egafd.com

To answer bpaws earlier post, would YC boycott Ben Dover products because of its involvement with GEILs actions?

I think not because its not in your inyterest to do so

I echo Hicksters thanks to everyone (Well nearly everyone, LOL!).

I jest, because even very angry people have a point and a contribution.

I think before this debate (Or well before this debate), there were a few misconceptions. One from me was copyright holders taking what I consider harmful actions are not good people, and copyright holders who think people like me who dislike the Court case are pirates.

Thankfully, neither are absolute truths. It seems to me that there was a debate to be had, and this post and some here were useful targets for frustration. What does seem omitted from the debate are downloaders. In a way, the original question of this debate is aimed at them.

Maybe there are downloaders reading this who don't wish to make themselves known. Maybe registering a new user and joining the debate would be a good idea. I don't think there are any IP monitors out there (At least I hope not LOL!). Remember though that in the past, ACS:Law et al scoured forums looking at user names to incriminate their victims.

One thing to ask of OEJ (Sorry to hear of your ailment and hope it gets better soon). You do say that "The porn industry has always been seen as a pariah and blight on society". In such as situation, surely the course of action is to make it better, not worse?

@OEJ, I think you are under the illusion that this is about Piracy and cracking down on it, or rather in the real world "Copyright Infringement", I am sure I have shown you enough evidence to prove that Golden Eye are NOT doing that but merely "feathering the nest", "propping up a failing business", however else you want to look at it it is NOT about protecting their films. That I feel I have already demonstrated.

You state"Enter stage left, the man with the plan who understood the situation and took seized the opportunity to handle it pro bono (free) there were questions of its legality and scepticicim whether it is an effective fight against piracy per se but with a lot of things in the adult industry, its a case of try it for size and see what the outcome is."

This statement, seems to miss some of the facts I have already explained, it could be read that you think Beckers Golden Eye were the first to do this "Speculative Invoicing", they are of course not, and all the other attempts have been seen for what they are, a big fat CON.

Golden Eye were at first represented by Tilly Baily Irvine who were forced to leave the action due to adverse publicity, they even tried to edit their Wikipedia entry to erase their input into it all, they failed!

There is nothing illegal about what they have done, just immoral, the NPO application almost always is granted, it is what you do WITH the NPO which is the problem. An IP address is NOT a person and is not a very good way of saying who the person involved is. As one of the Judges said of MEDIA C.A.T(ACS:LAW) who lets not forget relied on the SAME people that Golden Eye are relying on, ?MediaCAT don?t know who [infringed], and know they don?t know who [infringed].?

After Tilly Baily Irvine withdrew from representing Golden Eye, Golden Eye resorted to using the info they had and started putting claims into the small claims court, resulting in CCJs for people who wondered what the hell was going on, and with no recourse to put their argument in a Court of Law to defend their name. It was because of one of these that it was brought to the attention of a Judge, the same one who had dealt with ACS:LAW who threw the lot out of court and said due process had not taken place.

Golden Eye have already indicated that a Court hearing would be to expensive for them, which is interesting as the Winner of the case would not have to pay anything. What does that tell you about their "Water tight" evidence?

Also and this is MOST important as they have indicated they wont go to Court, that means they can accuse who they like, harass them and then the moment it looks like it will end in Court they will drop the case. This is historically well known, Golden Eye are simply using the same con as Davenport Lyons, ACS:LAW, Tilly Baily Irvine and Gallant Macmillan, have used.

This is NOT about stopping "Copyright Infringement", if it was the torrents that have been used by those accused, would be pulled, they of course wont be!

I would LOVE to know why Becker and Honey are not on here, discussing this. Their silence is deafening and VERY telling

I more interested in wether Lindsay Honey really is the Highest Paid Porn Star in the UK*, I mean if not he is a liar, and if true it shows the shockingly desperate low that the UK Porn Industry has sunk to, and that cant be blamed on Filesharing.


*He has claimed this in an interview!

He also stated;", ??My critics do affect me badly. Sometimes so badly that I have to leave my 6 bedroom mansion in a gated executive park in Surrey, get in my Ferrari and drive to the airport to fly out to my luxury villa in Spain and take a long leisurely swim in my beautiful blue sparkling pool overlooking the Jalon valley!??

This leaves me with VERY little sympathy for his argument that "Copyright Infringement" is causing him financial trouble, merely seems to me that he took to much cut of the profits. It seems he has done VERY well out of Porn, that sales weren't that affected, however, of course that is assuming that he is telling the truth.

one eyed jack said:
"This is the difference in opinon between producers and re sellers. I know YC has produced stuff but its not your prime source of income. Again, just illustrating why our views will differ"

Having looked at Your Choice, they have 102 titles for YC and 28 for Ben Dover. It may be bias for their own, but I think it constitutes a concern for piracy. Having said that, if a BD download represented a lost sale, it could be a lost sale through YC.

Bpaw wrote: "The porn industry has always been seen as a pariah and blight on society". In such as situation, surely the course of action is to make it better, not worse?


I agree with that but this business is bigger than me. I was merely sharing an observation on all those who refuse to read these posts and share their views. They really dont care. I do. Thats why I am more than happy to comment despite the criticisms levelled at me from my peers


all the other attempts have been seen for what they are, a big fat CON

I do appreciate the points you have made Hickster, however,if it is a con then why are the courts and O2 facilitating it? To say it is a con is to also say it is illegal. If it was that illegal surely the BB wouldve condemned it on their news report of what GEIL are doing. This is a major point to me. We know what the outcome of ACS Law was so if GEIL are to suffer a similar fate I dont kbow why it is being allowed to continue, again under the supervision and watchful eye of O2 who wuld surely fit bpaws commenyt of customers leaving buy the droves allowing this to happen. Have they had a negative response fromtheir customers? I would imagine so giving up those addresses

bpaw: it (Ben Dover titles) could be a lost sale through YC.

The economics of this are such that it would be easier not to buy BD titles on the basis of poor sales performance as a direct result of piracy and filesharing. In other words, its down to the producer to take action. Not the company

Wow what a complicated subject. If you regularly download porn, music, and other copyrighted material then the answer is NO, because you really don't give a shit where it comes from, as you have no intention of ever paying for it.
If however you regularly download porn and pay for it from several well known sites, then the answer could be yes or no, yes because you have to pay for it and no because it's none of your business, but you might judge the proprietor of the site along with the ISP for sharing private details, I would, therfore it would not only put me off the sites but also my ISP, I would feel 'let down'. I think times have moved on, and tend to agree with YC version of events, if your product is good you will build a paying customer database and hopefully you can make enough money through that. The internet is awash with free porn, I have seen OEJ stuff on several sites, even using the sites titles, also Jimslip's stuff again not even bothering to try and hide the titles. All producers should do is employ someone to trawl the free filesharing sites and porn forums look for a blatant use of their material and deal with the site directly, I suspect most sites would take it down straight away. Threatening Individuals is not the way forward, the sites that either stream or host the material should be targeted by producers, that way there would be nothing for folks to download. Finally I would like to make it clear I personally have never downloaded any 'free' or paid porn, honest, but I have downloaded myself many times, thankfully I don't rely on royalties.

@OEJ

"..... however,if it is a con then why are the courts and O2 facilitating it? To say it is a con is to also say it is illegal. If it was that illegal surely the BB wouldve condemned it on their news report of what GEIL are doing. This is a major point to me...."

As I have said before the getting of the NPO is straightforward, indeed they rarely get turned down, it is WHAT YOU DO WITH THE NPO that makes it a CON. Now the Judge granted the NPO, but as Consumer Focus knew what it would be used for, from PAST EXPERIENCE, they got the Judge to at least look at the letters, the FIRST letter, you understand, their will be NO scrutiny for the subsequent letters that Golden Eye send.

I cant speak for the BBC the quality of their journalism differs, as does their attitude, they did feature ACS:LAW and Davenport Lyons on their programs. I would love to see if Ben Dover turned up for a proper grilling, Andrew Crossley never did. He appeared on the "You and yours", but then never did after that on either of the "One Shows".

I think personally this will all end in Golden Eye going bankrupt, but so what, it is a fake company right? It is a smoke and mirrors setup, Becker operates Optime Strategies, that is linked to Golden Eye that trades as Ben Dover Productions. not forgetting of course providing the security to the Synagogue in London that we are not allowed to talk about...

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court- ... peal-civil

Well it?s happening on Monday.

GEIL and their present form of a scam has evolved. Each organisation that took it on tweaked it to learn from previous failures. GEILs take is to act as a Limited company and not through a Solicitor.

To say that the adult industry has exploited a legal loophole is correct, but the industry didn?t start this particular method. It did start with games and music.

Basically get an IP monitor and promise them that the software will not get examined in Court. That takes care of that.

Get a sexagenarian certified computer expert to test the software and write up a witness report. The expert knows he is giving the evidence as ?A friend of the Court?, so no big deal.

Apply for an order to Court notifying your chosen ISP that you are applying for NPO for disclosure of subscriber details.

Go to Court in front of an elderly Honourable Judge who does not understand technology, and come to an agreement with the ISP on how you pay them for their troubles. You know that the ISP will not contest the application.

Application accepted.

The legal loophole is that there was never previously anyone to contest the application, until Consumer Focus did with GEIL.

Now we know that the monitoring software is faulty, even in GEILs case. We know the expert witness did no valid test on the software to prove it works correctly, and he self-professed he is no expert anyway. We know that the ISPs do not contest the application because they get paid.

I was thinking of writing this post for the last couple of days, and then heard today about the nurse at King Edward VII hospital who took her own life. That news saddened me, and I thought about not writing this post.

My particular reasons for this post is solely for the fact that this method of ?Speculative Invoicing? has caused people, innocent and guilty, to experience such pain and anguish that it leads to desperate measures. I don?t believe that Julian Becker is either qualified or able to deal with such situations that he will face.

It is with that reasoning why I am posting this.

I do admit that two years ago I was much angrier about this whole situation and how it can be allowed to carry on. At first, it was because I helped someone who contemplated suicide because of ACS:Law. Thankfully, this person is OK.

Then the ACS:Law leaked emails were out there, and I made the effort to read many of the correspondence between ACS:Law and their targets. I can?t believe the nastiness and total lack of humanity those paralegals and their principle had. Remember, these emails are out there so can be checked on. ACS:Law obviously didn?t expect the data leak, so nothing in there is fake.

A person wrote to ACS:Law and explained how much their correspondence stressed them, and did say that they considered ending it all. Andrew Crossley basically emailed two paralegals and asked them to deal with it.

Another person on Incapacity benefit whose sibling (Who has Schizophrenia) downloaded the video made an application for a crisis loan from the DWP to pay ACS:Law.

Andrew Crossley *demanded* ?40.00 a week off a parent who receives ?64.00 a week in benefits.

Paralegal Rob Heelas emailed the other paralegals ?If you find someone who is blind, one legged and dying, and you think they are not worth pursuing due to the possibility of bad PR, please also put them in there.?. This was an idea of dropping a couple of hundred cases to put pressure on those they do not drop to settle.

You may say that it?s different this time, and GEIL are not ACS:Law. Yes the first letter is dumbed down, but there will be follow ups that are not controlled by the Courts. And GEIL have followed ACS:Law in every step, so why should anyone believe that they will do things differently.

I hope then that Lindsay Honey, when feeling bad that he took ?500.00 off somebody on benefit to heat his pool, will retire to his pool to make himself feel better.