Has Copyright owners actions affected your choice?

[bpaw]

@OEJ

Quick and short response:

Q. Do I believe your argument about p2p piracy?
A. Yes, I can look on p2p sites.

Q. Do I believe your argument about losing revenue?
A. Yes, it happens to be very common in the economic climate we live in.

Q. Do I think it is right for you to do something about your situation?
A. Yes.

Q. Do I think you accepting GEIL offer is right?
A. No, because of Alireza Torabi and Clem Vogler.

Q. Do I think it is right to go after p2p traffic?
A. Yes, but the monitoring software should be open for anyone to inspect.

There, very quick!

I'll tell you a little (Boring) story.

I took some videos on my smartphone of my dog messing about over a period of time. After a while of saving them on my computer, I figured my Mrs wouldn't mind them on a DVD.

I googled for a free my smartphone video to avi video converter. Loads! Clicked on one, no! Clicked another, yes but when downloaded and installed, it only gives 1 min of video, then wants money.

Long story short, I could p2p download a cracked version of something that did the trick, but I didn't. My Mrs watches the videos on the TV from a cable connected to my computer.

The moral of the story is a person decides what they want to do. If I decided to p2p download a smartphone video converter, it doesn't mean I was going to buy it, but decided not to. In my case, I decided an alternative choice of what I wanted to do.

OEJ, or any producer who has accepted what GEIL has offered, how can you absolutely say that you are being denied income from p2p downloads? To what level? 100% p2p? 50% p2p? 25% p2p? Where is your absolute proof that p2p has affected your income?

To take the examples in the news. BlockBuster Video were screwed by Netflix. HMV knackered by iTunes. These were retailers yes, but succumbed to technology. I would think that as a producer, you are at the mercy of what retailers can do for you.

One thing to think about. p2p downloads are in a fairly compact, well compressed format and quick to download. It strikes me that seems fairly similar to what iTunes is all about, and Netflix is also streamed instantly. All this seems like what the consumer wants.

OEJ Said: "You probably still dont see my point because its all about the "innocent people" being exploited by the nasty evil pornographers. Pornographer I is but nasty and evil? "

I'll turn your point around and say this:

When the letters hit the doormats of the named subscribers, and the innocent people who receive them (As mentioned by the Judge) look at the letter and the name of the "Works" they are accused of downloading, they decide to settle a monetary amount to GEIL (Because it is porn). It happens to be one of your films, and you accept your 25%

I'm sure that makes your argument of losing revenue seem well justified. Does it?

[bpaw]

@OEJ

A thought has come to my mind.

What you seem to be arguing about is retribution.

That is not what the NPO, or letter of claim is all about. The letter of claim is an upload is a lost sale. You argue a download is a thieving f*cker.

Be careful!

[bpaw]

@OEJ

Oh, before you may happen to say that you signed up to GEIL regardless of the actions they take, you might as well sign up to the Nigerian King who passed away and somebody wants to transfer ?2million in to your bank account.

If you don't look into what you sign up for properly, then I'm sorry, that is no excuse.

[one eyed jack]

Bpaw: OEJ, or any producer who has accepted what GEIL has offered, how can you absolutely say that you are being denied income from p2p downloads? To what level? 100% p2p? 50% p2p? 25% p2p? Where is your absolute proof that p2p has affected your income?



A very good question. Can I prove it? Not absolutely but I can say that my revenue has dropped noticeably and while I wont attribute that all to piracy I will say it has a lot to do with it when people have pointed out filesharing sites and seen states run into a few hundred to the tens of thousands. The amazing thing Ive discovered is that money had to be paid to access some of these sites ie rapidshare where you have to pay money for speedy download options.
Now I have no problem with the Kim Dotcoms making a fortune but I have a huge problem when my stuff is being used to finance that guys operation because one of his subscribers put it there. If the likes of Kim Dotcom wrote me a cheque for ?1000 it wouldnt even be noticed by him for how much money they are making. None of those filesharing sites are doing it for free. They are making money on stolen content even if it is not them actually doing it, they are facilitating it and people that buy into that are just as culpable in my opinion


Bpaw: When the letters hit the doormats of the named subscribers, and the innocent people who receive them (As mentioned by the Judge) look at the letter and the name of the "Works" they are accused of downloading, they decide to settle a monetary amount to GEIL (Because it is porn). It happens to be one of your films, and you accept your 25%

I'm sure that makes your argument of losing revenue seem well justified. Does it?


I'll answer that by telling a boring story. I went to the O2 on Saturday night to see Django with a couple of good friends and while we were dining in Nandos beforehand I asked them why they had not downloaded the film given that seems to be the norm these days, given that they download TV shows. They looked at me horrified. "No we never download films because we had a friend in Europe who was fined a thousand euros for downloading"

You see how this works? I'm not paying for GEILS service. they are earning it. If I was to persue these cases it would be a full time job. I respect that anyone who does this for me will deserve their 75% Ive already stated that its the cause more than the money that concerns me.

Whether their friend was innocent or not I will never know but the fact he got that letter and paid it sent the message to his friends in England that downloading films was an offence and they dont want to get that letter. The more publicity this gets the more it will send out the message that downloading for free is wrong. Personally I dont want to make any more money than my content is worth. Just dont follow the crowd in expecting to get it for free.

I would rather make the example by going to a downloaders house, help myself to his beers and put my feet up on his coffee table and watch a movie on his plasma TV and blu ray player then pick up his car keys and drive away in his car after to make a point that if you expect my stuff for free how would you feel if I did the same thing to you by taking for free what you have?

[bpaw]

I suppose OEJ that much of what we are doing here is trying to portray our argument in many different ways. Be it in a technical view, by analogy or by example.

An argument is brought by motivation.

My motivation isn?t monetary. I can effectively forget about all this because at the moment, not being an O2 subscriber, I have no fear of receiving one of these letters. That may sound weird in the sense that I do not p2p download anything, but it shows from me how little trust I have in the monitoring software.

Your motivation is monetary. This has been brought by loss in revenues and evidence brought to you that your material is shared in one form or another. The fact that you have any involvement with GEIL is because they are offering their services to do all the necessary efforts to get back what you perceive to have lost. You have also said you didn?t really expect to see anything from it, and I guess anything received would be a bonus.

What is troubling is how your perception of lost revenues and the actions that GEIL are doing are a far apart.

I asked you to what level p2p downloads have denied you income. You say ?A very good question? then change the question from specifically p2p downloads to the wider problem of piracy. This then allows you to bring in ?rapidshare? and ?Kim Dotcom? to say how much cyberlocker type servers are making money. Of course the likes of ?Kim Dotcom? have made money. They are the ones who are profiting from your material. It is not p2p. The very nature of p2p is free, that is what it does. GEIL are monitoring p2p, not the ?Kim Dotcom? people.

I also mentioned that you seem to want retribution. That is closer to the example ?Letter Of Claim? I put to you earlier. You want your value for money in what you believe is a potential loss in revenue. The ?evidence? is of a single download. This again doesn?t fit with what GEIL are doing. They wanted ?700.00 for the ?idea? and no proof that any downloader COULD share to thousands, so bringing in more damages. This has obviously changed somewhat since the NPO Court case, but certainly not through GEILs choice.

On those two points alone and not mentioning all the other arguments, I would say that GEIL are not representing your interests to the way that you put your argument. You could dismiss that by saying you are not concerned how GEIL go about what they do, but I feel that it somewhat dilutes your argument.

Regarding your friends (I will refrain from asking whether there was any irony that you went to the *O2*). Of course people would be wary if they see that anyone they know who has had to pay for an alleged download. Your friends chose the right path. Others don?t. Many opt for a VPN (Like Alireza Toarbis) where they can?t be monitored. Others go for ?rapidshare? sites where they can?t be monitored. Others use ?News servers? where they can?t be monitored. Others don?t p2p download in the first place and still get a ?Letter Of Claim?.

As for your example of going to a downloaders house and helping yourself, can an innocent person who paid off GEIL do the same at your house? They could come in and take your beers, TV and BlueRay player. No, I would think not. You want it one way only.

In all honesty, the people who will be affected in this are not getting any money. Either they are innocent (As the Judge quite rightly pointed out), or they did download via p2p. Neither case has earned them money.

Seeing that the monitoring software is what was used by ACS:Law, I feel it is right for me to say history will repeat itself. As I have mentioned, the leaked emails of ACS:Law were relating to the very people who will be affected by GEIL. It wasn?t ACS:Law that was the problem (Although they were scumbags), it was the monitoring software.

People who receive income support and child benefit will be asked to pay more than half the money they get per week to pay off GEIL. Some of these will opt to sell their plasma TV to pay off GEIL. People will pay off GEIL with the money they get from looking after a sick or mentally ill relative.

These people don?t sound like thieving pirates who make mega-bucks from your hard work, do they?

[one eyed jack]

Bpaw wrote: It is not p2p. The very nature of p2p is free, that is what it does. GEIL are monitoring p2p, not the ?Kim Dotcom? people.

Its not a question of just profiting. the real big problem is making what I have invested in available for free when the uploaders and the downloaders and all those who share it have no right to. I beleive this is a breach of the copyright infringement which the definition of has been clouded thoughout this thread but to which you are quite happy to use the word retribution on my part without accepting that something given away for free by those with no permission to do so is an act of infringement of my copyright


Bpaw wrote: As for your example of going to a downloaders house and helping yourself, can an innocent person who paid off GEIL do the same at your house? They could come in and take your beers, TV and BlueRay player. No, I would think not. You want it one way only.


AGAIN please say who is innocent. You already know my answer with regards to the innocent. Funny enough, my friends didnt say if the guy who paid the fine was innocent or not. Mind you I didnt ask. I just assumed he paid it because it was a fair cop. Getting these letters would be like getting a traffic offense letter. If you didnt do it you would write back and appeal and state your case. This is where the courts come in. I dont beleive for a second this is an easy case of just making money under the supervision of the courts. there is a thing called right to appeal


Bpaw wrote: People who receive income support and child benefit will be asked to pay more than half the money they get per week to pay off GEIL. Some of these will opt to sell their plasma TV to pay off GEIL. People will pay off GEIL with the money they get from looking after a sick or mentally ill relative.

These people don?t sound like thieving pirates who make mega-bucks from your hard work, do they?


Please feel free to supply real world examples of this to support your claim. Im sure we've explored the stressed out suicide victim of this scheme already to which I responded do they feel the same way when late paying their bills?

I'm sure I could get out of paying my tax every year by laying claim to the same thing and crying crocodile tears

How many different ways shall we explain the same thing? We are at cross purposes on this issue. You see everyone as innocent I believe if it goes through supervised by a court that it is a legitimate claim unless proven otherwise. If this was a license to rob people blind (as Im sure you are suggesting) then all manner of dubious people would be doing the same thing.

Whats to stop producers sending out random letters without a monitoring system if that is flawed as you say and telling people to pay up for something they dont know they downloaded. You dont even need to be a producer either. Just a regular sounding but important company?

I have more faith in the court system seeing this through properly. I havent seen a penny from this yet but already I feel I am morally on trial for not dealing with the right band of uploaders or downloaders. I say, one ISP at a time

[one eyed jack]

Bpaw wrote: I asked you to what level p2p downloads have denied you income. You say ?A very good question? then change the question from specifically p2p downloads to the wider problem of piracy. This then allows you to bring in ?rapidshare? and ?Kim Dotcom? to say how much cyberlocker type servers are making money. Of course the likes of ?Kim Dotcom? have made money. They are the ones who are profiting from your material. It is not p2p. The very nature of p2p is free, that is what it does. GEIL are monitoring p2p, not the ?Kim Dotcom? people.


i thought I answered this throughout but here we go again (if I didnt) it stands to reason to me that if the likes of rapidshare and megauploads have a certain amount of subscribers they make money from for illegal downloads then you can guarantee any file sharing client would be more popular an option if it provides the same content for free. Either way, somewhere along the line the client facilitating this is making somewhere down the line, be it indirectly from advertising or sponsorships but no one facilitates this level of traffic accessing content for the sheer love of it and even if they did it comes back tothe same point: They dont have the right to do it with my content!

[one eyed jack]

[bpaw]

I thought I would wait until after the Letter Of Claims were sent out. It seemed not appropriate to reply beforehand.

OEJ Wrote: http://www.xbiz.com/news/158744

Thanks for that OEJ.

Very interesting information.

It shows an organisation called Porn Guardian in the US where you sign up to $150.00 a year and they remove your copyright content for you anywhere they find it online. It convinces me more than ever that the latest "Speculative Invoicing" model from GEIL is alternative revenue, or even a revenue enhancing operation.

http://www.xbizdigital.com/pdf/xw/xw_2012-12.pdf

A view from Mr Becker on page 90 about tube sites:
----------
From our own experience and other producers I have spoken to it would appear that the dramatic revenue losses have slowed and although the business show?s no sign of recovery the downward free fall is at least flattening into a more gentle slope.

Tube sites in my opinion have been as damaging to on-line sales as file sharing. Until recently they appeared to be infringing copyright, however since some notable court action in the U.S., they now sponsor industry events and are becoming focal to sales of online content.

Taking emotion away from any decision on whether we want to do business with organizations who in effect have been greatly responsible for stealing content and decimating profits, there is no doubt that rightly or wrongly they control and attract huge traffic to their sites.
----------

I REALLY can't make an opinion about Mr Beckers own words through absolute astonishment. Each of those three paragraphs tells a massive story.

A link from me to the judgement that denied your claim, but was subsequently allowed on appeal:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/723.html
----------
Mr Becker explained in slightly more detail the basis for the Claimants' application against O2. In paragraph 15 he said:

"As mentioned above, [Golden Eye] has subscribed to a service which can detect persons making its copyright films available for distribution. The persons responsible are identified by reference to the IP address assigned to them at the time that the film is being made available online."

He went on to explain that the only way in which it was possible to find out the names and addresses of the subscribers to whom the IP addresses had been assigned at the relevant times was to obtain disclosure from the ISP.
----------

?a service which can detect persons? Eh? ?The persons responsible are identified by reference to the IP address assigned to them? Eh? This is Mr Beckers own words in his statement to the Court.

Well, to settle the argument of whether innocent people will be targeted, I will leave in the capable hands of the actual Judge who presided over the GEIL NPO:

----------
119.The Intended Defendants are not, of course, before me. With the assistance of Consumer Focus' submissions, however, it seems to me that the position of the Intended Defendants can be summarised as follows. It is likely that most of the Intended Defendants are ordinary consumers, many of whom may be on low incomes and without ready access to legal advice, particularly specialised legal advice of the kind required for a claim of this nature. The grant of the order sought will invade their privacy and impinge upon their data protection rights. Furthermore, it will expose them to receiving letters of claim and may expose them to proceedings for infringement in circumstances where they may not be guilty of infringement, where the subject matter of the claim may cause them embarrassment, where a proper defence to the claim would require specialised legal advice that they may not be able to afford and where they may not consider it cost-effective for them to defend the claim even if they are innocent.

123.Although it is not normally the role of the courts to supervise pre-action correspondence, the draft order requires the letter of claim to be in the form set out in Schedule 2 and which I have reproduced above. In my view the ACS:Law/Media CAT episode shows very clearly why that this is an appropriate course to take, and why a court being asked to make a Norwich Pharmacal order in circumstances such as these needs carefully to consider the terms of the draft letter of claim. Once again, as HHJ Birss QC pointed out, the court needs to consider the impact of the letter of claim upon ordinary consumers who may not have access to specialised legal advice, who may be innocent of what is alleged against them and who may be embarrassed and/or distressed by being alleged to have been involved in filesharing involving pornography.
----------

I read your words OEJ, and I read the Judges words. I have a fairly good feeling that the words of the Judge are pretty good to rely on as evidence. GEIL did not appeal against his judgement about innocent people will be targeted. It is also the FACT that the Judge mentions low income people.

I don?t care OEJ that you haven?t seen an ?innocent? person. The Judge has taken that on board, so it is NOT me saying it, it IS the Judge. Take that on board.

[one eyed jack]

I don?t care OEJ that you haven?t seen an ?innocent? person. The Judge has taken that on board, so it is NOT me saying it, it IS the Judge. Take that on board.


As I said, several times, i am not interested in targetting innocent people. Not expecting to see money and happy that the cpourts are supervising this.

Where have I said otherwise? I have said that i see this as a tool to hit back at piracy. Word like retribution where used by you. Feel free to cut and paste my terms you defined as "retribution"

Yes, maybe, aimes at the guilty but as im not directly involved with knowing who is involved how am I to know?

Its all said in this thread