Ben Dover

[jamieson2003]

[/url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/tecnology-18968223[/url]

Does this mean that anyone who watched one of his video's on one of the sharing sites (XVideos/Pornhub etc) can expect a letter?

[jamieson2003]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18968223

[A-C]

Interesting story. Busy times ahead for ISPs maybe.

[one eyed jack]

No. It means anyone actively uploading/downloading and sharing files of his titles would most likely find themselves in breach of copyright infringement and could possibly receive a letter

[jimslip]

To be exact, anyone who's router has been used to download alleged bendover and others stuff could receive a letter. So for example where I live there are 3 or 4 unsecured routers that I could log onto and download porn (As it happens i'd rather drive a screw driver through my head than do this) the person's who's router I'd used would then get some kind of letter from Messr bendover or whatever, suggesting he was some kind of porn fiend. I presume the letter will demand some kind of consideration to not "Pursue the matter further".

So basically, my innocent neighbours life would then go through the floor as he sees himself lose his job, his wife and children thinking he's a crazed porn nut and all the time he's done nothing at all.

if you are innocent, then I would suggest you print out and keep on file the following document. If on the other hand you have been one of the many helping yourself to porn and not expecting to ever pay for any of it, well the I'm afraid the party's over!

[m100]

Wouldn't it have been easier to serve notices on the sites hosting said material or links to and request removal.

If all 2000 downloaders take their case to court, even at a bare minimum of half a day each in court it will take one courtroom more than three years to see them all.

More maths, if downloading one torrent gets you a fine or a settlement of ?700 then that's the equivalent of 70 dvd's in the shops near me.

[one eyed jack]

Jim,

That argument is used a lot and I cant discount it because it is a real possibility but more often than not this is typical of the sort of propoganda used to protect those who are notorious for file sharing.

I don't like the thought of anyone innocent having their lives ruined but then I'm sure there are appeals in cases like this with a chance to have their say than just find ?700, pay up and that will be the end of it.

What are the odds out of everyone found guilty that a majority will be innocent? They are always Grandmas knitting wooly jumpers for little Timmy or a young boy who didnt know he was downloading Ben Dovers Booty Bandits while downloading Thomas The Tank Engine

Someone commented on me being listed but to my knowledge I am not being represented since I have to file for my own representation which I have not done.

Just for the record of course.

[jimslip]

I think the number of innocent people that could be dragged in is quite significant.

If there were say, 2000 alleged illegal downloaders and 10% of these had been downloaded through innocent peoples' routers that's 200 owners of routers and their families that could fear having their lives ruined. That's 200 mum's and dads being viewed with suspicion by their kids and their neighbours.

I suppose you could call it "Collateral damage".

[rednose]

Maybe it's his pension plan, lets face it he hasn't produced a decent film in 5 years

Rednose

[m100]

Strange how he doesn't have the same scruples when it comes to fleecing his fans by repackaging scenes in dvd's.

As i've said before there are very few of his titles that i haven't got but i reckon he 'owes' me at least a dozen scenes.