egafd.com

Golden Eye International needs YOUR help, yes their fellow Pornographers need to cough up and help them make even more money. http://www.xbiz.com/news/156690

I am astounded at this, I never realised that Julian Becker and Lindsay Honey were so skint, indeed last I heard they weren't.

Open Rights Group are merely trying to level the playing field, they have issued an appeal for ?5000 to intervene in the Court case that Golden Eye International are appealing. This is to try and block letters being sent on on the "Expert Witness" and data monitoring employed by ACS:LAW.

If you feel that Open Rights Group can be supported please see here

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/201 ... -intervene

If on the other hand you feel Golden Eye International and their Multi Millionaire backer Lindsay Honey should receive payments from you, then get in contact with him here

http://goldeneyeint.com/

Just out of interest did any of you know that Beckers other Company, Optime Strategies, of which Ben Dover Productions is the trading name, also supplies Security for a London Synagogue?

http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?arc ... ame=Becker

Unusual.... right?

This post has been reposted here, i realise I had posted it in the wrong forum, my apologies!

I did see the conversations on the original post. I think it got a bit skewed in trying to verify if Julian Becker is a pornographer. As he did say it in his own words, I accept it as truth.

It is also quite obvious to see that the BD video material is past its sell by date. Even the "Gonzo" concept has had its day.

The crux of the piracy issue is if a bittorrent download making the material available for upload represents loss sales. Copyright holders say every upload is a loss sale (Well at least they say a potential loss sale).

To take two scenarios:

Ben Dover rode the good times in the 80s and 90s. Made huge amounts of money by selling videos. in 2012, it's all regurgitated crap.

One Eyed Jack in 2012 makes new material and uses new and original actresses to make new unseen videos.

In Golden Eye International Limited point of view, every upload of the two examples is a loss sale. The amazing irony in this is Ben Dover succeeded, and One Eyed Jack failed!

To get back on track with the theme of the original post. Open Rights Group are asking for donations so they can represent the O2 subscribers against the other "Copyright Holders". Julian Becker is unhappy because of this, and (Maybe tongue in cheek) is suggesting he should ask for donations to his cause.

Let us get one thing clear. Consumer Focus (Without donations) represented O2 subscribers in the High Court because O2 are spineless and did not contest the claim. Every O2 subscriber has no knowledge that this NPO has been brought before a Judge. Consumer Focus did a monumental effort, and as a result only Ben Dover Productions were granted the NPO. The Judgement stood.

Golden Eye International Limited applied for an appeal. OK, they can do that. But the Open Rights Group wish to represent the O2 subscribers (Again who have no knowledge of this NPO application, and again because O2 are spineless).

Julian Becker wants to frighten people in to paying them money. He doesn't like the fact that the "Unknown" O2 subscribers have representation in the High Court against their NPO.

And I know that the monitoring software they use is flawed, and innocent people will be targeted. But that is beside the point with these people.

I personally disagree that he is a pornographer. I cant imagine he would hold a camera steady to even film a scene.

I think the suggestion he is a pornographer (as mentioned in another thread) if he solicits girls on forums to work with/ for Ben Dover is ludicrous

Thats like every guy starting out looking for a girl to shoot claiming they are pornographers. One gonzo shoot does not a pornographer make. Youve got to go some way to earn those stripes.

@OEJ

In case you missed my point on the other thread, it is BECKER HIMSELF who describes HIMSELF as a Pornographer.... See here in his OWN words

"I hope this will finally disprove those rumors that associate us with Andrew Crossley, although my mother was disappointed it has been proved that I am indeed a pornographer not a solicitor."

http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=146471

And as I said on the other post, he is being "economic with the actualite", we KNOW he knew Crossley and indeed WARNED Crossley that a letter had been leaked online, also that he could not understand why Crossley was dropping some cases and not persuing them.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86797733/Lett ... to-ACS-LAW

I hate to say this OEJ, but we realy need Becker or Honey to explain this away. What you describe as a Pornogrpaher is a cameraman, it might be semantics, but Pornographer is how he describes himself.

I know he is disingenuous with the facts, he describes anyone who opposes him as "Pirates" or "Thieves" well as I said before, noone is stealing anything.

One further point, just who is uploading this material online in the first place? How for instance would the ORIGINAL uploader be getting a copy of one of your films? I would say that it comes from someone who actually bought a copy and then decided to share it. If this is true and I believe it to be the case, then maybe you guys should implement some kind of ID on your films so that they would be unique in the way of identifying the actual person who bought a copy and shared it.

Of course as I had said before I would never buy a copy of the Sun, would be a waste of money IMHO, howver if I saw one discarded on a Train or Bus I would prob pick it up and read the sports pages. (Have I denied them a sale?)

An excellent post with excellent points. A lot of the problems these people are having is also linked to shortcutting the Law, and failing to adapt to a changing landscape. None of them complained when they were ripping off their client base for DECADES with overpriced VHS and DVDs.

Even if this is going to come under criticism, I understand, but I do believe it, I realise Porn is a niche market and so they have to charge more for their stuff than something that would see loads, however you only have to listen to Honey bang on about how wealthy he is to realise that their was a lot of money around and now there isnt.. Who to blame?

Well they could blame those actually responsible, the websites that stream their material and charge ads so they get revenue from click throughs, OR they could decide to threaten some OAP who has no concept of what they are talking about but fears any legal action and will willingly pay up. Well that WAS the plan until Consumer Focus and other decided that actually NO we have had enough of that over the last 4 years, and it WILL stop.

BTW check out ATVOD Rule 11, another thing these Producers don't like and don't want to abide by!

@ochaye

I agree with you in the sense that it does indeed look like the last desperate attempt to squeeze money from a business that is failing badly. Maybe the divorce settlement took a lot of money away from Honey, but of course we all know the wealth of a limited company, is VERY different to that of an individual who can extricate himself out of any responsibility for the failing of that business.

We await and see, I don't even think O2 have handed them the actual IP data yet, which would actually be quite hilarious considering data such as that is usually not kept, and is destroyed within a certain period of time, this is what happened to Gallant Macmillan who were the Lawyers for the Ministry of Sound. They actually had the data deleted by BT and had quit pursuing this after all very dubious practice. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11683349

BTW believe it or not, as the MOS didn't actually own the copyright to the songs, know what they were pursuing downloaders for? The track listing... Not kidding, in fact the MOS declared that they had the copyright for playing songs in that order. LOL

Can you tell me anything about this ATVOD Rule 11? I am intrigued, why is it such a trauma for Porn sites to ensure that people who look at them are of the right age? Seems responsible to me, but please anyone explain?

Sorry for this post being a bit long.

On the subject of monitoring, what is the understanding of how it works? Golden Eye International Limited (GEIL), and Julian Becker as their spokesperson claim their evidence is infallible.

In that we can?t actually examine any independent analysis (i.e. someone who wasn?t paid) of the software, we can only go by claims alone.

The Claim:
GEILs theory is if a person is downloading a film on bittorrent, they are making that film available for others to download thus losing (Potentially) a sale for each downloader. So, if 101 people are downloading a GEIL Copyright film, that is 100 (Potential) lost sales (Excluding the uploader).

If 10 of those people are sent a Letter Of Claim (LoC), by GEILs logic 100 people represents 100 (Potential) lost sales, so that is 1,000 (Potential) lost sales! Hmmmm??

The Evidence:
We are told that the monitoring software is able to take a small download (A few KB) of the file off the ?Infringer?. There is no evidence that the ?Infringer? has uploaded to anyone else, only a theory. The only ?Evidence? is a few KB file, thus evidence of one download. The laughable part of that is it is the monitoring software, and it can?t even be regarded as a lost sale!

This is their "Evidence", not my thoughts or hearsay or conjecture.

The 11,000 IP addresses on the leaked spreashsheets had 25% unknowns return from the ISP Sky. How come? If an IP address was monitored, why is it that Sky could not match it to the subscriber? What is an acceptable level of errors? 10 out of 11,000? 100 out of 11,000? 1,000 out of 11,000? We are talking over 2,700 out of 11,000!

Faulty monitoring is what I say, this EVIDENCE proves it.

The Expert Witness:
I hope Hickster doesn?t mind me quoting a link from his blog:
http://acsbore.wordpress.com/2012/10/30 ... t-witness/

The ?Expert? witness in all this is Clement Charles Vogler. He WAS listed as a Sweet & Maxwell expert witness in 2010. He isn?t now, and he still has the 2010 check mark on his website here http://www.adlitem.co.uk/.

From Hicksters blog, you will see references from a German case where Clem Vogler clearly states ?I?m not an expert in this field?. There is also so much wrong with that case that severely questions Clem as a viable witness, but I will let you read it and have your own view.

From the GEIL Court case:
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... 2/723.html

?Mr Vogler explains he did not have Xtrack installed on his computer, and did not concern himself with how it worked, but treated it as a ?black box?. He simply presented it with inputs, namely his test files, and examined the outputs to see if they corresponded to his inputs. He was satisfied that they did correspond.?

He didn?t install the software and truly examine it, and states he ?did not concern himself with how it worked?. He clearly is not a ?Forensic? expert, because that is not a ?Forensic? test.

Don?t forget, Clem Vogler was paid to do this. That makes him NOT independent, and the real evidence here is he is no ?Expert?.

The Reason:
What is the reason for GEIL doing this? Loss sales? Why?

Before the publicity of all this took off, Ben Dover did interviews where he says you can?t make money anymore.

This interview is dated 20th April 2011, which was after their first letter campaign:
http://www.cherwell.org/lifestyle/inter ... ben-dover-

?Under his directing name, Steve Perry, Hustler crowned Honey one of the top 50 most influential people in the adult entertainment industry in 1999, but Honey?s all too aware the industry has changed a great deal since then. ?The internet is the main poison that?s now rapidly killing off the industry. Back in 1986 you could sell a 3-hour VHS porn tape for about ?65.00, which would be about ?150.00 in today?s money. Now you can get anything you want at the click of a mouse. For free.?

?Right now the only real money to be made is in the so-called ?celebrity? sex tapes. Even if they?re not celebrities, just some girl who?s been ?on the telly?. It?s strange but you could make a great movie with the best looking porn stars in the world, and you?ll probably make a very small profit over several years,?

He says you can get what you want at the click of a mouse. He does not say that it is ?Pirates? or ?Downloaders? or ?Infringers?.

Now Julian Becker says it is people not buying their material and just downloading it. My theory, and we all love theories don?t we Mr Becker, is many people have bought their original videos and don?t want to buy compilations. They also don?t want to see an old man in action.

As for the other producers involved in the appeal, I?m sure they will bring you a hard luck story. I?m sure it is true to an extent, and I do genuinely believe that if an ?Infringer? has downloaded their material, then they should pay for it. But an acknowledgement has to be made that a consumer has a choice of either free material (As in it is not for sale) or pay for material (As in it is for sale).

I have not heard Julian Becker answer the questions regarding the ?Evidence? they are using. This forum was his platform to make contact with girls to make them porn stars (Which I believe makes him a pornographer), so why doesn?t he come on here and answer his critics?

As for me, why do I come on here and criticise them? My ISP is not O2, so I don?t have anything to worry about there. My LoC (Which I didn?t do and was innocent) was two years ago, and it is all over so I don?t have anything to worry about there.

I simply know that what GEIL are doing is flawed, illogical, fact-less, without proper evidence and just plain morally wrong.