Re: Has Copyright owners actions affected your choice?
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:07 pm
Now that it has been a while since the multiple round of letters have gone out on behalf of Ben Dover Productions, I am intrigued (Naturally) with the consequences of this.
First of all, such an important letter is sent second class post. This has been done knowing that their claim goes back practically TWO years. That is a scam.
Second class post is not recorded. People move house and may not receive the letter. No response gives GEIL the chance to regard this as a possible default judgement, so will be processed as this. That is a scam.
What about people who do receive the letter? And their response? And GEILs response? Let me hypothesise:
Alleged Infringer: I am very sorry. I did download the ?Works? and I have deleted the file.
GEIL response: Although you have deleted the file, you have shared the file to other downloaders and we want ?700.00.
Alleged infringer: My twelve year old son downloaded the file without our knowledge, and I forced him to delete the file.
GEIL response: Although your son downloaded the file and you have deleted the file, you have shared the file to other downloaders and we want ?700.00.
Alleged infringer: After an exhaustive amount of research, it transpired that a friend of ours came to our house and asked to connect his laptop to our wifi. We allowed this, and he admits that he was part way through a download of the ?Works?.
GEIL response: Although you didn?t download the ?Works?, your connection was used to infringe the ?Works?, this action shared the file to other downloaders and we want ?700.00.
Alleged infringer: I cannot help you with information regarding your claim, but we have an open wifi so friends who visit our home can take advantage of our internet connection.
GEIL response: Allowing an open wifi is authorising the infringement of our ?Works? and it is up to you as the subscriber to secure your wifi. This has led to other downloaders of our ?Works? and we want ?700.00.
Alleged infringer: I downloaded your ?Works? and played the video. I immediately saw the ?Copyright Notice? and realised I downloaded copyright material. This was the first time I knew that the ?Works? was copyrighted. I immediately deleted the video.
GEIL response: Although you downloaded the ?Works? and realised it was copyrighted, you shared the file to other downloaders and we want ?700.00.
Alleged infringer: I am 80 years old and have a computer that my great-grandson uses when he visits. I have no idea what your claim is and I have asked my great-grandson about this and he says it is a scam.
GEIL response: It is very probable that your great-grandson downloaded the ?Works? and you are responsible for his actions. Your great-grandsons actions have shared the ?Works? to other downloaders and we want ?700.00.
Alleged infringer: No one downloaded the ?Works? in our household, and I have checked our computers for this. None of our computers have any evidence that the ?Works? have been downloaded.
GEIL response: Unfortunately, you have not provided enough information to our claim, and we have forensic evidence that an infringement took place. That infringement meant that you shared the ?Works? to other downloaders and we want ?700.00.
Alleged infringer: No response.
GEIL response: Take to Court for a default judgement.
I could describe many more scenarios and possible responses.
That is why I say what proof. What proof does GEIL have to accuse people?
If people own up then fine. ?A fair cop guv?. That is what you call getting recompense for an infringement. That is what makes the claim VALID.
But there are scenarios where it isn?t ?A fair cop guv?. What then?
That is the MAJOR problem with GEILs proof. That is why it is a scam.
First of all, such an important letter is sent second class post. This has been done knowing that their claim goes back practically TWO years. That is a scam.
Second class post is not recorded. People move house and may not receive the letter. No response gives GEIL the chance to regard this as a possible default judgement, so will be processed as this. That is a scam.
What about people who do receive the letter? And their response? And GEILs response? Let me hypothesise:
Alleged Infringer: I am very sorry. I did download the ?Works? and I have deleted the file.
GEIL response: Although you have deleted the file, you have shared the file to other downloaders and we want ?700.00.
Alleged infringer: My twelve year old son downloaded the file without our knowledge, and I forced him to delete the file.
GEIL response: Although your son downloaded the file and you have deleted the file, you have shared the file to other downloaders and we want ?700.00.
Alleged infringer: After an exhaustive amount of research, it transpired that a friend of ours came to our house and asked to connect his laptop to our wifi. We allowed this, and he admits that he was part way through a download of the ?Works?.
GEIL response: Although you didn?t download the ?Works?, your connection was used to infringe the ?Works?, this action shared the file to other downloaders and we want ?700.00.
Alleged infringer: I cannot help you with information regarding your claim, but we have an open wifi so friends who visit our home can take advantage of our internet connection.
GEIL response: Allowing an open wifi is authorising the infringement of our ?Works? and it is up to you as the subscriber to secure your wifi. This has led to other downloaders of our ?Works? and we want ?700.00.
Alleged infringer: I downloaded your ?Works? and played the video. I immediately saw the ?Copyright Notice? and realised I downloaded copyright material. This was the first time I knew that the ?Works? was copyrighted. I immediately deleted the video.
GEIL response: Although you downloaded the ?Works? and realised it was copyrighted, you shared the file to other downloaders and we want ?700.00.
Alleged infringer: I am 80 years old and have a computer that my great-grandson uses when he visits. I have no idea what your claim is and I have asked my great-grandson about this and he says it is a scam.
GEIL response: It is very probable that your great-grandson downloaded the ?Works? and you are responsible for his actions. Your great-grandsons actions have shared the ?Works? to other downloaders and we want ?700.00.
Alleged infringer: No one downloaded the ?Works? in our household, and I have checked our computers for this. None of our computers have any evidence that the ?Works? have been downloaded.
GEIL response: Unfortunately, you have not provided enough information to our claim, and we have forensic evidence that an infringement took place. That infringement meant that you shared the ?Works? to other downloaders and we want ?700.00.
Alleged infringer: No response.
GEIL response: Take to Court for a default judgement.
I could describe many more scenarios and possible responses.
That is why I say what proof. What proof does GEIL have to accuse people?
If people own up then fine. ?A fair cop guv?. That is what you call getting recompense for an infringement. That is what makes the claim VALID.
But there are scenarios where it isn?t ?A fair cop guv?. What then?
That is the MAJOR problem with GEILs proof. That is why it is a scam.