Ben Dover at XBIZ & Internext to sign up producers for file sharing anti piracy scheme in the UK
 

Ben Dover is one of the best known adult brands in the UK and is known throughout Europe.

Our main focus, these days, is anti piracy projects in the UK, seeking to gain compensation from infringers of copyrighted materials both end users and distributors, which we undertake for our own content and also other studio's offering them a profit share with no financial or legal liability if the cases fail.

All our projects do not cost the producers anything and also protect them from any counter claims or losses, but give a share back of any profits that are generated.

Last month Golden Eye (Parent company of Ben Dover) successfully won an appeal that will now allow us to represent other producers in the UK to protect their content against infringement of copyright on p2p networks.

In January I will be attending both XBIZ in LA and Internext in Vegas, with the aim of signing producers to join the UK project.

Let me know if you want to meet?


Regards



Julian Becker
Commercial Director
Ben Dover Productions
Tel 00 44 (0)207 858 0221
Fax 00 44 (0)207 858 0223
[email protected]

That worked out brilliantly for Andrew Crossley, didn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law

The UK needs more pseudo blackmailers!

http://torrentfreak.com/alleged-uk-f...-dover-120723/

Problem with Ben Dover is his garbage content. His idea of making money is to sue users who download stuff he made 10 years ago. You've been wiped out by by the likes of Killergram.

Popping over to your site I can see a lot of blonde birds with fringes. Must be the 1990s...

I don't think he sues anyone. Just sends quasi-blackmail letters.

you lost me at "scheme". :1orglaugh

Same here. The title says it all.

The High Court Rules in favour of Ben Dover
 

As I write this on the evening of the 21st December 2012, it is with some relief that I notice the world did not in fact come to an end earlier today and predictions of the end of days were indeed premature.

It would of course been somewhat upsetting to have fought so hard and invested so much time and money in obtaining today's High Court judgment that GoldenEye cannot only pursue alleged infringers of our brand Ben Dover's copyrighted material, but are also able to act for other content owners to assist them in protecting their material, only for Armageddon to have pitched up at the last minute and ruin it for everybody!

With life as we know it set to continue for the foreseeable future, I look forward to travelling to adult conferences in LA and Vegas in early January to offer GoldenEye?s services to other producers with a view to helping them protect their brands? copyright in The UK.

Today's positive judgment, which was delivered by three senior Lord Justices is very much a bittersweet moment.

In some respects GoldenEye 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 consequently obtaining the names and addresses of these alleged infringers.

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 UK.

The delay has been caused by the debacle that was ACS Law and it's proprietor Andrew Crossly, who tainted a very simple message - that rights holders such as Ben Dover and other adult and mainstream producers have every right to protect their content and livelihood from Internet thieves.

Although the existence of ACS Law has no doubt delayed GoldenEye's crusade to protect content producers rights, and increased our legal costs hugely, the positives are that the ground breaking legal cases we have fought have highlighted the decimation the creative industries are suffering due to Internet copyright infringements.
As I've stated several times, despite misguided accusations, I am not a solicitor and have never undertaken any formal legal training.

Since I have personally funded this project; no taxpayer?s money has been made available to us, I have taken a keen interest in the court proceedings.

I am therefore delighted that the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of GoldenEye, despite my confusion that the initial ruling allowed us to act for Ben Dover, but fell short in granting the right to protect the other producers that I represent.
Having now studied the case, I'd like to say that there was more chance of the end of the world occurring on Dec 21st than GoldenEye losing this appeal!

Adult content is legal in the UK and should be given the same rights as mainstream films. However, in reality, I believe there is always going to be a bias against this genre of film.85% of computers exhibit porn history, although 90% of users will preach against it. This makes me wonder; if GoldenEye represented the interests of mainstream producers, would there have been such a long and expensive legal process that ultimately has resulted in the same outcome as the quicker inexpensive procedure???????

So, although in legal terms we are actually no further forward than in 2010, GoldenEye has now been successful after being subjected to the most severe legal scrutinies, combined with bias and manipulation from some areas of the press, and mistruths and lies from faceless ?Keyboard Ninjas? in several Internet forums.

One final thought on the demise of the Mayan calendar; maybe they were predicting the end..... the end of Internet thieves in the UK on the 21St December 2012!!!!!

It's still just quasi blackmail, same as Lightspeed, same as ACS.

I wait with interest for the first case to actually go to court. Not that you intend to actually take anyone to court, just try and scare them into giving you money.

It's disgusting.

Interesting when you look at what actually happened:


Last weekend customers of ISPs O2 and BE began receiving notifications that their accounts had been used for illicit file-sharing. The claims originate from Golden Eye International who are connected to the famous porn outfit Ben Dover. Very soon they will drop so-called ?letters of claim? through customers? letter boxes, potentially ruining Christmas for thousands of families with demands for a cash settlement. But with the right response, this get-rich-quick-scheme can be stopped in its tracks.

Last Saturday morning customers of two ISPs in the UK woke up to a nasty surprise. Letters sent by ISPs O2 and BE advised that customer accounts had been somehow linked to copyright infringement and how this could lead to serious consequences.

?Two companies, Golden Eye (International) Limited and Ben Dover Productions (we will refer to them both as Golden Eye in this letter), allege that some of our customers broadband accounts have been used to download films from the internet, without paying for them,? O2 wrote.

?Golden Eye produced evidence which identified the anonymous IP address used to download that content. The Court then ordered O2 to check them against our customer records, and to give Golden Eye the corresponding name and address of the account holder.?

O2 then goes on to say that the High Court ordered it to hand over the names of alleged file-sharers to Golden Eye and, in an attempt to come over as the good guy, added that ?O2 had no choice but to comply.?

The truth is that O2 could have made a real effort to contest the proceedings but did no such thing. As a result Golden Eye are now in possession of the identities of 2,845 O2 and BE customers to try and make money from.

Soon, and quite possibly just in time for Christmas, Golden Eye will write a letter to these O2 customers (click here to see what it will look like plus read our analysis here). In it they will outline their complicated copyright claim but ultimately announce that they are prepared to forget the whole thing if O2 and BE customers pay them some hard cash.

No amount will be mentioned but on past UK experiences it will be anything up to around £600. However, some people receiving these letters will not pay Golden Eye a single penny.

These people will have read and understood the Speculative Invoicing Handbook Second Edition, an invaluable guide released today. While the letters sent by GEIL have been approved by the High Court they are still crafted to intimidate, whereas the Speculative Invoicing Handbook is designed to inform and empower.

?The guide, which succinctly summarizes the operation of these mass litigation schemes, has proven a boon to those incorrectly accused in the past,? consumer rights campaigner and speculative invoicing expert James Bench told TorrentFreak.

It?s believed that the first edition of this superb publication enabled thousands of innocent account holders to avoid paying settlements to the infamous ACS:Law, eventually resulting in that company?s collapse and the bankruptcy of its operator.

The lawyer involved, Andrew Crossley, was also suspended by the Law Society for two years for his conduct, but he wasn?t the first casualty resulting from this type of work.

?Law firm Davenport Lyons, the pioneers of this type of volume litigation in the UK, saw two partners suspended by the Law Society and were forced to pay a substantial fine,? Bench notes.

Mindful of these unfavorable outcomes, GEIL have taken precautions.

?GEIL are the first copyright licensees to act for themselves in these matters, rather than appointing solicitors to send the letters on their behalf,? James Bench explains.

While GEIL have probably learned valuable lessons from the activities of ACS:Law, the key points remain the same.

First, the company does not have sufficient evidence to prove who has carried out any infringement. This is a huge problem for them since they can only claim settlement from the actual infringer and they don?t know who it is. They can only guess at that person?s identity ? short of an ill-advised confession of course.

Second, if an Internet account holder didn?t carry out any file-sharing and didn?t tell someone else they could do so on their connection, they aren?t liable and don?t have to pay a penny. Golden Eye will eventually have to accept that and move on, even if they don?t do so straight away.

The Speculative Invoicing Handbook Second Edition can be downloaded here, and don?t forget to check out other support sites here and here. If you?ve received a letter, contact TorrentFreak in confidence.

(Update: The total of 2,845 IP addresses apparently did not relate to the same number of account holders ? less than 1,000 identities have been released)

http://torrentfreak.com/o2-be-custom...letter-121204/

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

Must i read all that?

But i understand that i can blame the tubes and P2P sites that gave the downloaders the 'gun' to copyright infrigment? Or am i wrong?

Upload monkeys in 3... 2...

Pro quasi-blackmail monkeys in 3...2...1

No. Basically, someone is trying to start up the old quasi-blackmail letter writing scam again. And he is flying to America to try and get some people to sign up to get 25% of any money he scams out of people.

HTH.

i fully enjoy excrement..

in all shits and forms.. i really poo....

A big thank you for all the American Producers that made me so welcome in LA & Vegas, some of which are the biggest names in the industry. So much interest out here that I extended my stay.

Woop woop! Quasi-blackmail rocks!

Love to see the list of the biggest names that have signed up to get 25% of your letter writing scam.

I would do it. Not only do you stop active pirating, you make money on it too and sets and example as well for others.

I would go to court and publish titles too in press releases.

Why are you whining so much about someone actually doing anything ?

a) you don't stop pirating. this scam has been around for years, and all it is for is legal blackmailing money out of people who pay for an IP address. absolutely no impact whatsoever on piracy.

b) the example you set is of being a cunt. The backlash against this scam was massive, and all of the mainstream clients using ACS stopped, which is the only reason they turned to porn.

It's not about going to court, love. NONE of this scam letter cases have EVER gone to court, because the idea is just to get people to pay money, not to actually see a trial. Because if they did, they'd have to prove the John Doe who pays for the IP committed a crime, which they can't.

Because it is quasi blackmail and is sickening. Why do you support such abhorrent money raising methods? Speculative invoicing is a cunt's game.

I'll be at The Hardrock today, leaving tonight (snow permitting in UK), if any producers want to meet today call me on my US number 310 795 6692. From next week I'm back in London [email protected]

If you can't do the time don't do the crime....
Why should I have sympathy for some thieves ?
Like you say it's legal blackmail... LEGAL !!
I don't care if they go to court, why should I? If they follow the law they would never get a letter in the first place..
The works would be a lot easier if people starts taking responsibility over their actions

And if you can't prove anyone did any crime, send them a blackmail letter and extort them?


Not asking you to. I'd have no sympathy for a proven thief. I'm asking why you think it's admirable to blackmail a person who pays for an IP. You're not stupid, you know that it's easy to spoof an IP, and that WEP can be cracked in 10 minutes with free software. You know, deep down, that this is just a scam for porn failures to try and make some money. Ben's 10 year old tragic content isn't selling, he is in need of money, so he is trying a blackmail scam that has resulted in previous lawyers that did it being struck off. Why do you think they were struck off? Oh yes, because they are despicable cunts.

Yes, it is legal for the moment, but it is blackmail. Interesting you are in favour of such cunty tactics to raise money.

They won't go to court, because they need proof to go to court, do you not get it? It's just a scam to extort money. It's nothing to do with stopping piracy. It is to do with trying to get £700 out of people they have no idea if they committed a crime.

And that is exactly where you are wrong. The problem with this scam, and why ACS Law and all the copycats in America got shut down for doing the scam is that there is no proof that the John Doe they try and blackmail actually DID any crime.

That is why the scam has been shut down by UK judges and US judges too. People that understand you need that pesky thing, what is it? Oh yes, proof.

It's brave you wear your feelings about this scam on your sleeve though. Speaks volumes about your business practises.

My motivation for using this forum is to engage with adult producers in order to assist them in protecting their content from being infringed in the UK on the p2p networks.

I'm too busy to reply to those that support piracy and portray our efforts as somehow immoral and make no apologise to those are offended by a company that makes a stand against what is in effect theft.

I will state that in complete contradiction to those views stated above, our company that is one of the best known British Adult Producers has won the right at one of the highest courts in the UK not only to represent it's own content but also to be able to represent other producers, so confused as to how "UK judges have shut this down".

Right plenty of meetings to get to and then back to London, weather permitting.

Thanks again for being so hospitable.

Silence, peasant!! Lord Barrister Benjamin Nigel Simon Trevor Cholmondeley ("Chumley") Dover III, 5th Earl of Crimpington-upon-Marmite & Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken.

My motivation is to point out you are doing nothing but sending the person that pays for an IP a quasi-blackmail letter attempting to (legally) extort £700 from them.

You're not protecting anything. Which is why you will never take any of the John Does to court. You are extorting money. And then only paying the producers a measly 25% of that quasi-blackmail money...

*apologies

It's not theft, kiddo, it's copyright infringement. Are you a lawyer? I'd get one if you are saying it is theft. These pesky legal terms must confuse you!

Not really. It's a washed up has been that looks like Keith Harris.

*its

Yeah. I posted above about how that really went down. The judges have shut down other scumbags trying the same trick. You are aware of how Andrew Crossley got disbarred for trying the same tactic as you? You are aware of the US court cases being thrown out because there is no evidence? Cool.

If there is no proof of an infringement, and his company is just sending letters, why would he need other Content owners involved? Can't he just keep sending out letters to innocent people and keep 100% ?

Well that how the scam works. They took 02 to court to get the addresses of some people that pay for an internet connection. 02 didn't even try and appeal, so they got a default judgement which meant the ISP had to give them the addresses.

They don't have enough evidence to go to prove the person paying the bill infringed on any copyright. They can only guess. Also, if the person they write to didn't infringe and didn't give permission for anyone else to infringe, they aren't liable and they can't do anything to get the money out of them.

So, they need to get more people to say they are acting on their behalf, in order to widen the extortion net before the scam gets closed down.

In the UK, Davenport Lyons tried this first, result = lawyers were struck off. Then ACS:Law tried it. Result: bankruptcy and the lawyer struck off.

Hopefully it won't take long for this scam to reach the public eye again and for the whole house of cards to collapse.

So you are saying that the names of the people they get, didn't download their content illegally and there is no connection to their content at all? How can you get addresses of people that only pay for an internet connection, and are not connected to illegal downloading? And win?

I love it when people introduce themselves and have to let you know how well known they are in the same breath... you almost can hear the whoooosh of irony passing straight over their head.

AFAIK they didn't go through the courts to get their addresses, they conned the ISPs into giving them up.

You don't win. You simply send a letter stating something like:

*****

Dear Sir,

We noticed you downloaded Big Black Dicks in Tiny White Chicks using IP 127.0.0.1 from ThePirateBay.org.

We ask you to pay a fine of £800 (something like 100 times the value of the content) or your name will be published online next to the title of the download.

Regards,

Black Mailers Legal Services

Funny, why is it I'll never have to worry about getting a letter?

Because you dont steal and think its your right to do it. And then scream its not fair it wasnt me when caught.and now torrent freak is giving away a handbook of excuses.lol

I think we have a winner :thumbsup

Pretty fucking simple. Excuses are just that, excuses.

.

You forget that the person is part of a torrent so they could of shared it with thousands of people.so its not one download.

lol at all the people loitering in crack houses then screaming I don't do drugs, only other people do drugs, those aren't my drugs, I don't know how those drugs got in my pocket, when the place gets raided.

.

No, I'm saying they can't prove that. This is why the cases NEVER EVER go to court, it is simple legal blackmail. Read the words I write.

Do you not read the posts?

Because the ISP didn't try and appeal. They didn't win on merit, they won because the ISP didn't turn up.

Yeah, no one could ever spoof your IP, hack your WEP in ten minutes and you'd never have someone come over and use your internet. Never. That could JUST NOT HAPPEN.

Sigh.

You pro-blackmailers are all so funny.

Drugs in a pocket would be proof of possession. An IP address /= a person. This has been ruled MANY MANY times.

And fortunately the two other firms in the UK that tried this scam are now fucked. One is bankrupt, and the other had the lawyers doing the scam struck off.

Why do you think that was?

:)

And if you can prove that, no one would have any issue with them being punished. Criminals should be punished. However, in this case, it can't be proved, which is why no cases ever go to court, or have any intention of going to court because it is nothing but a scam.

No one could steal your car and commit a crime that gets traced back to you either? Those that are truly innocent will get it sorted out. The rest are just making excuses.

You free content users are all so funny.

.

It's my understanding that these people didn't even download the content let alone share it with anyone.

So if they just wrote to an ISP and the ISP gave people's names, shouldn't you be mad at the ISP for not checking to make sure the names that are paying for the IP address actually downloaded the content?

Agaiin, if they didn't need proof Im not sure why they need more producers. How many ISPs will give up names with no evidence? Or are you saying that the IP downloaded it they just can't prove which individual in the household did it?

How can you people comment and know so little???????

We went to the second highest court (one under the supreme court) in the UK and were subjected to huge legal scrutiny and won the case for the ISP to release the physical addresses of the alleged uploaders of copyrighted content.

TBH it's been months since this all happened.

OK so you won in the High Court to get the addresses of the alleged infringes. The problem was the letters saying pay up or see you in court and the law firm published the data of these people online.

Because of this you ended up back in court were a judge quashed most of the cases and demanded that you reword the letters not asking for money.

The law firm you used to do all this has been barred from practicing law for 2 years and fined £76,000 since they clearly broke the law themselves.

Now my problem, is that you are a relatively big player in our small porn economy here in the UK. You are being threatened by the likes of Killergram whose content is far superior to your own.

You business model was heavily reliant on VHS, DVDs and broadcasting. All of which is censored in the UK with the exception of the R18 which can only be bought in person and is therefore useless. You also never made the transition online and stuck to shooting in the UK instead of moving to Eastern Europe. The UK is the worst country to shoot in because only fucking horrible ugly bitches shoot porn here. There are exceptions but even our creme de la creme like Saraha Knite have fucked up teeth and wouldn't be given the time of day with US shooters (if she wasn't South Asian).

So now you aren't making the money you used to. This ain't 1999 anymore! So you decide on a new tactic. Instead of pulling your socks up and building your brand, you decide to destroy it and milk the maybe the last 100k out of it by blackmailing and working with shady legal practices.

I guess it's the way the industry has gone here, which is a shame.

Did the ISP contest anything?

You won a default judgement.

What? You want ISPs to investigate every computer attached to every IP to check if they have downloaded content? How will they do that? Who will pay for the forensic work needed?

Haha, you're funny.


Again, do you read the words in my post or just sit there smearing jam over your face typing the first thing that comes into your head?

They cannot prove the person that pays for the IP address is committing any crime. This is why NONE of these cases have EVER gone to court. If you contest the blackmail letter, they just give up. Because they cannot prove it.

So they need as many producers as poss to sign up so they can send as many letters as poss and extort as much money as poss.

Ever wonder why no other UK porn producers are working with them and they had to go to america to get clients?

Loads have done it in the UK and in the USA, which is how this scam works. You really aren't comprehending any of this are you? It's like discussing something with a potato.

No, they *think* that IP downloaded a file that may or may not be copyrighted material. They can't prove a thing. Which is why it is just a scam for an old washed up porn producer that didn't work out how to make money online.

:2 cents:

A lot of people are taking money from the downloaders now, it has become another income stream. There is a single, simple solution to not getting a letter, don't download something you shouldn't. Problem solved.

Seems most of them don't even make it to court and many pay up upon a demand letter and threat of being exposed. Kudos to everyone who is doing this. All the pirates said "adapt or die" and you adapted. Well done. :2 cents:

Even if it does nothing to stop piracy on a mass scale, you can bet it will stop piracy from the guy who cashes you out. Not to mention, you got paid from someone who tried to steal what was yours. And that is the bottom line.

I have Damian on ignore but by the amount of hidden posts I see of his in here, I can only imagine he is going bat shit crazy over this as he usually does. Pay no attention to him, he is a magician who literally stalks an old man, not a pornographer.

Good luck with what you're doing.

Yeah, that worked well for all the people wrongly accused because someone spoofed their IP, hacked their WEP or had a friend or relative over that was using their wifi connection to infringe on copyright didn't it?

There's no way 150 people could be wrong accused of downloading porn.

Oh wait...

http://www.neowin.net/news/150-wrong...al-downloading

None of them go to court, because there is no evidence to prove the person that pays for the internet account has committed any crime. The scam is to scare people into paying the £700. If they refuse, the case is dropped instantly.

Yeah, let's support blackmail now! woop woop.

/me shakes his head.

I need to smear jam on my face instead of trying to understand why more producers are needed if you can just get names and send letters if ISPs will give up names like you say. The number of letters one company can send is unlimited.

We should really blame the masses of pirates that are spoofing innocent people's IPs to download stolen content. So much injustice. Lets get rid of those guys to protect the innocent.