Ben Dover and Golden Eye International "scamming"
Re: Ben Dover and Golden Eye International "scamming"
Thanks for that, that looks interesting.. I do not profess to being a legal person, just someone who is willing to help anyone innocent accused in anyway I can. I still remember the feeling of receiving a letter from ACS:LAW , it was not good. I want NOONE to ever feel like that.
-
leatherpantsman
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Ben Dover and Golden Eye International "scamming"
I am a legal person and don't mind giving a little bit of free advice when something stinks. And this clearly does. After all we are meant to be a legal profession which suggests that we should do things professionally!!
Re: Ben Dover and Golden Eye International "scamming"
@leatherpantsman
Well I appreciate your input on this I really do, and yes you are right this IS shady. What I think is really bad is that whereas with the Legal Proffession people could at least complain to the Solicitors Regulation Authority(SRA) who can they complain to with Golden Eye International?
Well I appreciate your input on this I really do, and yes you are right this IS shady. What I think is really bad is that whereas with the Legal Proffession people could at least complain to the Solicitors Regulation Authority(SRA) who can they complain to with Golden Eye International?
Re: Ben Dover and Golden Eye International "scamming"
Hi to the forum, and Hi Hickster mate.
To everyone else, I too received a Letter Of Claim (LoC( from ACS:Law in September 2010 with an accusation that I download a copyright pornographic title (The Works). Thankfully, my LoC coincided with the Direct Denial Of Service (DDoS) attack on AC:Laws website which through the incompetence of Andrew Crossley, as the Data Controller of personal information, left all of their email correspondence for anyone to download.
His competence was a bitter sweet experience for me. On the positive side, ACS:Law no longer pursued me with any more letters. On the negative side, my full name, address and alleged download title is on a spreadsheet which half the world has probably downloaded and viewed. It is OK now, but for a period of about six months, my name and address was out there and I had no idea if I was going to get another ?nastygram? from ACS:Law again. Imagine that six months of hell.
Anyone here who thinks that GEIL are doing the right thing I can tell you they are not.
In my situation, I did download music with Napster and films (Box office, not pornography) with Morpheus. I ceased this behaviour over ten years ago after I received an email from my ISP telling me to stop such activity. At the time of my ?alleged? infringement in 2010, I did not have a laptop and I had my WiFi disabled (If you don?t use it, disable it!). In no way was any p2p software installed on any computer in my household, and I am technically aware enough to protect myself from any possible ?Trojan? taking over my computer.
So how is it possible that I received an LoC from ACS:Law?
Back to the DDoS attack on ACS:Law. The leaked emails had the two spreadsheets with about 10,000 IP address, names, addresses and copyright title (Again, which my details are on). 25% of the IP addresses could not be matched by the ISP, so therefore have ?Unknown? as the subscriber. Twenty Five Percent!!!!!! So what, you might say, my IP address came up so my ISP matched my details. I suggest that the 25% ?Unknowns?, plus the fact that I haven?t used p2p software for over ten years, plus the fact that my WiFi was disabled proves to me that the monitoring software is flawed.
Sure, from the leaked emails from ACS:Law, they did catch people who owned up and paid (The emails prove it). From the leaked spreadsheets, my name appears once at one moment in time. Others names appear many times. My speculation (If I borrow this word from speculative invoice rogues!) is that if infringers are really downloading for a long period of time then the software is probably going to pick them up. But 25% ?Unknowns? prove the monitoring software is flawed.
So who was doing the monitoring of the p2p network for ACS:Law? Alireza Torabi of NG3 Systems. The very same person behind the monitoring of the p2p network for GEIL. Given the NO ONE can check and analyse the software, who can say that the information it spews out is right? Only the evidence I have seen says to me that it is flawed.
My personal thinking is the actions that GEIL are doing are going to tarnish the reputation of the adult industry. The ones who take part in this are going to get initial rewards by making money from innocent people. The producers who don?t take part will lose simply by the negatives of these actions.
If it wasn?t GEIL doing this, but instead a music copyright holder, then I know that me (And I guess Hickster!) will be on a different forum arguing the same point.
To everyone else, I too received a Letter Of Claim (LoC( from ACS:Law in September 2010 with an accusation that I download a copyright pornographic title (The Works). Thankfully, my LoC coincided with the Direct Denial Of Service (DDoS) attack on AC:Laws website which through the incompetence of Andrew Crossley, as the Data Controller of personal information, left all of their email correspondence for anyone to download.
His competence was a bitter sweet experience for me. On the positive side, ACS:Law no longer pursued me with any more letters. On the negative side, my full name, address and alleged download title is on a spreadsheet which half the world has probably downloaded and viewed. It is OK now, but for a period of about six months, my name and address was out there and I had no idea if I was going to get another ?nastygram? from ACS:Law again. Imagine that six months of hell.
Anyone here who thinks that GEIL are doing the right thing I can tell you they are not.
In my situation, I did download music with Napster and films (Box office, not pornography) with Morpheus. I ceased this behaviour over ten years ago after I received an email from my ISP telling me to stop such activity. At the time of my ?alleged? infringement in 2010, I did not have a laptop and I had my WiFi disabled (If you don?t use it, disable it!). In no way was any p2p software installed on any computer in my household, and I am technically aware enough to protect myself from any possible ?Trojan? taking over my computer.
So how is it possible that I received an LoC from ACS:Law?
Back to the DDoS attack on ACS:Law. The leaked emails had the two spreadsheets with about 10,000 IP address, names, addresses and copyright title (Again, which my details are on). 25% of the IP addresses could not be matched by the ISP, so therefore have ?Unknown? as the subscriber. Twenty Five Percent!!!!!! So what, you might say, my IP address came up so my ISP matched my details. I suggest that the 25% ?Unknowns?, plus the fact that I haven?t used p2p software for over ten years, plus the fact that my WiFi was disabled proves to me that the monitoring software is flawed.
Sure, from the leaked emails from ACS:Law, they did catch people who owned up and paid (The emails prove it). From the leaked spreadsheets, my name appears once at one moment in time. Others names appear many times. My speculation (If I borrow this word from speculative invoice rogues!) is that if infringers are really downloading for a long period of time then the software is probably going to pick them up. But 25% ?Unknowns? prove the monitoring software is flawed.
So who was doing the monitoring of the p2p network for ACS:Law? Alireza Torabi of NG3 Systems. The very same person behind the monitoring of the p2p network for GEIL. Given the NO ONE can check and analyse the software, who can say that the information it spews out is right? Only the evidence I have seen says to me that it is flawed.
My personal thinking is the actions that GEIL are doing are going to tarnish the reputation of the adult industry. The ones who take part in this are going to get initial rewards by making money from innocent people. The producers who don?t take part will lose simply by the negatives of these actions.
If it wasn?t GEIL doing this, but instead a music copyright holder, then I know that me (And I guess Hickster!) will be on a different forum arguing the same point.