egafd.com

The effrontery from Honey is staggering!

This individual spent the first three-quarters of his "career" attempting to circumvent the law, then spend the last quarter indulging in some of the nastiest misogynistic behaviour in front of the camera. Also and he, and his wife, have criminal convictions - but now he wishes to be portrayed as an upright, honest businessman who believes he's been wronged and is now seeking litigation to recoup monies owed.

Should a convicted criminal be able to claim financial compensation?

Trumpty, I seem to recall reading somewhere that he split from his wife and that she took him to the cleaners last year, the result of which was that he had to flog his Kent mansion to pay her off.

Seems to me that this is more about trying to get hold of some quick & easy wedge to offset that than it is about "damages" or taking a moral stand over copyright breach.

I mean, all he has to do is send out 9000 threat-o-grams and even if only one in four coughs up the 700 quid he's demanding, he's still in clover to the tune of over a million and a half. Nice work if you can get it.

This saga reminds me of these cowboy "carpark surveillance" companies who claim "breach of contract" and hit you with a demand for 90 nicker if you overstay by half an hour at B&Q or your local multiplex. That's basically speculative invoicing as well. Not illegal - but if they took you to court (which they never do) they don't have a leg to stand on because (a) they can't prove who the driver is and (b) they have to prove that their "client" (B&Q or whoever) actually incurred 90 quid's worth of "damages" as a result of you overstaying (which of course they can't).

But they rely on fear and intimidation to get people to cough up, and a lot of people just pay up because they don't want the hassle. Which of course is what old Ben is relying on.

- Eric

He has a good business brain. Always one step ahead of the game. I see he organises stag and hen do's now. Many to eastern europe. Never thought he would become a tourist agent !grin!

I think that Ben is simply trying to earn some cash back from the illegal viewing of his copyright films by O2 subscribers and why shouldn't he?

I believe that Stagliano has already tried this successfully in the States?

eroticartist wrote:

> I think that Ben is simply trying to earn some cash back from
> the illegal viewing of his copyright films by O2 subscribers
> and why shouldn't he?>>>


But once again - why are only O2 customers being singled out? This puzzles me.

- Eric

eroticartist wrote:

> I think that Ben is simply trying to earn some cash back from
> the illegal viewing of his copyright films by O2 subscribers
> and why shouldn't he?>>>


And even if that's true, 9000 "lost" DVD sales or site subscriptions at (say) ?25 a pop is only ?180k tops.

He's demanding 9000 x ?700 = ?6.3 million.

I'm not condoning illegal downloading at all, but whichever way you slice it that is a piss-take, and way out of proportion to any "damages" he claims he may have suffered.

- Eric

Flat_Eric wrote:

> But once again - why are only O2 customers being singled out?
> This puzzles me.


They aren't being singled out. Actions have already been taken against BT and Sky.

Flat_Eric wrote:

> He's demanding 9000 x ?700 = ?6.3 million.


The action was brought by 14 companies. Only a portion of the 9,000 addresses related to Ben Dover material, so your arithmetic above isn't applicable, i.e. the demand made would have been much less than ?6.3m.

JamesW wrote:

> Flat_Eric wrote:
>
> > He's demanding 9000 x ?700 = ?6.3 million.
>
>
> The action was brought by 14 companies. Only a portion of the
> 9,000 addresses related to Ben Dover material, so your
> arithmetic above isn't applicable, i.e. the demand made would
> have been much less than ?6.3m.

I reckon the lawyers would have got most of the wonga, as it would appear it is they that set these money making schemes in motion by enlisting so called, "Victims of copyright theft" and then assuming the distribution rights for the material. Anyway it would appear that the canny old judge has buggered up what could have been, "A nice little earner, Rodney!"!wink!

Anything that stops people downloading porn illegally is a good thing, the porn industry needs people buying porn so we can reinvest in the industry. The tube and torrent sites are slowly destroying the porn industry, in an ideal world a couple of high profile judges and doctors will get caught downloading illegally there will be a big fuss in the papers and people with money and jobs they do not want to get threatened will go back to buying porn again.

And be under no illusions Ben is not the first person to do this I know of companies raking in 20K a month by charging people for illegally downloading their material, they do not want to make it known to the public as they are making great money from it, and do not want to kill their cash cow.