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.

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.

The past 15 years is littered with casualties. Dozens of file-sharing services have been shut down, with Napster, Kazaa, Grokster, LimeWire, Megaupload and isoHunt merely heading up an almost endless list of sharing tools subjected to destruction. Sadly they are just the tip of the iceberg, with much of the action this year going on under the surface.

During 2013 Hollywood and the music industry deliberately calmed down in the United States, putting citizens there at ease after the SOPA debacle. But while the United States sleeps they are doing their work overseas in countries such as the UK. Grabbing a domain is out of the question on home soil, but doing it through a foreign proxy is easy. It’s a depressing land grab with worldwide implications that no one is doing anything about.

Other miserable developments have their roots in the past. Last decade the RIAA decided it would be a good idea to sue its own customers and continued for years until finally realizing they were getting nowhere. The same cynical practice is today being carried out by dozens of bottom-feeding troll companies such as Prenda Law, Malibu Media and GoldenEye International, each looking to profit from piracy and doing so by the most damaging and cruel means possible.

So when an article gets published that states that Iron Maiden, a huge band with a massive following, has decided to look at piracy and do something positive with it, people get properly excited. And rightly so.

Learning that the band monitored BitTorrent networks and collected pirate location data not to sue their fans, but to find out where they are in order to play for them, was a wonderful juxtaposition to the snarly image Metallica cultured when crushing Napster at the turn of the century.

Here was a band being smart, using piracy data to intelligently develop their product and image, casting their lawyers aside and putting their energies into something positive. At the same time, to the delight of the crowds and quite clearly the majority of the tech press, pleasing and embracing fans in a way that the file-sharing scene has advised for more than a decade.

But sadly the story isn’t true and CiteWorld, the publishers of the original article, have printed a full apology and heavily edited their report to reflect the much less exciting reality.

How disappointing is that? That ray of light in a sea of bad news was not only welcome, but badly needed. Now it’s gone and we’re left with that sinking feeling because let’s face it, we’ve had a pretty depressing year.

Site closures, site blockades, six strikes, the specter of ISP filtering, not to mention intensive lobbying that threatens to further restrict freedom on the Internet in the name of protecting copyright.

The Iron Maiden story is just what we needed, a story that opened up new ways of thinking and gave us hope that things can be handled in a different way. It reinvigorated the belief that bands, artists and file-sharers really can come together in a way that not only makes sense but is productive for everyone concerned.

At this point we really want to believe, we want to have hope that someone, somewhere, will come along and take away the negativity. That’s why the Iron Maiden article was repeated so many times and that’s why people wanted to spread the news. It gave us a chance to share being positive and was cool – very cool indeed.

CiteWorld may have got it wrong but their story has the potential to spark good things, so here’s to a 2014 fueled by people who see potential and want to drive the good news train. There’s a big audience out there ready to ride it – and hand over their money to do so.

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

Just like most other trolls their business model is simple. Send threatening letters to ISP account holders telling them that they have been caught watching some pretty embarrassingly titled movies and inform them that paying a cash settlement is the only way to remedy the situation.

TorrentFreak invited people targeted by the company to contact us and over the past year we’ve had a steady stream of terribly worried individuals email us with requests for information. The more of these emails you read, the more you appreciate the scale of the heartbreak for all of those involved.

At this point we should be clear – some people we spoke with clearly knew more than they were prepared to admit and some probably did download some content without permission. However, many others obviously did not and when you come across these cases you can see that companies like GoldenEye really do not give a damn about who they hurt, and they will brush off collateral damage like it doesn’t exist.

If GoldenEye only took the time to speak to the people that we have, they might see what their threats are doing. One retired lady we spoke with said she had no idea what she was going to do. Threatening court action, GoldenEye had demanded around £500 for a movie she is extremely unlikely to have been interested in. The only money she had in the world was around £1,500 in savings and now this company wanted a third of that.

One young man told us that his parents had gone crazy when his father, as the bill payer, had been accused of downloading porn. Trying to protect himself against the wrath of his wife, the finger of blame naturally got pointed by the father at his son who in turn contacted us, desperate for a solution to clear his name. Another told us how his mother could no longer cope after receiving a third letter asking for money despite her innocence.

In cases like these where we believe that people have been wrongly accused we are more than happy to help. Throughout the year we corresponded with a couple of dozen individuals, half a dozen or so on a regular basis, in order to keep pace with their cases.

And guess what?

Of those who stuck in their heels, stood by their principles and refused to pay, GoldenEye stopped threatening 100% of them. After the initial three or four letters bounced back and forth, the company backed off, a characteristic of most bullies when they realize their intended victim is refusing to become one.

As a result, today these people are able to enjoy Christmas with their families. Rather than finding themselves £500 in the hole in order to finance GoldenEye’s Christmas party or Ben Dover’s festive lunch, that money is being spent were it should be.

“The final letter GoldenEye sent said that they were going to review my case and then make a decision on whether they were going to proceed or not. At that point I started to understand what was going on finally,” says ‘John’, a recipient of a £500 threat letter.

“GoldenEye are a company who just send letters to people to try and threaten and bully them into paying money, but do not take it any further. It was just like a game of poker to me as they were bluffing all the time so I played the game and won as I didn’t back down to their demands.”

“I am relieved I don’t have to pay any money to them as I don’t have that kind of money to give away. I can get on with my own life now without the extra worry of dealing with these legal scam artists,” he continues. “I am not letting people like this get what they want from me. They have to fight me in court if they want their money.”

Sure, it’s likely that GoldenEye have managed to get payments from a lot of people this year, but their complete lack of compassion has been hit head on by those who refused to give in. And for those people, Christmas this year will be all the more special.

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

As we covered earlier ORG plans to protect accused BitTorrent downloaders against the extortion schemes.

The group wants to intervene in the GoldenEye Appeal and make sure the identities of (often innocent) Internet users will not be handed over to the copyright troll.

To do so, ORG needs to raise £5,000 from the public. Thus far £4,450 has been raised so far, but they really need the extra bit before next week, or else they will simply refund the donators.

If you want to be a part of the fight against copyright trolls please consider donating.

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.

Golden Eye were seeking a Norwich Pharmacal Order. If granted it would allow them to personally identify 9,000 alleged file-sharers and write to them with a cash demand for several hundred pounds each. All were customers of ISP O2 and the ISP declined to put up a fight.

In March this year the High Court granted an order that compelled O2 to provide the personal details (names and postal addresses) relating to 2,845 IP addresses, several thousands short of the 9,000 requested by Golden Eye.

The problem was that not only did Golden Eye expect to gain settlements from people who allegedly shared Ben Dover material, but they had also recruited other porn outfits into the scheme too – 12 in total. Under the plan Golden Eye would have kept 75% of the settlements and the other rightsholders would have collected the remaining 25% for handing Golden Eye a license to chase alleged infringers.

But in the event the High Court said it would not sanction “the sale of the intended Defendants’ privacy and data protection rights to the highest bidder.” The Court refused to authorize the handing over of just over 6,000 identities relating to the other rightsholders. Golden Eye appealed the decision.

Now, after doing much great work in defending citizens rights so far in this case, consumer rights group Consumer Focus are stepping aside and handing this copyright battle to the Open Rights Group. Today, ORG have announced that they have applied to intervene in Golden Eye’s appeal.

“Intervening in these sort of cases is expensive. But we also think it’s really important that we try to represent the interests of Internet users in these situations,” ORG’s Peter Bradwell explains.

“If the decision goes our way, we believe one consequence will be a more robust process for considering the data protection rights of those who pay the bill for an Internet connection.”

Bradwell says that if ORG are successful, not only will the identities of 6,000+ account holders be safe, but the legal landscape will be affected positively for the future.

“If the Court of Appeal upholds the High Court’s decision to refuse disclosure orders to companies who enter ‘enforcement only’ licenses with copyright owners, many more Internet users will in the future be protected from copyright enforcement revenue sharing schemes like this.”

Even if ORG are successful, copyright holders will still be able to go to court in order to enforce their copyrights. Nevertheless, it will stop outfits like Golden Eye from gathering together other rightsholders in one action, a critical step for reducing the possibility of large numbers of account holders being aggressively threatened as we have seen in the past.

However, legal intervention of this nature, especially in complex copyright cases, requires funding to complete. Initially ORG say they are trying to raise £5000 – you can see their fund-raising appeal here.

In the meantime, O2 are still due to hand over the identities of the 2,845 subscribers from the earlier court order. Two weeks ago, the owner of campaigning site ACS Bore informed TorrentFreak that the handover still hadn’t taken place.

—

Anyone receiving a letter can contact the Citizens Advice Consumer Service on 08454 04 05 06 or their local Citizens Advice Bureau. And don’t forget to contact TorrentFreak too, you can speak with us in complete confidence.

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

These letters will accuse the person who pays the bill on the O2 Internet account of downloading and sharing various adult movies produced by UK porn outfit Ben Dover.

The idea behind the letters is simple: to get the account holder to admit to copyright infringement and force them to pay a cash settlement of a few hundred pounds to make a largely imaginary court case disappear.

If this was in the United States the only help for people wrongly accused by outfits such as GEIL would come from expensive lawyers. In the UK it’s different.

As detailed in our earlier article, Citizens Advice are standing by to offer help. But that’s not the only source of assistance available.

A little bird pointed TorrentFreak towards a brand new resource located at www.igotagoldeneyeinternationalletter.org.uk.

Currently the site is in its early stages but we have it on very good authority that it will soon become the focal point for anyone wishing to fend off Golden Eye and its Ben Dover porn paymasters.

Those who remember the Speculative Invoicing Handbook, the UK’s ultimate guide for fending off wrongful accusations of illicit file-sharing, should definitely pay particular attention to this new resource.

More on this in the days to come.

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

Although they successfully obtained the identities of alleged file-sharers through the court using the Tilly Bailey & Irvine (TBI) law firm, things quickly went wrong for GoldenEye. TBI pulled out due to bad publicity and the company was eventually fined late 2011 by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority for their mishandling of the cases.

In September 2011, Golden Eye were back again, trying to extract money from Internet users via the previously untested route of the small claims court. But in December 2011 it all fell apart following proper scrutiny in the High Court.

And now, in March 2012, unbelievably Golden Eye are back again with a third attempt.

Their new case against ISP Telefonica UK was up in the High Court this morning before Mr Justice Arnold, the judge responsible for ordering the ISP level block against Newzbin2 and the ongoing proceedings aimed towards a block of The Pirate Bay.

Golden Eye were seeking a Norwich Pharmacal Order, a document which if granted would allow them to identify their target of 9,000 alleged file-sharers and write to them with a demand for £700 each. If totally successful the scheme could net the company a cool £6.3 million in settlements.

From the court Computeractive’s Dinah Greek reported that Mr Justice Arnold was unhappy with the wording of the draft letters created by Golden Eye which claim they could ask ISPs to cut off or throttle the connections of alleged file-sharers, something the porn company has no authority to do.

Furthermore, Greek later posted another key point on Twitter – all Golden Eye have by way of evidence is a simple IP address, a particularly poor item of proof that has proven both unreliable and insufficient in the past.

Justice Arnold eventually deferred his decision to grant or deny the order pending the presentation of further evidence. He is expected to rule in approximately two weeks.

Although it will have serious implications for potential recipients of Golden Eye threats, the Open Rights Group believes that Justice Arnold’s decision also has the potential to have a big impact on how the Digital Economy Act works.

“At issue is the strength of the evidence required against alleged copyright infringers facing possible civil action. It should help focus attention on the need for [communications regulator] Ofcom to demand that water-tight standards of evidence are required for rights holders chasing alleged infringers through the Digital Economy Act,” says ORG’s Peter Bradwell.

“Ofcom are required to define the standards of evidence required against alleged infringers through the Initial Obligations Code (pdf). The revised version of this is due out soon. Without stringent standards, there is a risk that people are wrongly placed on infringement lists and are subject to the civil action in the initial phases of the Act.”

But even if Golden Eye are successful in obtained a Norwich Pharmacal Order, they will not be getting an easy ride and won’t be pulling in the cash they expect. After all, a similar venture cost ACS:Law’s Andrew Crossley his business, reputation, possessions and even his girlfriend.

“Golden Eye (should they get their NPO) will get very little money and a TONNE of grief,” predicted Will Gilmour, an expert in so-called pay-up-or-else schemes. “Speculative invoicing does not equal good business.”

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