egafd.com

"Everyone is getting eir(sic) bit and I am owed ?17k ffs." "Sent from my iPad"! - Lee Bowden (Leaked emails - acting for Relish Films)


If he is owed 17k what the hell did he produce to earn that amount of money??? and after 25%???

Whose everyone getting their bit??? Ive not heard of any pay outs

Hickster, Im sure you can find a contradiction to everything I say. I dont know this Lee Bowden and whether he said that or not because you read it somewhere I will not dispute but we are also in disagreement about Julian Becker being a pornographer.


Just because it was written on the internet on a blog doesnt make it true but whether he is or not is neither here nor there. Im just saying for all these facts you and bpaw come up with i am not familiar with them as Im not clued up as you are about all this internet stuff but what throws me aside is the feeling you have a personal vendetta against him beyond the professional aspect of disagreeing with his methods.

His age, looks, quality and style of porn shouldnt be the issue. Stay on track. Anyone reading this would think you are of the anti porn brigade and to be honest thats part of my reason and the fact I dont know you or even know what you look like that sways my decision when at first there was doubt.

You almost had me man

Further more when you say " Dover taking the piss out of the public" I object to that.

I see it as taking action on whom he believes has "stolen" his stuff. You dont see it that way but thats how I hear producers talk.

I tried explaining its not technically stealing and I get the steely eyed look of suspicion.

Thats the problem here with the internet, not only has it changed how people think but its changed everyones way of thinking of justifying their actions because it was there for the taking

Heres a story for you. Someone told me last week he had to get away quickly as he had a major operation going on in his room.

Curiously I enquired what he meant by that. He proceeded to tell me he fills 500gb hard drives with movies he has downloaded from the internet and collected and sells them for double the price.

Im sure a 500gb film downloaded with films amounts to a whole lot of files. He might sell enough to make a couple hundred quid but what if there are lots of people doing that?

Of course, you might not see that as stealing but what right does he have making money off that stuff he got for free any?

I'm having a real hard time knowing what an innocent man looks like here. I didnt think to ask him "do you think thats right?" But if he got nicked by FACT and got fined a whopping amount of money I bet he wouldnt ever do it again because he would know there were heavy penalties if he got caught.

ScottMcGowan wrote:

> Ah! I see Terry. Totally misunderstood what was going on
> there. This particular forum doesn't easily allow for
> following specific trains of conversation within a thread.

It does if people use it correctly. !sad!

ScottMcGowan wrote: "Second, Ben Dover related products (including those he shot in association with Bluebird, for instance) have always been among our most popular products."

Well, I'm happy to be eductated on this. I saw a similar quote from Jerry Barnett he made a couple of year ago. I was basing my opinion on Becker / Honey saying they are suffering because of "Copyright theft". Looking at this and other forums, the general opinion was they don't like to see old men in action.

What you describe there is the same in all media. The most popular product is the most downloaded. Microsoft Office is a good example, and that is in spite of OpenOffice / LibreOffice freebies.

Maybe things would be really bad for Becker / Honey if people didn't download their stuff.

OEJ Said: "Just because it was written on the internet on a blog doesnt make it true but whether he is or not is neither here nor there."

An internet blog like this one? By that basis, I should not take what you say as true then!

I can say that what I have posted and what I've seen Hickster post is either from places like xbiz or directly out of leaked emails from ACS:Law. I have no wish to quote from what others have posted on forums.

@OEJ Said: "His age, looks, quality and style of porn shouldnt be the issue. Stay on track. Anyone reading this would think you are of the anti porn brigade and to be honest thats part of my reason and the fact I dont know you or even know what you look like that sways my decision when at first there was doubt.

You almost had me man"

I would say that the porn industry is my least favorite, but that is an opinion formed in the last two years. It is simply becuase it is the only industry where people within it are continuing a flawed method that targets innocent people.

OEJ Said: "DRM is years out of date and doesnt work at the best of times as it is crackable and from my understanding of it lost members faster to downloading like no other"

OEJ Said: "If a method is flawed, it is often improved upon but it has to be implemented first to expose those flaws."

Those two statements above contradict each other.

There is also DMCA take down actions in the US. This is the most favoured thing at the moment. They offer a UK service for less than ?10 a month for DIY takedowns. This has it's flaws also because innocent websites on a shared server can be taken out if an IP address is banned.

As I have said before, it is the flawed method at fault not the industry. If it were music producers, I would be on a different forum making the same points.

Even if Becker / Honey used a different monitor / expert, that in itself would be different.

I would ask Scott that if this all draws out and your sales of BDP suffer, I would guess that would be very unwelcoming.

What debt to society? Selling porn illegally hasn't hurt society one bit. The only people it's hurt are the makers. Has he repaid his debt to them?

I don't believe producing porn cancels the other out. The producers still didn't receive anything from him. Any money he made from porn went to him. Not any pro-porn organisation. The only "compensation" he paid to the industry was his output which, let's be honest, is mildly tittilating at best.

If he hasn't paid any money to the people who's films he was selling illegally then why does he deserve recompense and not the others? Or is he going to use any money he might get from this to pay the producers back or donate it to some sort of anti-piracy organisation? I'm guessing probably not.

I have already stated that I think ANYONE who downloads stuff and then SELLS it, is committing not only what is arguably theft, but also fraud, indeed the person you describe is actually committing a CRIMINAL act, but of course you are confusing THAT with people who fileshare for either their own personal use, and/or who use torrents legitimately as a way of transferring huge files across networks.

I have used Torrents, as a Video player for my favorite TV series, Torrents are much more reliable and far less restrictive say than IPlayer. But the series I have downloaded cannot be legitimately bought. They can of course later, and many times I have actually bought the Box Set, as you tend to get extras included for your money.

I feel if Dover and co had used different people this wouldn't be AS inflammatory, of course it would still be controversial because of the method used

@OEJ Wrote "If he is owed 17k what the hell did he produce to earn that amount of money??? and after 25%???"

Whose everyone getting their bit??? Ive not heard of any pay outs"

Didn't see anything about 25% in their!

Lee Bowden was the owner of Media C.A.T that did the same as what Golden Eye are doing, GEIL are NOT producers, merely a shell company that has been "sold" the rights to persue uploaders.

This is the sort of money that was availiable when sending out 25,000 letters, I am sure it is what opened up the eyes of Becker and co


@OEJ Wrote" Hickster, Im sure you can find a contradiction to everything I say. I dont know this Lee Bowden and whether he said that or not because you read it somewhere I will not dispute but we are also in disagreement about Julian Becker being a pornographer."

I am not here to contradict anything you say, I am not a contrarian at all. YOU may dispute that Becker is a pornographer, but please dont make it out that it was ME that said it, it wasn't, Becker himself describes HIMSELF as a Pornographer.

Think of it like this, in addition to Becker admitting he is, Becker is the Director of Optime Strategies, that trades as "Ben Dover Productions". Becker is the ONLY director of that company, so by virtue of the fact he is a DIRECTOR of a Porn company, that alone would make him a err Pornographer, the fact he accepts this seems a fair conclusion, why you don't is a mystery to me!


@OEJ" Wrote "you have a personal vendetta against him beyond the professional aspect of disagreeing with his methods.

His age, looks, quality and style of porn shouldn't be the issue. Stay on track. Anyone reading this would think you are of the anti porn brigade"

I agree, and if I have made that seem personal I apologise, as far as I know I have only ever remarked that he seems out of place in what I would consider a young mans game, but as I have said, I am not a consumer. I remarked that he looks like Keith Harris, and not sure what else really.

But you are right, as I have said they are so intrisically linked with the Davenport Lyons/ACS:LAW model, that is the only thing to focus on, but the one thing you seem to ignore. I feel I have shown you enough actual evidence, not merely "bits from the internet", but actual websites, and linking quotes to them.


@OEJ "You almost had me man"

Ouch, that seems like I was trying to trick you, I wasn't. I hope you truly know deep down I wasn't.

This link at least shows you the linkage. TBI is Tilly Baily Irvine who represented GEIL before they withdrew due to criticism from the House of Lords. http://acsbore.files.wordpress.com/2010 ... rogant.gif

You want to stay on track, lets stay on track! (BTW still waiting for you to comment on the Wikipedia entry)

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/assets/f ... c%2012.pdf

There is the judgement. Read it and make your own judgement.

Right, OK. A Judge of the Court in this Judgement has stated possible flaws in the monitoring software. I will let the Judge be the judge of that.

So what happens now? Letters of claim are sent out that are controlled by the Court.

My opinion:

The original letter of claim by GEIL was dismissed in claim, compensation and evidence.

After that, no control. Despite the Judge having issues with their claim and the monitoring software, the rights of the Copyright holders outweighs the rights of the defendants, with conditions.

All this just to get an NPO. Not to get an actual judgement of guilt. If the monitoring evidence was so exact, why would the Judge question it?

So we will have the familiar episode of Letter Of Claim (But Court controlled), and Letter Of Denial. What then?

I will let the following extract from the judgement explain my feelings:

?With the judge?s own safeguards in place the intended defendants seem to me to be as well protected against the risks which have been identified as the court can achieve consistently with the enforcement of the claimants? own property rights.?

?Judge?s own safe guards? and ?as the court can achieve? tells me that the Court are not able to protect the defendants further than the initial first letter of claim.

I may have been seen as anti-porn, ant-geil, anti-bdp, anti-everything with my previous posts, but the judgement is what it is.

Just to clarify one thing. All copyright holders who aligned themselves with GEIL were happy with the original letter of claim that was dismissed by the original judgement. ?700, NO. You did it, NO. Your internet will be slowed down, NO. The Court said so, NO.

It is a shame really. Quite a lot of the evidence against GEIL is open for people to see. Absolutely no evidence has been brought forward to absolutely prove lost revenues because of p2p. I accept this is the case, but nowhere near what we are led to believe. The fact that BDP is the ?leading brand? when it comes to sales tell you that the truth isn?t always told.

Are we ever going to be privy with the actual finances of GEIL to say that they need 75% of the revenues? If GEIL were solicitors, they would be scrutinised much further as regards to champerty like ACS:Law were.

All other possible options that are available to counteract piracy like DRM and DMCA do not offer a financial reward. Serious people who want to counteract piracy take more legitimate routes and try and take down tube / p2p sites. If this action is the right thing to do, why is it always porn? Why not music? Why not software? I?ll tell you why, because Atari, Ministry Of Sound etc dropped it like a fiery bombshell because it is wrong and alienated their own consumers.

These producers went in to an agreement with GEIL at around 75% to GEIL. Do these producers negotiate the same percentage to distributors? No. Producers may say that 100% of p2p sales is zero and a monetary compensation above that zero from infringers is right. GEIL / BDP are pornographers, and take 75%. Come on!!!!!!

The Judge questions the evidence. GEIL take 75%. It is always porn. If this was a film, who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?