Has Copyright owners actions affected your choice?

[bpaw]

"I'm talking about loss of earnings. They provide a service. Greed on their part?"
Yes

"Let snot confuse the word greed with profit. That seems to be the term people like to use these days because making money is usually frowned on by jealous people who dont make any (not meaning you because you are providing commentary)"
OK

"I want to see a return on my investment and if downloaders deny me that then i will have to seek another way of recouping my losses."
Agreed

"GEIL may only give me 25% but thats 25% more than i wouldve got if I didnt do anyhting about it and the 75% they make is all on them as it has cost them time and money going to and fro from the courts for over 2 years now"
Agreed

"I still dont see your argument"
OK

"We're going in circles now. Havent we said all we need to on this now? Or are you seriously looking for the perfect quote to go on your blogs that you can bend and twist to suit your agenda?"
I don't quote your words on any blogs. I do mention that I converse with a producer and give you a favourable light.

BTW, it is not your greed, but you said you defend GEIL. I look at words and actions. I mention greed as a leading point to my quotes from GEIL and the Judge at the NPO. But I will lead it up by a Wikipedia entry.

The motivation of any scam is greed.

Wikipedia:
?A confidence trick (also known as a scam) is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence. A confidence artist is an individual operating alone or in concert with others who exploits characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, na?vet?, or greed.?

Sums up a Letter Of Claim nicely!

------
GEIL original letter:
?Proposed Settlement
3. pay ?700.00 as compensation to GEIL for its losses.?
------

------
Judges comments at NPO application:
?133. I agree with counsel for Consumer Focus that the figure of ?700 is unsupportable. My reasons are as follows. First, the Claimants know that an unknown percentage of the Intended Defendants are not infringers at all. Intended Defendants who have not in fact committed any infringements are not liable to pay any sum.?

?134. Secondly, in the case of those Intended Defendants who are infringers, the Claimants have no idea about the scale of the infringements committed by each infringer. Some might have infringed on a very substantial scale indeed, while others might only have infringed to a minor extent.?

?135. Thirdly, Mr Becker suggests that the reasonable royalty should be assessed on the basis of a "time limited license [sic] to exploit a work by providing copies of it on an unlimited worldwide basis". This assumes that infringement by making available to the public occurs at the place where the uploading/seeding takes place, but that is not necessarily correct?

?138. Accordingly, I do not consider that the Claimants are justified in sending letters of claim to every Intended Defendant demanding the payment of ?700. What the Claimants ought to do is to proceed in the conventional manner, that is to say, to require the Intended Defendants who do not dispute liability to disclose such information as they are able to provide as to the extent to which they have engaged in P2P filesharing of the relevant Claimants' copyright works. In my view it would be acceptable for the Claimants to indicate that they are prepared to accept a lump sum in settlement of their claims, including the request for disclosure, but not to specify a figure in the initial letter. The settlement sum should be individually negotiated with each Intended Defendant.?
------

So if a subscriber admits the infringement, what are they likely to be asked to pay? My question is how can it be ?individually negotiated with each Intended Defendant?, considering ?the Claimants have no idea about the scale of the infringements committed by each infringer??

By the Judges opinion, the claim of ?700.00 is only justified if they have admitted to sharing about 20 copyright videos.

Considering that a number of people involved with the GEIL NPO have claimed that the acceptance of the NPO by the Judge is justification of their actions, they should also accept the words of the Judge in the NPO judgement.

My understanding recently has proven to me that is not the case.

[bpaw]

Just to also say OEJ that I have used your words on this public forum to say to letter recipients that producers are trying to look after their interests. I have used your words exactly for the reasons why you provided them here.

Your candidness is welcome and will be portrayed by me accordingly. I have not given any direct link to anyone to your quotes or provided any of your quotes. I think I can safely say the same for Hickster.

Our problem, and the letter recipients, is GEIL.

If Mr Becker was so kind to provide the same courtesy as you do in the same frank manner, maybe he wouldn't be so "badly" portrayed in such blogs.

[bpaw]

But, I will ask the same question just in case it is lost and considering I am using the actual Judges words:

"So if a subscriber admits the infringement, what are they likely to be asked to pay? My question is how can it be ?individually negotiated with each Intended Defendant?, considering ?the Claimants have no idea about the scale of the infringements committed by each infringer??"

[bpaw]

Right, there may be a chance that a bit of cross referencing could be done by GEIL with people who used to buy adult material with those subscriber details they were provided with from O2.

Is there any evidence that those O2 subscribers previously purchased anything at all from those copyright holders?

Why is that a pertinent question? Oh yes, GEILs claim that any upload is a potential lost sale.

Well, armed with personal details and making such grandiose claims, there is a chance to see if any of the O2 subscribers have turned up on any invoice produced by any producer.

Oh yes, it isn?t the download they are after but the upload. If that is the case then they should not charge anything for anyone subscribing to their online services.

To GEIL: Think about it. If you regard uploads as a lost sale, all downloaders are uploaders. How many of the subscribers you have been provided by O2 match to any previous purchaser of such material?

This is an AMAZING opportunity Mr Julian Fraser Becker to say that you have looked at the subscribers addresses and say that they used to buy porn.

Silence is BOLLOCKS on your part.

[bpaw]

Although the original question of this thread has become a bit boring for some who participated, for others who didn't participate in this discussion they have to deal with a different reality:

http://acsbore.wordpress.com/2013/06/13 ... -innocent/

So when you see pictures of some producers screaming poverty dancing round a pole in the next UKAP summer party, some ISP subscriber paid for their vodka martini.

Oh, and before any producer gives me some grief about "Show me an innocent", I will remind them of Julian Beckers words:

" I have to listen to my technical advisors who assure me that in the vast majority of the time, the software will identify the correct IP address that has infringed our copyright."

Julian Becker says "vast majority of the time" and "identify the correct IP address".

So where in that statement is it right for GEIL to accuse a subscriber of copyright infringement?

Check mate.

[Peter]

[img]http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp26 ... 1281681426[/img]

[bpaw]

LOL!

[img]http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o69 ... 5555b1.png[/img]

Your king will not heed your prayers if you keep posting! !happy!