The follow-up debacle involving ACS:Law was widely documented, with owner Andrew Crossley being forced to close down his business after being suspended by the Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority for misconduct. After misleading the courts, bankruptcy was just the icing on the cake.

None of this was a deterrent to porn outfit GoldenEye International. They embarked on a similar scheme, sending letters to alleged file-sharers and demanding hundreds of pounds in settlements to make supposed lawsuits go away. However, GoldenEye learned from its predecessors by proceeding with caution and staying largely under the radar. But quite predictably and despite legal bluster and empty threats, the company took not a single case to court.

So today, quite possibly due to the tendency of the public to pay up rather than become linked with embarrassing porn movie titles, the porn trolls are back once again in the UK.

TorrentFreak has learned that last year four porn producers teamed up in an effort to force ISP Virgin Media to hand over the names and addresses of more than 1,500 subscribers said to have downloaded and shared adult content without permission.

The companies, none of which appear to be based in the UK, teamed up with Wagner & Co, the London lawfirm also working with GoldenEye. They are Mircom International Content Management & Consulting Ltd, Sunlust Pictures, Combat Zone Corporation and Pink Bonnet, Consultores de Imagem LDA.

Mircom International Content Management & Consulting Ltd are active in Europe, particularly when it comes to demanding cash settlements from alleged file-sharers in Germany. Sunlust Pictures is an adult movie company founded in 2009 by former porn actress Sunny Leone, who – entirely unsurprisingly – has featured in copyright trolling cases in the United States. Combat Zone Corporation is an adult movie company based in California. They’re no strangers to the cash settlement model either.

TorrentFreak contacted Mark Wagner at Wagner & Co to find out what his clients hope to achieve in the UK, but unfortunately our emails went unanswered. The company doesn’t appear to have a working website and its address relates to a house in residential area.

Fortunately, Virgin Media were rather more accommodating. In the past the ISP has been criticized for not doing more to protect its subscribers’ personal details but it turns out the battle with Wagner & Co has been going on for some time.

“We have contested the validity of Wagner & Co’s claims (ongoing for 12 months), asking the Judge to thoroughly review the application and the supporting evidence. We have challenged the reliability of the software used to obtain evidence of infringement (FileWatchBT) and the accuracy of the data collected,” spokesperson Emma Hutchinson told TF.

But despite Virgin Media’s efforts the High Court took the decision to side with Wagner & Co and order the ISP to hand over the details of its subscribers. While the situation is pretty grim, things could have been worse.

“The original request was for double the number of addresses than we have been forced to disclose, now fewer than 800,” Virgin explain.

“We advise any of our customers who receive a speculative letter from Wagner & Co, who also represented Golden Eye International in action against O2 customers last year, to seek independent advice from organizations such as Citizens Advice,” the ISP concludes.

Restrictions placed on GoldenEye in previous procedures indicate that initial letters sent to Virgin customers by Wagner & Co and its clients will not be as aggressive as the ones sent out by ACS:Law and will not contain a precise settlement amount. However, it is guaranteed that cash will be requested at some point.

Upon receipt of these “speculative invoices” there will be those who panic and pay up, and that’s their prerogative. But it’s highly likely that those who admit nothing and stand firm will pay what they’ve always paid in UK cases – absolutely nothing.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

In a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Texas, Voltage sought to identify illegal downloaders of the movie by providing the IP addresses of Internet subscribers to the court. Their aim – to scare those individuals into making cash settlements to make supposed lawsuits disappear.

Now, in the most significant development of the ‘trolling’ model in recent times, Dallas Buyers Club LLC are trying to expand their project into Australia. Interestingly the studio has chosen to take on subscribers of the one ISP that was absolutely guaranteed to put up a fight.

iiNet is Australia’s second largest ISP and the country’s leading expert when it comes to fighting off aggressive rightsholders. In 2012 the ISP defeated Hollywood in one of the longest piracy battles ever seen and the company says it will defend its subscribers in this case too.

Chief Regulatory Officer Steve Dalby says that Dallas Buyers Club LLC (DBCLLC) recently applied to the Federal Court to have iiNet and other local ISPs reveal the identities of people they say have downloaded and/or shared their movie without permission.

According to court documents seen by TorrentFreak the other ISPs involved are Wideband Networks Pty Ltd, Internode Pty Ltd, Dodo Services Pty Ltd, Amnet Broadband Pty Ltd and Adam Internet Pty Ltd.

Although the stance of the other ISPs hasn’t yet been made public, DBCLLC aren’t going to get an easy ride. iiNet (which also owns Internode and Adam) says it will oppose the application for discovery.

“iiNet would never disclose customer details to a third party, such as movie studio, unless ordered to do so by a court. We take seriously both our customers’ privacy and our legal obligations,” Dalby says.

While underlining that the company does not condone copyright infringement, news of Dallas Buyers Club / Voltage Pictures’ modus operandi has evidently reached iiNet, and the ISP is ready for them.

“It might seem reasonable for a movie studio to ask us for the identity of those they suspect are infringing their copyright. Yet, this would only make sense if the movie studio intended to use this information fairly, including to allow the alleged infringer their day in court, in order to argue their case,” Dalby says.

“In this case, we have serious concerns about Dallas Buyers Club’s intentions. We are concerned that our customers will be unfairly targeted to settle any claims out of court using a practice called ‘speculative invoicing’.”

The term ‘speculative invoicing’ was coined in the UK in response to the activities of companies including the now defunct ACS:Law, which involved extracting cash settlements from alleged infringers (via mailed ‘invoices’) and deterring them from having their say in court. Once the scheme was opened up to legal scrutiny it completely fell apart.

Some of the flaws found to exist in both UK and US ‘troll’ cases are cited by iiNet, including intimidation of subscribers via excessive claims for damages. The ISP also details the limitations of IP address-based evidence when it comes to identifying infringers due to shared household connections and open wifi scenarios.

“Because Australian courts have not tested these cases, any threat by rights holders, premised on the outcome of a successful copyright infringement action, would be speculative,” Dalby adds.

The Chief Regulatory Officer says that since iiNet has opposed the action for discovery the Federal Court will now be asked to decide whether iiNet should hand over subscriber identities to DBCLLC. A hearing on that matter is expected early next year and it will be an important event.

While a win for iiNet would mean a setback for rightsholders plotting similar action, victory for DBCLLC will almost certainly lead to others following in their footsteps. For an idea of what Australians could face in this latter scenario, in the United States the company demands payment of up to US$7,000 (AUS$8,000) per infringement.

_{Photo: Michael Theis}

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

These questions and more have been under consideration in the Federal Court in Toronto as part of a case involving US-based movie studio and known copyright troll Voltage Pictures (“The Hurt Locker”) versus 2,000 currently anonymous Internet subscribers of local ISP TekSavvy.

Voltage say that via local anti-piracy company Canipre they tracked the Teksavvy customers downloading and sharing their movies online without permission and as a result want Teksavvy to hand over the alleged pirates names and addresses.

CIPPIC – protecting subscribers

The case has been dragging on for some time with third parties such as the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) getting involved in order to protect the subscribers’ rights. CIPPIC believes Voltage are nothing more than “copyright trolls” sending settlement letters to alleged pirates in order to extract hard cash from them.

Voltage’s previous actions in this area are well-known, with court documents showing that the movie company has filed 22 similar lawsuits in the United States, each with the same pattern. Various flaws exist in the company’s modus operandi, CIPPIC say, not least that an IP address in isolation does not identify an individual.

CIPPIC adds that Teksavvy shouldn’t hand anything over to Voltage, as this will “infringe the privacy rights of the subscribers and may affect the scope of protection offered to anonymous online activity.” CIPPIC fears that any ruling in this case could have a detrimental effect on whistle-blowers and others who leak documents in the public interest.

Voltage’s stance

For their part, Voltage believe that since they have a case under the Copyright Act, Teksavvy should be ordered to hand over the subscribers’ personal details.

Relying on a ruling in BMG Canada Inc. v Doe, 2005, Voltage says it has met all conditions therein (such as having a bona fide case, being reliant on the court/Teksavvy for information to proceed, and promising to reimburse Teksavvy for costs incurred), while adding that it “fully intends to pursue claims against the subscribers.”

The balancing act

So, should the court issue an order which compels Teksavvy to hand over the information to Voltage and, if so, what kind of protections could be baked into the order to minimize invasion of privacy for the Internet users involved?

“Privacy considerations should not be a shield for wrongdoing and must yield to an injured party’s request for information from non-parties. This should be the case irrespective of the type of right the claimant holds,” the Court writes in its ruling.

“Copyright is a valuable asset which should not be easily defeated by infringers. The difficulty in this case is that it is not clear that the protection of copyright is the sole motivating factor supporting Voltage’s claim in this Court. [Evidence] suggests but does not prove that Voltage may have ulterior motives in commencing this action and may be a copyright troll.”

Despite its concerns, the Court notes that Voltage has established a bona fide claim and as a copyright holder its rights outweigh the privacy rights of alleged infringers. However, it also notes that it would be taking steps to “ensure that privacy rights are invaded in the most minimal way possible.”

Privacy concerns and the trolling threat

For its part, Voltage previously argued that the alleged infringers had already made their IP addresses public when they joined BitTorrent swarms and therefore should not be able to remain anonymous in legal action.

The court accepted that stance to a degree but noted that the “specter raised of the copyright troll” and the “very real specter of flooding the Court with an enormous number of cases involving the subscribers, many of whom may have perfectly good defenses to the alleged infringement” had to be considered.

Interestingly, the Court pointed out that damage provisions are limited by the Copyright Act and may prove to be “minuscule” when compared to the cost, time and effort expended when pursuing any claim against an alleged infringer. Here, the Court seems to have an eye on whether this exercise can be a profitable one for Voltage, and whether it should or not.

Also of interest is the Court’s examination of other ‘trolling’ cases in the United States and UK, particularly those involving ACS:Law and adult movie company GoldenEye. Alongside privacy issues, the Court looked at how the involvement of a consumer group in the latter case had influenced the letters of claim eventually sent out by GoldenEye.

Conclusion: Voltage get the green light, but must proceed with caution

The Federal Court notes that evidence exists to show that Voltage is a troll-like operation but the evidence was not compelling enough to put the brakes on the exercise. Voltage has a right to the subscriber information held by Teksavvy following the issue of a relevant order, the Court said.

However, in line with recent cases in the UK, the Federal Court says it intends to maintain control over the process by appointing a Case Management Judge to monitor “the conduct of Voltage in its dealings with the alleged infringers.”

Furthermore, the settlement letters sent out by Voltage will have to be approved by the Court and CIPPIC, and must include a copy of the court order and a clear statement that no court has yet found any recipient liable for infringement or liable to pay damages. This addresses concerns from past cases in the UK where letters implied that a court had already found guilt.

Other restrictions involve Teksavvy, who must be fully reimbursed for their costs incurred when handing over information, which will be restricted to names and addresses only. This data may not be handed to any other entity, including to the public or media.

Significant restrictions to protect subscribers

Describing the above safeguards as “significant”, Canadian lawyer Michael Geist says that the restrictions could affect the financial viability of troll-type activity.

“Given the cap on liability and the increased legal costs the court involvement will create (not to mention paying legal fees for the ISP), it calls into question whether copyright trolling litigation is economically viable in Canada. The federal court was clearly anxious to discourage such tactics and its safeguards certainly make such actions less likely,” Geist concludes.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

India-based AiPlex Software said that when faced with uncooperative torrent sites they “flood the website with requests, which results in database error.” The admission, that the company engaged in what amounts to a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, started off a momentous chain of events.

The confession irked the masses on the chat board 4Chan and many of its members, known as Anons (collectively ‘Anonymous’), plotted their revenge. Firing up their LOICs, they DDoS’d AiPlex in return, taking the site offline.

But despite letting off steam the rage did not subside and soon the MPAA and RIAA were being overwhelmed with traffic, along with the Bank of America, Visa and Mastercard who had cut off payments to Wikileaks. Operation Payback was underway and it would spread around the world.

In the three years that have since passed, authorities in various countries have rounded up some of those who coordinated and participated in the attacks. A few hours ago came the news that United States authorities have scheduled some payback of their own for more than a dozen Operation Payback participants.

A federal grand jury has indicted 13 alleged members of Anonymous on claims that they “did knowingly cause the transmission of a program, information, code, and command, and, as a result of such conduct, intentionally cause damage, and attempt to cause damage, without authorization, to a protected computer,” including those operated by the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and the U.S. Copyright Office.

The indictment states that 13 men coordinated attacks by collectively deciding on targets and publishing their names and IP addresses along with proposed times and dates for the attacks. Via online postings and fliers, plus through the IRC channels #saveTPB, #savethepiratebay, and #operationpayback, the men allegedly recruited more individuals to the collective.

Interestingly, the indictment makes no specific mention of AiPlex’s illegal DDoS attacks on torrent sites, merely stating that Anonymous launched Operation Payback to retaliate “against the discontinuation of ‘The Pirate Bay’.”

In addition to United States-based targets including Warner Bros., the indictment lists attacks on the IFPI, BPI, ACS:Law, Davenport Lyons and Ministry of Sounds websites in the UK, against anti-piracy group BREIN in the Netherlands, one launched in Australia targeting the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), and another against French anti-piracy outfit Trident Media Guard.

Overall the indictment tries to paint a very bleak picture of the defendants engaging in a deliberate campaign of destruction during the course of Operation Payback. It often cites comments made by each individual as they allegedly went about arranging and motivating others to carry out attacks against high-profile targets.

“We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us,” is the Anonymous battle cry. United States authorities appear to operate with a similar philosophy.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The ongoing fall of Prenda Law is even more drawn out than that of it’s ancestor in the scheme, the now-defunct ACS:law. Andrew Crossley lost one case, and was quickly disbarred, ending the practice for now.

It doesn’t quite work that way for Prenda.

While there may be some comparison, there are also some notable differences between the two. ACS actually did partner with an outside content company, while Prenda appears to have the rights to the work itself, and was actively seeding it on the Pirate Bay.

Also, while ACS kept things going in a fairly straight line and mostly in the open, Prenda has a multitude of shell companies and cases spread across the entire US. Clearly Steele’s plan was to go big, and go bold.

Nevertheless, while it’s taken a while, things are starting to look bad for Prenda. We’ve mentioned already about how one California judge unloaded on them via a Star Trek laden order, which required Team Prenda to put up a bond of some $100,000.

Now over in Northern California another judge has followed suit, this time for $22,531.93.

In the case of Navasca, the judge has decided that Prenda’s case has no merit. Despite mud-slinging about evidence (notably ‘exhibit K’ that’s much talked about in the community), claims of inflationary billing and other complaints, Judge Edward Chen has denied most of Prenda’s objections and awarded Mr Navasca his attorney’s fees.

The case was, according to the court, ‘frivolous or objectively unreasonable’ in a number of ways. From the concerns over the signature on the copyright assignments (which may or may not have come from Prenda principle Steele’s ex housekeeper without his knowledge), the decision on who to name as the defendant rankled the court. There have also been concerns over the manner in which the case was litigated, with emergency motions made when not needed, claims of evidence spoliation (destruction) made with nothing to back them up, and motions to disrupt evidence-gathering discovery.

Finaly the court had significant concerns over the motivation behind the suit. In short, evidence provided by Mr Delvan Neville (the aforementioned Exhibit K), along with information provided by ThePirateBay via TorrentFreak, shows that the torrent uploader may be Prenda itself. This indicates that Prenda is not looking to protect the work, but to use the courts as the sole revenue source for the work. (As a side note, TorrentFreak’s research team has reviewed the raw evidence and the program and concurs with Mr Neville’s conclusions)

All in all, this has led Judge Chen to come down heavily on Team Prenda, and award almost all the fees requested by Mr Navasca’s attorneys, $19,420.38 and $3,111.55 in costs to Mr Navasca, for a total of $22,531.93.

Will Team Prenda appeal? It’s likely, if only to delay paying out. Yet it’s another nail in the coffin of this predatory business model, and for that we can all be grateful.

judge Chen’s costs order in Prenda-Navasca case

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

It would be the first attempt at extracting cash settlements from alleged file-sharers since the ACS:Law fiasco and as such the High Court placed restrictions on how the company could deal with alleged infringers.

Many of those restrictions relate to the initial letter sent by Golden Eye (GEIL) to Internet account holders. The letter itself had to be approved by the High Court and among other things could not ask individuals for a set amount of money (a figure of £700 was originally attempted by GEIL) until infringement by the individual (and to what degree) had been established.

Another element related to the wording of the letter. It should not cause the recipient unnecessary distress, give the impression that the High Court had already found them guilty, nor state that they are liable for activity carried out by others on their connection.

The first letter sent to individuals went out and obeyed the High Court’s orders. However, those who wrote back to GEIL denying their claims are finding that speculative invoicing is alive and well in the UK and in basic terms, very little has changed. It is still very much a case of pay up – or else.

A response from GEIL obtained by TorrentFreak begins with the title of the movie (which is more than a decade old) in the first line in bold, which needless to say leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination.

GEIL begins by telling the recipient that the initial letter “was approved by Mr Justice Arnold sitting in the High Court, after input from both 02′s legal representatives and Consumer Focus and Open Rights Group on behalf of consumers.”

While this statement is true, for a letter recipient unfamiliar with the case this could be construed that somehow the complaint itself (rather than just the letter) had been endorsed by not only the High Court but ISPs and consumer groups. The next sentence applies even more pressure, suggesting that the High Court believes that guilt is probable.

“The Court accepted that there was an arguable case that material had been illegally uploaded from the internet addresses we had been monitoring,” GEIL write.

Golden Eye then go on to state that they are in possession of lots of information including filehashes, filenames, times, percentage of file being shared, torrent client name, and the piece of file being shared at the precise moment of capture. The company adds that if the case proceeds to court, they will be able to produce even more data.

“All the pieces seeded by you in a raw format that can then be inspected and further analyzed [and] the raw capture of the packets sent by your P2P software to the Internet at the time of identification. This is raw data that can be analyzed further that will essentially show the piece of the content being seeded by you.”

Despite the recipient already sending a letter denying the company’s claims, the subsequent letter from GEIL continues to presume that the ISP account holder is the infringer with references to “seeded by you”, “your P2P software”, “uploaded by you” and other words to that effect.

It is only in the final few paragraphs that the letter raises the possibility that the account holder has done no wrong. Again, they attempt the ACS:Law route of trying to get the letter recipient to point the finger at someone else, even after spending the best part of three previous pages stating that the recipient is the infringer.

“If you have information regarding other people who were given access to your internet connection at the date and time our evidence shows an infringement occurred please write back with details. Alternatively if you have any other information that could suggest how your internet connection has been used to infringe our copyright then this will facilitate the conclusion of this matter,” GEIL write.

Finally, a sting in the tail for anyone who can’t come up with an adequate explanation as to how someone, somewhere, has managed to infringe GEIL’s copyrights.

“In the absence of a specific defense from you, and evidence in support of any Defense, we think it is likely that, on the balance of probabilities, the Court would conclude that it is you who is responsible for the upload by your internet connection on the date and time referred
to in our earlier letter,” the company concludes.

But of course, everything can be made to go away easily. Although GEIL were forbidden from asking for money in the original letter, they get round to that in the second. Settlement offers seen by TorrentFreak range from £350 to £800.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

While many groups and individuals contributed to the eventual downfall of ACS:Law and its infamous owner Andrew Crossley, it was Judge Colin Birss QC who had the pleasure of seeing the outfit take its dying breaths in a final series of embarrassing court hearings.

In 2011, as Crossley was collecting the Internet Services Providers’ Association’s award for Villain of the Year, Judge Birss was nominated as Hero of the Year for his stand against ACS:Law. He didn’t win, but today he has an even greater accolade.

“The Queen has been pleased to approve the appointment of His Honour Judge Colin Ian Birss, Q.C., to be a Justice of the High Court with effect from 13 May 2013 on the elevation of Mr. Justice Briggs to the Court of Appeal,” reports the Ministry of Justice.

Congratulations Judge Birss, well deserved.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Websites can be the bane of many, and they’ve not always been the friend of copyright trolls. ACS:Law was ripped apart after an attack on its website left it with a partial email archive, including admissions that their evidence was useless, and that they targeted people on their ability to pay.

Now it’s the site of Prenda / Steele-Hassemeier / Alpha Law Firm / Anti-Piracy Law Group (if you’re confused by that, this chart might come in handy)  that’s been under attack. While the Steele/Duffy/Gibbs roadshow has been eager to follow Crossleys example of speculative invoicing, they’ve put off the site-attack, or had, until now.

Fightcpyright trolls reported that on Tuesday, the site of the under-bridge-dwelling litigators included a nice little bonus – a redirect to the Pirate Bay (wherever in the world it was being hosted)

The Javascript-based redirect wasn’t the only goody to hit the site, as visitors to the stock-image-dominated site are inundated with popups for Godaddy’s previewDNS service.

This has led some to speculate that the attack was an inside job, set to garner sympathy or allow blame to be placed and attacks to be made. After all, such a move isn’t exactly unprecedented from these lawyers.

Extreme gamblers might see it as indications that some semblance of humanity remains yet to be transformed into a troll, and is trapped in the company screaming for help. The Lottery is a better bet, though.

Of course, it could be an outside group, acting maliciously, but where is the motivation?

After all, what has this law firm ever done to anyone besides using a web of shell corporations to try and extort thousands of dollars from tens of thousands of people – some they’ve admitted are innocent – by abusing the legal system through sham litigation in an attempt to encourage out-of-court settlements or default judgement through extreme pornography and exaggerated threats, all the while bilking the court system of tens of thousands in filing fees through improper joinder? And when someone stands up to the bullies, they dismiss the case leaving the accused massively out-of-pocket. Can’t see what problem anyone would have with that. I mean, it’s not like they shared a film or anything serious like that.

Regardless, if Steele and Co are following the Crossley plan, then soon after the website attack comes disgrace, and punishment. We’ll see next week.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

“Two companies, Golden Eye (International) Limited and Ben Dover Productions (we will refer to them both as Golden Eye in this letter), allege that some of our customers broadband accounts have been used to download films from the internet, without paying for them,” O2 wrote.

“Golden Eye produced evidence which identified the anonymous IP address used to download that content. The Court then ordered O2 to check them against our customer records, and to give Golden Eye the corresponding name and address of the account holder.”

O2 then goes on to say that the High Court ordered it to hand over the names of alleged file-sharers to Golden Eye and, in an attempt to come over as the good guy, added that “O2 had no choice but to comply.”

The truth is that O2 could have made a real effort to contest the proceedings but did no such thing. As a result Golden Eye are now in possession of the identities of 2,845 O2 and BE customers to try and make money from.

Soon, and quite possibly just in time for Christmas, Golden Eye will write a letter to these O2 customers (click here to see what it will look like plus read our analysis here). In it they will outline their complicated copyright claim but ultimately announce that they are prepared to forget the whole thing if O2 and BE customers pay them some hard cash.

No amount will be mentioned but on past UK experiences it will be anything up to around £600. However, some people receiving these letters will not pay Golden Eye a single penny.

These people will have read and understood the Speculative Invoicing Handbook Second Edition, an invaluable guide released today. While the letters sent by GEIL have been approved by the High Court they are still crafted to intimidate, whereas the Speculative Invoicing Handbook is designed to inform and empower.

“The guide, which succinctly summarizes the operation of these mass litigation schemes, has proven a boon to those incorrectly accused in the past,” consumer rights campaigner and speculative invoicing expert James Bench told TorrentFreak.

It’s believed that the first edition of this superb publication enabled thousands of innocent account holders to avoid paying settlements to the infamous ACS:Law, eventually resulting in that company’s collapse and the bankruptcy of its operator.

The lawyer involved, Andrew Crossley, was also suspended by the Law Society for two years for his conduct, but he wasn’t the first casualty resulting from this type of work.

“Law firm Davenport Lyons, the pioneers of this type of volume litigation in the UK, saw two partners suspended by the Law Society and were forced to pay a substantial fine,” Bench notes.

Mindful of these unfavorable outcomes, GEIL have taken precautions.

“GEIL are the first copyright licensees to act for themselves in these matters, rather than appointing solicitors to send the letters on their behalf,” James Bench explains.

While GEIL have probably learned valuable lessons from the activities of ACS:Law, the key points remain the same.

First, the company does not have sufficient evidence to prove who has carried out any infringement. This is a huge problem for them since they can only claim settlement from the actual infringer and they don’t know who it is. They can only guess at that person’s identity – short of an ill-advised confession of course.

Second, if an Internet account holder didn’t carry out any file-sharing and didn’t tell someone else they could do so on their connection, they aren’t liable and don’t have to pay a penny. Golden Eye will eventually have to accept that and move on, even if they don’t do so straight away.

The Speculative Invoicing Handbook Second Edition can be downloaded here, and don’t forget to check out other support sites here and here. If you’ve received a letter, contact TorrentFreak in confidence.

(Update: The total of 2,845 IP addresses apparently did not relate to the same number of account holders – less than 1,000 identities have been released)

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

ORG have applied to intervene in an appeal mounted by Golden Eye International, a company linked to the Ben Dover porn brand and one that’s intent on re-introducing the so-called “pay-up-or-else” model back into the UK.

In summary, Golden Eye were told by the High Court that they could chase down alleged infringers of their own content but were not allowed to start representing other rightsholders who want to do the same – they would have to do their own work and incur their own costs.

And this is what this is about – money. If Golden Eye only have to go to court once in order to obtain court orders in respect of infringements of their own content and that of other companies, there is much more cash to go round. It’s worth noting that Golden Eye are keeping 75% of each settlement so that pie needs to be as big as possible.

ORG asked for £5,000 in donations to fight Golden Eye but not wishing to be outdone (or beaten in court), Golden Eye are now asking for contributions too.

“The perception of pornographers outside the industry may well be filthy rich; however as anyone with an ability for rational thinking will appreciate any business who’s [sic] core product has been decimated by piracy is experiencing a massive downturn in turnover and profitability,” Golden Eye chief Julian Becker informs Xbiz.

“[Open Rights Group] are appealing for funding for their court costs, which having checked our bank balance recently has given me the idea to do the same.”

Becker quite rightly makes the point that the case has huge implications and of course that has already been recognized, first by Consumer Focus who have brilliantly handled intervention so far, and now by ORG who have recently taken over.

But while ORG want to ensure, as a judge put in an earlier hearing, that “the intended Defendants’ privacy and data protection rights” don’t get sold “to the highest bidder”, Golden Eye want allies to turn their scheme into a significant money making venture.

“Therefore any financial support, however small, that can be given will help the cause massively. If you can’t give then supportive messages also are appreciated if not lost in the deluge of personal abuse and threats from the faceless keyboard warriors,” Becker concludes.

And those “warriors” do exist. In the United States copyright-trolls do have opponents, no doubt about that, but for some reason in the UK their actions are taken a whole lot more personally and tend to provoke more direct action.

TorrentFreak is aware that a hard core of opponents are researching everything about Julian Becker and his associates, from where they live, their connected business ventures and other private issues including, as one person showed us last week, that Becker currently has a Ferrari up for sale. Every element of their on-and-offline lives are under scrutiny, ready to be exploited whenever Golden Eye launch their campaign. More aggressive but unrelated campaigners have indicated that DDoS and hacking attacks are also on the agenda.

This kind of action is not new. ACS:Law were punished relentlessly by anti-troll groups and activists such as Anonymous, and it could conceivably happen again with Golden Eye.

However, although in some cases it has proven very effective, taking direction ‘hacktivist’ action is not without its risks. This week a court in the UK has been hearing a case against an alleged Anonymous ring-leader who participated in “Operation Payback” attacks against not only PayPal but the IFPI and BPI.

Student Christopher Weatherhead, 22, also allegedly launched attacks against Ministry of Sound and their lawfirm Gallant Macmillan after the companies tried to extract cash payments from alleged file-sharers.

A month later Ministry of Sound abandoned their file-sharing settlement project but clearly the events that led to that decision will have consequences for those involved.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.