of the alleged upload/download of copyrighted materials.

 

In any court hearing, you would be able to show a Judge the information for their satisfaction and the claimant would not get to see it.

 

I repeat the advice given previously, which is either do not respond or if you have reasons as to why you have nothing to do with the allegations then respond with those reasons. e.g what I said before.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken. No response unless it's absolutely necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only person being put through this ???

 

I received the original letter back in August and a second letter approximately when you did in early September (which I've not replied to yet).

 

I have been trying to keep up with how others are getting on, but I agree it is surprising how few people appear to be in the same situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If GEIL are not following court procedure surely they can be reported for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If GEIL are not following court procedure surely they can be reported for this.

 

If they are not following court procedure, why point it out to them. This is your 'Ace' card, if this was ever taken to court. There have been recent warnings by the Judiciary that they are fed up with claimants not following correct procedure or not doing as instructed.

 

I would think that what is happening here, is that GEIL are only writing to a limited number of people (say 200 ) just to show that this is not a speculative invoice process, but a genuine attempt to deal with copyright infringements. Out of this limited number they will pick on a few cases to take to court. Just a guess, but it makes sense to me based on what has happened before.

  • Confused 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhino666, the judgment indicates that GE was granted a disclosure order in relation to 9,124 people. I think it is a reasonable bet that there are 9,123 other people who received an identical letter.

 

I don't think there is any breach of court procedures here. It is not illegal to write nasty letters threatening to sue people when you only have a weak claim. That doesn't stop it from being a weak claim.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The remark was meant in relation to the way they are conducting themselves.. e.g films that aren't there's directly when the court said they can only go after people who have down loaded GEIL films, and the rest of what they shouldn't be doing is listed here: http://acsbore.wordpress.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the judge said:

"Even if the monitoring software is functioning correctly and the ISP correctly identifies the subscriber to whom the IP address which has been detected was allocated at the relevant time, it does not necessarily follow that the subscriber was the person who was participating in the P2P filesharing which was detected."

 

The way I read it, the judge is basically saying they can negotiate settlements with those who don't deny liability but will have a tough job to proceed with those who do deny. They'll go for easy targets like ACS did. And having read some of the leaked e-mails from when ACS got hacked, there are a lot of very gullible people around who'll admit & pay up without question, so they'll concentrate their efforts on them and ignore those who challenge. They play the numbers game, it's worth the price of a couple of letters of legal jargon [naughty word] to frighten the many that will admit & pay up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The remark was meant in relation to the way they are conducting themselves.. e.g films that aren't there's directly when the court said they can only go after people who have down loaded GEIL films, and the rest of what they shouldn't be doing is listed here: http://acsbore.wordpress.com/

 

This is what the High Court judgment said. That judgment was successfully appealed and a disclosure order was granted in relation to the other companies, not just GEIL, by the Court of Appeal.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the person a few pages back was wrong!......Not that it's an issue. I just can't see how GEIL can identify a the person at a PC unless they send round people to snoop through peoples curtains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the person a few pages back was wrong!......Not that it's an issue. I just can't see how GEIL can identify a the person at a PC unless they send round people to snoop through peoples curtains.

 

Yes, absolutely. This is one of the problems with their claim. The other big problem is how they prove that they have suffered loss.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone went on to SELL the film they've downloaded they'd be quite right to sue for a loss.

and what also needs questioning is their "INDEPENDENT" expert witness". Independent to who? Not me.... I didn't ask him but they're paying him so how does that make him independent?

Edited by rhino666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anyone went on to SELL the film they've downloaded they'd be quite right to sue for a loss.

and what also needs questioning is their "INDEPENDENT" expert witness". Independent to who? Not me.... I didn't ask him but they're paying him so how does that make him independent?

 

They can suffer a loss because their copyrighted products have been shared online. If you read the standard copyright terms for purchased music or films, it is for the private use of the person who has purchased the item.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. As in: "IF this hadn't been taken out of our hands, we MIGHT hav sold a million more copies." And those million copies would represent- as they (and Carter Burke, of course....) would probably say- "a substantial dollar value".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could anyone tell me isn't this called black mail which is a police matter.

 

The bill payer is my wife so all court threats have gone to her.

today she received a letter giving her just under a month to provide evidence of her whereabouts to prove it wasn't her at the PC.

Still to this date we've received NO evidence from them confirming the bill payer is the person behind the PC.

 

I'd the other hand would rather they directed their attentions towards me directly , where I have a nasty surprise up my sleeve for them which can't be denied in court but my other half is won't let me talk to them or offer my own name rather than hers.

 

 

How is this not blackmail ? :-x

Edited by rhino666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from Wiki. Could someone confirm that this is 100% true: because I'm still confused as to how they're pursuing people for films that aren't theirs.

 

 

 

On 9 March 2012, Golden Eye went to court in an attempt to obtain an Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) for the details of over 9,000 IP addresses from internet service provider O2 (UK)/Telefónica Europe (an internet provider with previous form of not contesting NPO's) in order to service further "speculative invoicing" letters to alleged copyright infringers. Golden Eye were questioned by statutory consumer organisation Consumer Focus regarding the company's ability (or lack of) to connect an IP address with the account holder, the company's role in relation to the copyrights involved and the amount being demanded, which they stated was "far and above the likely actual damages".[68][69]

 

 

On 26 March 2012,[70] the High Court ordered O2 to hand over the details of 9,124 of its customers details to Golden Eye. However, the judge deemed the proposed £700 fine to be "unsupported and unsupportable" and that the bill payer couldn't automatically be assumed to be guilty of any alleged copyright violation,[71] and therefore any claim made by Golden Eye/Ben Dover Productions/Optime Strategies Ltd couldn't move forward unless the recipient of the company's speculative invoicing letters admitted their own guilt[72] due to the fact that evidence used is unreliable. The wording of any such letters would also be severely restricted, and the "precise wording of the order and of the letter of claim" would be decided at a further hearing.[70] Consumer Focus welcomed the ruling that bill payers couldn't automatically be assumed to be guilty of any alleged copyright violation on their internet connection, commenting that "Consumers should not be subject to the type of threatening letters Golden Eye intended to send to more than 9,000 O2 customers".[73] Golden Eye's lawyer admitted that taking a test case to court would not be cost effective, and therefore the company didn't intend on taking any cases to court and that they relied on those accused paying their "fine".[69]

 

 

In July 2012, the High Court ruled that 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 of (including Terry Stephen's One Eyed Jack Productions and Justin Ribeiro Dos Santos's Joybear Pictures[74]) and would take 75% of any "damages" paid, which Mr Justice Arnold stated "would be tantamount to the court sanctioning the sale of the intended defendants’ privacy and data protection rights to the highest bidder".[75] This meant that Golden Eye would only be able to target 2,845 of its original target of over 9,000 households.[76] It was revealed in December 2012 that the IP data supplied to O2 (UK)/Telefónica Europe by Golden Eye, from 2,850 alleged copyright infringements of Ben Dover Production films could only be matched to less than 1,000 individuals.[77]

 

 

In an interview with Vice, Honey claimed his income had dropped 90% in two years and admitted his reasons for his involvement in speculative invoicing was that "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".[45]

Edited by rhino666
formatting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't blackmail. Blackmail generally means threat of something unlawful. It is not unlawful to bring court proceedings. Whether they would be successful is another matter. Just ignore, or deny the conduct once again and state you won't waste time engaging in letter tennis over a hopeless case.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no i haven't. just in case anyone is watching , a rather large retail has more than enough evidence in the archives to prove downloading isnt necessary.

Edited by honeybee13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no i haven't. just in case anyone is watching , a rather large retail has more than enough evidence in the archives to prove downloading isnt necessary.

 

So cryptic, I could not understand it.

 

You mean that the downloading is not necessary, because most of the material subject to these speculative invoices can be obtained for pennies or for free.

 

Think this misses the point. The people who hold the licence for these copyrighted materials have certain legal rights. If you obtain the materials through illegal distribution, then you can be subject to legal action. The problem with an internet connection, is that they cannot prove that the bill payer was responsible.

 

Anyone receiving a letter asking for the whereabouts of the bill payer at the time of the download should not respond. It is none of their business.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted about hardcore porn, which was a thought on the ethical dimension. No worries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've bought 2 copies of the film I'm accused of downloading and have the receipt to prove it!!! Why would I want to download it again!!! Just shows how crappy their information is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think bend over porn is that hard ( I'm guessing )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I posted about hardcore porn, which was a thought on the ethical dimension. No worries.

 

Hardcore porn is nothing new. It goes back hundreds of years. Before it could be filmed, the rich would get artists to paint them graphic paintings showing scenes you would see in modern day porn.

 

Anyway, this thread is for people receiving letters and wanting advice. Not a debate on the ethics of the porn industry.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is from Wiki. Could someone confirm that this is 100% true: because I'm still confused as to how they're pursuing people for films that aren't theirs.

 

 

 

On 9 March 2012, Golden Eye went to court in an attempt to obtain an Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) for the details of over 9,000 IP addresses from internet service provider O2 (UK)/Telefónica Europe (an internet provider with previous form of not contesting NPO's) in order to service further "speculative invoicing" letters to alleged copyright infringers. Golden Eye were questioned by statutory consumer organisation Consumer Focus regarding the company's ability (or lack of) to connect an IP address with the account holder, the company's role in relation to the copyrights involved and the amount being demanded, which they stated was "far and above the likely actual damages".[68][69]

 

 

On 26 March 2012,[70] the High Court ordered O2 to hand over the details of 9,124 of its customers details to Golden Eye. However, the judge deemed the proposed £700 fine to be "unsupported and unsupportable" and that the bill payer couldn't automatically be assumed to be guilty of any alleged copyright violation,[71] and therefore any claim made by Golden Eye/Ben Dover Productions/Optime Strategies Ltd couldn't move forward unless the recipient of the company's speculative invoicing letters admitted their own guilt[72] due to the fact that evidence used is unreliable. The wording of any such letters would also be severely restricted, and the "precise wording of the order and of the letter of claim" would be decided at a further hearing.[70] Consumer Focus welcomed the ruling that bill payers couldn't automatically be assumed to be guilty of any alleged copyright violation on their internet connection, commenting that "Consumers should not be subject to the type of threatening letters Golden Eye intended to send to more than 9,000 O2 customers".[73] Golden Eye's lawyer admitted that taking a test case to court would not be cost effective, and therefore the company didn't intend on taking any cases to court and that they relied on those accused paying their "fine".[69]

 

 

In July 2012, the High Court ruled that 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 of (including Terry Stephen's One Eyed Jack Productions and Justin Ribeiro Dos Santos's Joybear Pictures[74]) and would take 75% of any "damages" paid, which Mr Justice Arnold stated "would be tantamount to the court sanctioning the sale of the intended defendants’ privacy and data protection rights to the highest bidder".[75] This meant that Golden Eye would only be able to target 2,845 of its original target of over 9,000 households.[76] It was revealed in December 2012 that the IP data supplied to O2 (UK)/Telefónica Europe by Golden Eye, from 2,850 alleged copyright infringements of Ben Dover Production films could only be matched to less than 1,000 individuals.[77]

 

 

In an interview with Vice, Honey claimed his income had dropped 90% in two years and admitted his reasons for his involvement in speculative invoicing was that "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".[45]

 

Its all true. But it is out of date. It only describes the High Court decision. That decision was appealed and was overturned by the Court of Appeal! See earlier in the thread for my explanation of what the Court of Appeal decided.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are the claimant, if their stupid enough to issue proceedings it's for them to prove their claim. If you've already sent a denial of claim then I'd leave it at that. If they do issue a claim you can then use the courts CPR to request further info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...