Jump to content

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1210 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

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


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a pathetic website. It even looks amateurish.

 

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


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Some useful links.

FAQ's

Making Posts

Letter Template Library

Bank Contact Details

AQ Guide to Completion

Court Fees

Data Protection non Compliance

Witness Statements for Court Bundle

Banking Code Website

Limitations Act

Fast Track Costs

A-Z Index

Mis-Claim Tutorial

Step By Step Instructions

 

Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs-The Titanic by professionals.

 

Please click my scales if you find my advice helpful !

 

If your claim is successful, please donate 5% so that it can continue to help others.

 

Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

 

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

YOU CAN NOW COMPLAIN TO THE OFT ABOUT THEIR CONDUCT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FROM UNFAIR TRADING REGULATIONS 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."



PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?





  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Received a demand notice for council tax today, demanding some payment by Monday!!! or I will lose my right to pay in installments etc...   I am dealing with arrears and was awaiting a bill from the council regarding this years council tax so I could renogotiate with the debt collectors.   But I didn't receive anything!   So I managed to speak to someone today by phone and email and they are both say they wont accept my offer of a 12 month payment structure UNLESS I SET UP A Direct Debit.   I'm (probably) going to set that up next week and (probably) going to pay them an installment this weekend, however I would like to know what rights I have with regards to this; if there are any possible laws I could pull out of somewhere that I could potentially use to write off my debt to the council for this year on grounds of something?   I have told them by email they are in no position to demand anything from me at this point, because I never received any letter asking for payment in the first instance (which I would assume legally negates any power they can exercise through the current final demand letter they just sent me). I told them either accept my offer (pending any further arrangment for payment) or I will assume that I owe them nothing for this year.   I can't prove I didn'r receive the letter though, but I honestly didn't. They can't prove I did receive it either.   So my question is (pending any further payments and negotiations) is there a nice little legal loophole I can use to get out of paying council tax for this year on the above grounds?   I guess not (probably) but worth a punt anyway.              
    • ok sorry I missed a bit so where are you at now. you've got the warrant stayed?
    • thanks for your help guys, not going to lie this is really stressing me out
    • uploads removed 1st page has your name
    • Thankyou Captain Obvious, I am well aware of this. However, unless I have the money to pay the charges in the first place then I'm not really in a position to claim anything back. Perhaps it's better if I challenge the system on all the above grounds I have highlighted instead. I am still waiting a response from the dental practise or the NHS about my advice to them to claim the costs back from the practise for substandard treatment.
  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
        • Like
      • 0 replies
    • 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415585-30-day-right-to-reject-vehicle-casualty-report/
      • 57 replies
×
×
  • Create New...