https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/contact/general_enquiries/complaint_form.aspx

Remember the complaint is about FACT mis-leading the police and being intimately involved in a criminal investigation and about them (as a private organisation) retaining the seized goods. Also, about how they’ve raided him as an individual on the grounds of downloading copyrighted content even though it is legal to do so under the “permitted acts” and released him on a charge of articles of infringement (which doesn’t apply to an individual, but instead relates to a business, and taking donations to support the hosting costs is not a “business” per se.

Be respectful and polite, just express your concerns about the influence and association between FACT and the police.

Two simple examples:

If I download something and publicly state that it’s good, it sucks or even it’s just “okay”… I’ll have legimitately downloaded a copy for the purpose of review.

If I’m studying an artist, a genre, etc. for whatever reason, again, obtaining copies of copyrighted content can be perfectly legal without any need to get consent from the author(s).

I had about $40,000 worth of stuff stolen from my apartment awhile back and the cops never did anything. In fact, they kept making snide remarks that I probably did it to myself. Then they closed the case 90 days later after doing nothing. I guess I should have claimed that the burglar downloaded one movie off the internet and then they would have sent half of the FBI and every SWAT team around to deal with it for me, huh?

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/index/complaints/forms/form_complaint.htm

Northumbria police will be receiving an FOIA request in relation to all communications they’ve had with FACT on the previous incident but for this one… Geeker… which police authority was involved?

Theres already 2000 Ministry of Love cameras installed in “unruly familys” house’s in Britain today as it stands.

I wonder if TheGeeker will be classed as unruly and will have one installed.

Maybe they’ll put a mic on his PC so they can warn him that he’s looking at the wrong kind of webpage……

THIS is the UK. you cannot take the piss out of the police, you cannot take the piss out of the courts. FACT your days are numbered

in the UK it is a criminal offense to use the law “frivolously” cynically exploiting the process of the law to prejudice your targets

in the UK we are PROUD of our tradition of being “right”

in the UK we are FAMOUS for our fight for justice

FACT is you are making mortal enemies in the Judiciary, the Police Force and the ordinary man

FACT is your days are numbered, you puppets

Geeker, do the right thing, get a good lawyer and sue them all to hell

http://www.h33t.com owned and operated by a Scot who is itching for the opportunity to blow you assholes away you fuktards

These fall under fair use or “fair dealing” and almost no proof on suspected infringements is provided to prove that anybody was downloading for purposes outside of these permitted acts.

Again, the police, FACT, the courts, everyone assumes guilty until proven innocent in such cases because they’ve been poorly instructed on where they are misinterpreting law at the behest of a copyright-cartel lawyer.

You can download for research and private study… but that’s the tip of the iceberg…

http://tinyurl.com/ukcopyrightlaw

and denied his phone call and legal representation for more than seven hours.

the horror! the horror!

ROFL

I suggest Geeker monetizes his newfound fanbase by making and selling a tshirt. Perhaps law enforcement should even send him a bill for the vast PR value of getting the word out on his behalf.

that is a great idea! and you’re right, he probably owes FACT some publicity fees. he’s going to make so much money on t-shirt sales it’s RIDICULOUS! welcome to web 2.0 t-shirt revolution filesoup! you got what you wanted!

I’m not concerned for the dog although the poor thing must be taken into account in the case, I’m concerned for the clear violation of the country laws and human rights. Being cut form the world and any defense for hours is clearly wrong. Now, they wish people to follow copyright laws if they don’t follow more basic laws? Well, at least they sent us a message we don’t need to worry with their copyright laws since they don’t care about civil and human laws and rights.

I mean come on, if the copyright industry wants to make its case, it shouldn’t have to resort to measures from the actual Gestapo.

You’re only convincing more people to go off your side, FACT. It’s time you faced that FACT. Unless you want to create an Orwellian society in England and perhaps in the whole world… that would help your side lots.

@89: The police aren’t a renegade group.

You can legally run a torrent indexing and hosting site in the UK as long as you do not include tracker addresses in your torrents.

If you do not facilitate a link to copyright infringing materials (and simply act as a “file validation service”) you will not be infringing or aiding infringement of copyright, not providing apparatus or providing the means to copy anything. The data you provide will ONLY allow a BT client to VERIFY the data it receives.

You would be hosting meta-data that does not resemble copyrighted work, you would not host copyrighted work, would not transmit copyrighted work and would not link to copyrighted work…

Thus… not providing any level of access to the copyrighted material whatsoever.

With opentrackers… people would soon realize what they need to do to take your legal .torrent files and use them through their own initiative to obtain the files you index.

Section 24: Secondary infringement: providing means for making infringing copies.

24.-(1) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner-

(a) makes,

(b) imports into the United Kingdom,

(c) possesses in the course of a business, or

(d) sells or lets for hire, or offers or exposes for sale or hire,

an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of that work, knowing or having reason to believe that it is to be used to make infringing copies.

Sections relating to definitions of infringement:

16. The acts restricted by copyright in a work.
17. Infringement of copyright by copying.
18. Infringement by issue of copies to the public.
18A. Infringement by rental or lending of work to the public
19. Infringement by performance, showing or playing of work in public.
20. Infringement by broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service.
21. Infringement by making adaptation or act done in relation to adaptation.

Secondary infringement of copyright.
22. Secondary infringement: importing infringing copy.
23. Secondary infringement: possessing or dealing with infringing copy. ,.
24. Secondary infringement: providing means for making infringing copies.
25. Secondary infringement: permitting use of premises for infringing performance.
26. Secondary infringement: provision of apparatus for infringing performance, &c.

—————–

The only thing they could sting him for is:

Section 26: Secondary infringement: provision of apparatus for infringing performance, &c.

26.-(1) Where copyright in a work is infringed by a public performance of the work, or by the playing or showing of the work in public, by means of apparatus for-

(a) playing sound recordings,

(b) showing films, or

(c) receiving visual images or sounds conveyed by electronic means,

the following persons are also liable for the infringement.

(2) A person who supplied the apparatus, or any substantial part of it, is liable for the infringement if when he supplied the apparatus or part-

(a) he knew or had reason to believe that the apparatus was likely to be so used as to infringe copyright, or

(b) in the case of apparatus whose normal use involves a public performance, playing or showing, he did not believe on reasonable grounds that it would not be so used as to infringe copyright.

(3) An occupier of premises who gave permission for the apparatus to be brought onto the premises is liable for the infringement if when he gave permission he knew or had reason to believe that the apparatus was likely to be so used as to infringe copyright.

(4)A person who supplied a copy of a sound recording or film used to infringe copyright is liable for the infringement if when he supplied it he knew or had reason to believe that what he supplied, or a copy made directly or indirectly from it, was likely to be so used as to infringe copyright.

Why Did UK Anti-Piracy Group FACT Get Computers From A Criminal Investigation… And Keep Them?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090706/1713445461.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGOBqo68IpE&feature=PlayList&p=90651185E67B7E6C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=24

britain is the most watched country in the world – there are cctv camera absolutly everywhere and now there are though police coming into peoples houses to take them away, check this link and read on so you will know how you sell putting cctv into peoples homes to the public whilst sounding like your “doing them a favour”

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/

i leaving this country as soon as i have ripped the system for all it’s worth and going to live in a van with all the rest of my people hidden in the country side around the world in a mobile village and free of worries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teknival

fuck the system good and watch it rot, dont get a mortage, take all your money out of the bank, work to live dont life to work, be free, do what you like and dont feel guilty about it. start the revolution of freedom in your own home and dont take no for an answer.

peace and love non violence and empathy to all you wonderful people.

That’s a good protest sign. ^_^

So if i want to frame someone… i get the cops to get the victims pc and then hand it over to me… so i can load it With illegal stuff and…

Damn!

The same thing happened with TPB. The law there as a guidline only if you have enough money, those with both money and power can bend the outcome of any trial to their will and it happens most in the UK.

This will be another site closure and another massive life ruining fine.

The Geeker can still hope i am wrong and follow my earlier advice hoping he is not being targetted to the headline grabbing extent that most are now but he should also consider “selling” anything of value he has to close friends and family with a view to filing for bankruptcy as soon as he is handed a fine.

6…years later…not a penny paid…get all your stuff signed back over. aaahhh loopholes, gotta luv em.

http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/

contact@fact-uk.org.uk

+44 (0)2085 686646

When cops raid your house they don’t do it nicely, it sucks to have to clean everything up after but it’s a fact of life. I doubt there has ever been a raid in history where the cops came in and just carefully looked around.

I disagree the U.K. and the U.S. have some of the most brutal police forces in the world. Compare that to the actions of the Japanese police that not only search every inch off the house but it when it leaves you don’t even know their where there and they do follow protocol to the letter this gain them respect, they are not allowed to even talk back to angry people.

You see people see this kind of thing and think it is normal.

- First the guy is not guilty yet he may be guilty of some crime and very possibly is because with a body of law that can literally go to the roof when printed out chances are every single person on the world is a criminal. So without the certainty of guilty you could make a mistake and trash some normal dudes home and the animal was negated care surely the dog is a hardened criminal too.

- Secondly no where says that the police needs to be obnoxious to do their work is there any law saying that they need to be rude or something that proves that trashing peoples homes in searches is normal and it is effective?

Even if the guy is a criminal there is no excuse for the behavior of the U.K. police, if these actions and conduct are not illegal then is time to have the laws changed and ask more from the men and women in uniform, the standards in the U.K. and U.S. are very low and a shame.

The guy should document how his house was left after they have go through and go see how much it would cost to pay someone else to clean it up and then charge the police for it and on top of that he should sue the police for animal cruelty.

Maybe even look for anything else that can be done, but that is for a lawyer(solicitor) to say.

This is not a special case, and you shouldn’t treat it like it would be so inhuman, just because it was a step against file sharing…

No where in any law does is say a person that has been arrested is entitled to a phone call, it is a courtesy that officers can choose to give you or not.

He was in no way denied legal representation 8 hours is not very long to wait to see a lawyer, people regularly have to wait over 24 hours before they get to see a lawyer.

When cops raid your house they don’t do it nicely, it sucks to have to clean everything up after but it’s a fact of life. I doubt there has ever been a raid in history where the cops came in and just carefully looked around.

I come to this site to get real bittorrent news, why do you guys keep posting these one sided piece of garbage stories.

^^^ THIS ^^^