And more here:
and more here pointing out the lies
On the 21st of December the Appeals Court found in favour of Golden Eye International (GEIL) and sanctioned what the original Judge had refused saying it ?would be tantamount to the court sanctioning the sale of the intended defendants? privacy and data protection rights to the highest bidder?.
GEIL intend to keep 75% of all monies collected, their Director Julian Becker has now responded to the successful appeal. We think we should respond too!
?I am delighted that the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Golden Eye, albeit that I am still confused that the initial ruling allowed us to act for Ben Dover but fell short in permitting the right to protect the other producers that I represent?
?The other producers that I represent?? Maybe you should be aware that other Pornography Producers tried this method of ?monetizing alternative revenue streams? before, Darker Enterprises, Pure Platinum/Liquid Gold, Mebray, Phoenix, Relish and Load XXX amongst others, and they all fell flat on their faces, when Media C.A.T and ACS:LAW screwed up by taking a case to actual Court where their lack of evidence was exposed , and their methods were derided, and it resulted in their collapse.
?Having now studied the case, I?d like to say that there was more chance of the end of the world occurring on Dec. 21 than Golden Eye losing this appeal.?
So you won an appeal.
An appeal that was given by default to other applicants in the past.
Such as the following
01 Feb 2007 ? Davenport Lyons ? Judge Behrens ? Topware Interactive
22 Nov 2007 ? Davenport Lyons ? Chief Master Winegarten ? Reality Pump
30 May 2008 ? Davenport Lyons ? Chief Master Winegarten ? Atari
30 Jun 2008 ? Davenport Lyons ? Chief Master Winegarten ? Digiprotect
12 Nov 2008 ? Davenport Lyons ? Chief Master Winegarten ? Digiprotect?
19 Nov 2009 ? ACS:Law ? Chief Master Winegarten ? MediaCAT
19 Nov 2009 ? ACS:Law ? Chief Master Winegarten ? Digiprotect
27 Jan 2010 ? Tilly Bailey Irvine ? Justice Warren ? Media & More GMBH
17 Feb 2010 ? ACS:Law ? Chief Master Winegarten ? MediaCAT
07 Jul 2010 ? ACS:Law ? Chief Master Winegarten ? MediaCAT
?I believe there is always going to be a bias against this genre of film production?
Well no, that is a ?non sequitur?, whatever problems that this ?genre of film production? has had in the past, has absolutely nothing to do with the material you produce, but the actions you take. When other industries, (games 2 , music 2 etc) took the same actions, they too were derided in the same manner. They had the sense to bail out. It is actions like what you are doing, resurrecting a hated and hurtful legal action that is known to target to many innocent people in its dragnet is what is likely to drag your industry through the mud again.
?So although in legal terms we are actually no further forward than in 2010?
Erm, NO. You are further back than you were in 2010. You have been neutered in Court.
You called the account owner an infringer, the Court said NO!
You wanted a default £700 per letter, the Court said NO!
You wanted the account owners internet to be slowed down, The Court said NO.
You wanted to confuse with reference to the Code of Practice, The court said NO
You wanted to give the recipient only 14 days, the Court made it 28 days
The previous Law firm that represented you, halted their action in 2010, and you then attempted to pursue alleged infringers through the ?Money Claim Online system? , when it seems you come up against Judge Birss, the Judge who presided over the ACS:LAW/Media C.A,T cases. You deemed your actions inappropriate and that is what has led us to this ruling.
?Golden Eye has now been successful after the most severe of legal scrutiny, combined with bias and manipulation from some areas of the press and mistruths and lies from faceless keyboard warriors in several Internet forums.?
I would question in light of the restrictions placed on you by the Court how successful you have been, but yes you have been successful in obtaining an NPO in light of what I believed the agreement the ISPs had after the ACS:LAW debacle, in at least challenging these orders. You were greatly helped by O2 NOT challenging you. If they had I don?t think you would have been granted the order.
Your only defence of criticism is to say your critics, be it the press or ?faceless keyboard warriors?, are biased or spread ?mistruths and lies?. My comment on this is simple. You would say that, wouldn?t you? Is it a shame you use ?sound bites? rather than provide actual evidence. This Blog has detailed the number of contradictions you have spoken to different organisations. What are the ?lies and Mistruths? that I have spread?
?In some respects Golden Eye finds itself back where it was two years ago, having correctly followed legal procedure after submitting technical evidence that has been accepted by the courts that there is an arguable case that Ben Dover and other rights holders content that we represent has been infringed by Internet users on file sharing networks and obtaining the names and addresses of these alleged infringers,? said Becker, calling Friday?s ruling a ?positive judgment [that] is very much a bitter sweet, moment.?
May I provide a quote from your statement in the original Court case (15):
?Originally, the only evidence filed in support of the claim was Mr Becker?s first witness statement. In paragraphs 1-3, headed ?Introduction?, he explained that the Claimants sought disclosure by O2 of the names and addresses of the subscribers associated with the IP addresses shown in the CD-ROM attached as Exhibit 1, that the Claimants believed that those IP addresses had been used by the subscribers to make available copyright material for P2P copying and that O2 did not oppose the making of an order in the terms set out in Exhibit 2.?
Hmmm?..?the Claimants believed that those IP addresses had been used by the subscribers to make available copyright material for P2P copying?. Now you say alleged infringer. This is plainly wrong, the subscriber as the Court has said is not necessarily the Infringer, alleged or not.
?Two years ago these cases were merely procedural and heard on paper without any formal hearings. This judgment has been debated by leading barristers, funded by government organizations and presided over by some of the most eminent judges in the U.K.?
Two years ago, we didn?t have a case that actually went to Court. ACS LAW tried to take people to Court for a default, but screwed up when those people said they would contest. This had a clued up Judge who completely tore apart the ?evidence?. Your latest attempt at obtaining an NPO has been scrutinised because of this. This statement from you is showing that what you took for granted two years ago is now not so straight forward. And remember , the only reason this was debated at all was that O2 acquiesced rather than saying ?No?.
This was an NPO hearing, that is all, yes you have gained the rights to exploit other Producers work, however as Rt Hon Judge Birss stated in his Court case with ACS:LAW/Media C.A.T who represented many Porn Producers)
?Media CAT don?t know who did it and know that they don?t know who did it,? said Birss.
Birss said Winegarten granted the (NPO) order based on the facts put before him, adding that the chief master did not have to decide whether Media CAT would hasucceed in its claims.
?I can?t imagine that the court making the Norwich Pharmacal orders in this case did so with a view to setting in train an exercise that was to be conducted in the manner that has subsequently emerged,? Birss said at the time.
He also added ..?nothing less than authorisation suffices for infringement, at least in the context of a claim for damages?
Nothing has changed, it is the same. I will believe you are different when you actively take a contested claim to Court, I for one do not believe you ever will.
Julian Beckers quotes are taking from an article that can be viewed here
http://acsbore.wordpress.com