Wouldn't it be easier to take action against the torrent site and tube site owners rather than individuals? I know they'll spring up again after any initial clearout.
A question, sort of devil's advocate, do you think people who solely download illegally would if there was no such thing purchase it either in shops, online or through legal download or are they just downloading because it's there and they can? And, sorry to retread old ground, but shouldn't you be trying to make it easier to sell your material - either increasing the number of uk shops, legalising mail order within the uk etc - i know you're going to say it would be a tiny drop in a massive ocean but there should be some attempts. I know both shops 'near' ( they are both around a 20 mile round trip!) me take around ?1500 - ?2000 a day, much of it on non-dvd stock but it does indicate that there is some customer base to aim at - obviously you can't illegally download a dildo!
Ben Dover
-
one eyed jack
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Ben Dover
DRM is the kiss of death
www.realcouples.com
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
-
one eyed jack
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Ben Dover
Wouldn't it be easier to take action against the torrent site and tube site owners rather than individuals? I know they'll spring up again after any initial clearout.
No, because the torrent sites are user generated by links made by the initial uploader which is shared by all who download it who are unwitiingly uploading it as well. This is where inocence is claimed through ignorance and what file sharing documents about speculative invoicing do not explain to its users.
do you think people who solely download illegally would if there was no such thing purchase it either in shops, online or through legal download or are they just downloading because it's there and they can?
They download it because its there and they can. If they really want ed to obtain it legally all they have to do is buy it direct from the website. Who worht their salt hasnt got one of those these these days? or even an Adult Work account?
No one wanting to pay for anything was going to result in tactics like this before long. I don't entirely agree with it but inactivity on an issue only allows it to flourish. Plus people donwloading all the content of a site and sharing it to all and sundry for free is a bit cheeky dont you think?
Sharing a movie with your mates is one thing but sharing it with thousands of people is taking the frigging piss. Its hard for me to see who is really innocent and will "commit suicide" if found out as Jim Slip claims
Do people commit suicide when they get found out on the trains for fare dodging or shop lifting or is being busted for downloading porn really that shameful to warrant suicide?
If they can keep really dodgy stuff like kiddy porn off the file sharing then why cant they monitor porn as well? The way I see it there will be a whole lot of people guilty than there is innocent.
Stop kidding yourselves. Most people with any smarts have their routers secured by default now. Poor excuse and in the event someone is innocent. they can appeal.
No, because the torrent sites are user generated by links made by the initial uploader which is shared by all who download it who are unwitiingly uploading it as well. This is where inocence is claimed through ignorance and what file sharing documents about speculative invoicing do not explain to its users.
do you think people who solely download illegally would if there was no such thing purchase it either in shops, online or through legal download or are they just downloading because it's there and they can?
They download it because its there and they can. If they really want ed to obtain it legally all they have to do is buy it direct from the website. Who worht their salt hasnt got one of those these these days? or even an Adult Work account?
No one wanting to pay for anything was going to result in tactics like this before long. I don't entirely agree with it but inactivity on an issue only allows it to flourish. Plus people donwloading all the content of a site and sharing it to all and sundry for free is a bit cheeky dont you think?
Sharing a movie with your mates is one thing but sharing it with thousands of people is taking the frigging piss. Its hard for me to see who is really innocent and will "commit suicide" if found out as Jim Slip claims
Do people commit suicide when they get found out on the trains for fare dodging or shop lifting or is being busted for downloading porn really that shameful to warrant suicide?
If they can keep really dodgy stuff like kiddy porn off the file sharing then why cant they monitor porn as well? The way I see it there will be a whole lot of people guilty than there is innocent.
Stop kidding yourselves. Most people with any smarts have their routers secured by default now. Poor excuse and in the event someone is innocent. they can appeal.
www.realcouples.com
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
Re: Ben Dover
I thought I might intervene here, if you all don't mind.
I was accused by ACS:LAW of filesharing, I was innocent, indeed I asked for the case to be taken to Court so I could prove myself innocent, but I was refused, I just kept getting letter after letter from them telling me they had evidence that I had infringed the copyright of one of their "Works"
I went to a Citizens Advice bureau where I was basically told by a resident Solicitor, that "I must have done what the letter accused me of", and also that to hire a Copyright Savvy lawyer would cost the price of what ACS:LAW were demanding of me, and if it went to Court I would be liable for the costs.
I knew I was innocent, I set up a blog, THREE years on now, Davenport Lyons the originator of this scam, have been punished by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, as have ACS:LAW and also Tilly Baily Irvine.
The problem here is that Golden Eye International/Ben Dover Productions, are NOT lawyers, so who can people turn to if they consider themselves Innocent?, there is NO APPEAL against these letters, it will turn into another round of "Letter ping-pong", they will accuse a person will deny, it will NEVER go to Court as GEIL/BDP know that just as ACS:LAW tried it will collapse and the venture will be over.
This scam relies on people being scared, GEIL/BDP Barrister REFUSED a Test Case on the grounds that it would not be cost effective for them, ie no profit in it for them.
I have links to back this up. I know my Blog has already been posted on here I thankyou for permitting that.
This scam has already been branded as "Legal Blackmail" in the House of Lords, and before I hear any more BS about GEIL/BDP NOT being the same as ACS:LAW well they use the same format the same thinking and the same data monitor, true that the Court co-authored the letter being sent out now, however that is the ONLY one, the rest are not subject to scrutiny, and as anyone who has read my Blog will see the letter they are about to send out, ask yourself this, IF they say they have evidence, WHY all teh "phishing" questions? Because they dont, they have an IP and a date stamp, and that is it.
Thanks again for letting me post, I realise I am not going to be the most popular person on here!
I was accused by ACS:LAW of filesharing, I was innocent, indeed I asked for the case to be taken to Court so I could prove myself innocent, but I was refused, I just kept getting letter after letter from them telling me they had evidence that I had infringed the copyright of one of their "Works"
I went to a Citizens Advice bureau where I was basically told by a resident Solicitor, that "I must have done what the letter accused me of", and also that to hire a Copyright Savvy lawyer would cost the price of what ACS:LAW were demanding of me, and if it went to Court I would be liable for the costs.
I knew I was innocent, I set up a blog, THREE years on now, Davenport Lyons the originator of this scam, have been punished by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, as have ACS:LAW and also Tilly Baily Irvine.
The problem here is that Golden Eye International/Ben Dover Productions, are NOT lawyers, so who can people turn to if they consider themselves Innocent?, there is NO APPEAL against these letters, it will turn into another round of "Letter ping-pong", they will accuse a person will deny, it will NEVER go to Court as GEIL/BDP know that just as ACS:LAW tried it will collapse and the venture will be over.
This scam relies on people being scared, GEIL/BDP Barrister REFUSED a Test Case on the grounds that it would not be cost effective for them, ie no profit in it for them.
I have links to back this up. I know my Blog has already been posted on here I thankyou for permitting that.
This scam has already been branded as "Legal Blackmail" in the House of Lords, and before I hear any more BS about GEIL/BDP NOT being the same as ACS:LAW well they use the same format the same thinking and the same data monitor, true that the Court co-authored the letter being sent out now, however that is the ONLY one, the rest are not subject to scrutiny, and as anyone who has read my Blog will see the letter they are about to send out, ask yourself this, IF they say they have evidence, WHY all teh "phishing" questions? Because they dont, they have an IP and a date stamp, and that is it.
Thanks again for letting me post, I realise I am not going to be the most popular person on here!
Re: Ben Dover
Well Hickster, tell everyone who that resident lawyer is and advise them to keep away from him.
I have a solicitor friend who advises that they have to prove the case, and if they haven't any evidence then they can go and blow it out of their ear!!
I have a solicitor friend who advises that they have to prove the case, and if they haven't any evidence then they can go and blow it out of their ear!!
RoddersUK
Re: Ben Dover
@RoddersUK
Well he would be right of course, HOWEVER this is a civil hearing in a Patents court, and it is based on the "balance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", as it would be in a criminal court, remember despite what the "Speculative Invoicers" are trying to suggest, no crime has taken place here, and if they truly believe it has then they should contact the Police. Of course that would be an absurdity.
I would hazard a guess that Ben Dover Productions is a failing business and this is their last chance to gain money from people who simply arent prepared to buy there products. That does not mean the people targetted have ever even heard of Ben Dover, as the Hyperbolic Julian Becker seems to think, he feels EVERYONE in the UK knows who Ben Dover is.. an absurdity in itself, as I have pointed out before show a picture of Lindsay Honey to the average person on the street and they will say "Ahh yes I remember him, the guy with Orville the Duck"!!
The situation I experienced at the Citizens Advice Bureau has largely been resolved by Consumer Focus stepping in when O2 refused to defend their consumers, due to the Court hearing the Citizens Advice people have been sent information on how to deal with any letters people receive.
What SHOULD GEIL/BDP do if they are serious about so called piracy? Target the Big guys, the ones who host the streaming versions of their products, of course they wont, why not? Why would then when they can target what they see as easy money. Far easier to scare a person into paying up than target real copyright infringers.
They just didnt bank on Consumer Focus and a few other people already scarred by Beckers friend Andrew Crossley, (And yes they WERE friends)
Well he would be right of course, HOWEVER this is a civil hearing in a Patents court, and it is based on the "balance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", as it would be in a criminal court, remember despite what the "Speculative Invoicers" are trying to suggest, no crime has taken place here, and if they truly believe it has then they should contact the Police. Of course that would be an absurdity.
I would hazard a guess that Ben Dover Productions is a failing business and this is their last chance to gain money from people who simply arent prepared to buy there products. That does not mean the people targetted have ever even heard of Ben Dover, as the Hyperbolic Julian Becker seems to think, he feels EVERYONE in the UK knows who Ben Dover is.. an absurdity in itself, as I have pointed out before show a picture of Lindsay Honey to the average person on the street and they will say "Ahh yes I remember him, the guy with Orville the Duck"!!
The situation I experienced at the Citizens Advice Bureau has largely been resolved by Consumer Focus stepping in when O2 refused to defend their consumers, due to the Court hearing the Citizens Advice people have been sent information on how to deal with any letters people receive.
What SHOULD GEIL/BDP do if they are serious about so called piracy? Target the Big guys, the ones who host the streaming versions of their products, of course they wont, why not? Why would then when they can target what they see as easy money. Far easier to scare a person into paying up than target real copyright infringers.
They just didnt bank on Consumer Focus and a few other people already scarred by Beckers friend Andrew Crossley, (And yes they WERE friends)
-
little juan
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Hickster
It looks like you are one of the "Innocent victims" that One Eyed Jack said didn't exist! lol I'm no lawyer, but after reading your story of being harrassed with these letters you can see that bendover just expects you to pay up, no questions asked. Have you thought about launching a case against him and his company for "distress" caused? You must have had a load of sleepless nights and worry over the 3 years he's been after you. Also HE would have to rply to YOU then,he'd kack his pants when he finds you are suing his ass off, ypu might be able to find other innocent victims who'll join you. He does look like Keith Harris and Orvill!lol
Born to be mild
-
one eyed jack
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Ben Dover
I NEVER said innocent victims didnt exist. Check my posts and you will find I have requested evidence to wild claims several times
DO NOT MINCE MY WORDS
As it happens, Hickster has provided the most reasoned response on this entire thread so far which is more than I can say for you Little Juan.
By your responses so far I can only assume you are not as eloquent as Hickster in putting your views forward without being personal and offensive.
Even if you was right, with those negative qualities I could never see your side of things.
DO NOT MINCE MY WORDS
As it happens, Hickster has provided the most reasoned response on this entire thread so far which is more than I can say for you Little Juan.
By your responses so far I can only assume you are not as eloquent as Hickster in putting your views forward without being personal and offensive.
Even if you was right, with those negative qualities I could never see your side of things.
www.realcouples.com
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
Re: Hickster
@little jaun
There is no point launching legal action as Andrew Crossley is now bankrupt and his company ACS:LAW dissolved. Also it is VERY hard to prove harrassment and damages. Although he is bankrupt however he seems to still be doing ok... http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/367624/the- ... ing-lawyer
Here are a couple of links to those innocent people who actually went public, many didnt for obvious reasons.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11430299 (I know this lady, she contacted me via email)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoDnDzG010c (I know Norman he contacted me as well)
@One Eyed Jack
Thankyou for you kind and generous words, however I don't want to spark ant trouble on these forums, just present the truth as I see it, and from the experience of what I have lived for the last three years.
@Theboard
I know that Becker was lying when he stated that he did not approve of Crossley or Bowden, if this were true, why send this email to Crossley, while ACS:LAW were conducting their Speculative Invoicing at the same time that Becker was being reperesented by Tilly Baily Irvine?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/86797733/Lett ... to-ACS-LAW
As you can see Becker is actually questioning why Crossley has seemingly gone soft and is dropping cases, it seems strange that Becker now states that he did not approve of Crossleys methods, when this letter seems to show that he wanted a tougher stance.
Here are Beckers words regarding Crossley. http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=146471
I did do a response piece to this on the Blog http://acsbore.wordpress.com/2012/06/28 ... an-becker/
I feel Becker has misled some of those producers he approached, I am sure he informed them he was targetting uploaders only, that is NOT what bittorrent is, although of course as I have said, it IS the easy method of getting money from people, and that is all this about.
There is no point launching legal action as Andrew Crossley is now bankrupt and his company ACS:LAW dissolved. Also it is VERY hard to prove harrassment and damages. Although he is bankrupt however he seems to still be doing ok... http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/367624/the- ... ing-lawyer
Here are a couple of links to those innocent people who actually went public, many didnt for obvious reasons.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11430299 (I know this lady, she contacted me via email)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoDnDzG010c (I know Norman he contacted me as well)
@One Eyed Jack
Thankyou for you kind and generous words, however I don't want to spark ant trouble on these forums, just present the truth as I see it, and from the experience of what I have lived for the last three years.
@Theboard
I know that Becker was lying when he stated that he did not approve of Crossley or Bowden, if this were true, why send this email to Crossley, while ACS:LAW were conducting their Speculative Invoicing at the same time that Becker was being reperesented by Tilly Baily Irvine?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/86797733/Lett ... to-ACS-LAW
As you can see Becker is actually questioning why Crossley has seemingly gone soft and is dropping cases, it seems strange that Becker now states that he did not approve of Crossleys methods, when this letter seems to show that he wanted a tougher stance.
Here are Beckers words regarding Crossley. http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=146471
I did do a response piece to this on the Blog http://acsbore.wordpress.com/2012/06/28 ... an-becker/
I feel Becker has misled some of those producers he approached, I am sure he informed them he was targetting uploaders only, that is NOT what bittorrent is, although of course as I have said, it IS the easy method of getting money from people, and that is all this about.
Re: Ben Dover
Ben Dover was superb back in the early to mid 90s when the women he used were girl next door types and he played the part of some music producer or some other alias. His vids were extremely funny and incredibly erotic. The stuff he produces now is garbage to put it bluntly. All the women look like Jodie Marsh,and the whole thing has become like american mainstream porn(boring as fuck)