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.

The company has previously had a couple of shots at putting together a scheme to extract cash settlements from alleged file-sharers in the UK, but the latest has its roots in 2011.

The complex battle, which first went to the High Court then to the Court of Appeal, was finally settled in late December 2012 after a failed Open Rights Group challenge.

Golden Eye originally had around 9,000 IP addresses to match with the identities of account holders at ISPs O2 and BE, although how many of these will match with records at the ISPs remains to be seen. However, the ISPs have clearly matched several hundred so far since Golden Eye have already begun their campaign.

Last evening several worried individuals contacted TorrentFreak saying that they had received letters from Golden Eye asking them to settle a copyright infringement claim. Out of the four people we spoke with two said they had been taken by surprise and were totally innocent.

One individual was able to send us a copy of the letter he received. It contains an alleged date of infringement in the first half of 2011, more than 18 months ago.

“This letter assumes that you, as the Internet account holder at your address, were the
user of the relevant computer on the day and time in question,” the letter states, an assumption that cannot be backed up by any evidence.

Indeed, Golden Eye claims in their letter to have included an evidence report from their “forensic computer analyst”. Actually only a film title, IP address, plus date and time of the alleged infringement are included.

Despite the weak evidence, Golden Eye still hope that their targets will roll over and admit guilt.

“Please state whether you admit that you have downloaded the Work and/or made it available for download by others and if so the extent to which you have done so and whether you are prepared in principle to enter into a settlement of the kind outlined above,” they write.

“If you deny that you have downloaded the Work or made it available for download by others, please explain the basis upon which you deny it, and provide the information that we have requested above about other users of the computer.”

Letter recipients should note they have no obligation to incriminate anyone else, it is up to Golden Eye to prove who carried out the alleged infringements.

Speaking with TorrentFreak earlier today, Saskia Walzel of Consumer Focus confirmed that Golden Eye have indeed been sending out letters this week.

“Golden Eye sent the first wave of letters, about 250, on Tuesday by 2nd class mail, the majority should reach consumers today, about 1 percent of the letters are expected to arrive tomorrow (about 1 percent of 2nd class mail is one day late),” she explained.

“Golden Eye is sending the letters in waves, so anybody who has received a letter from O2 or BE in December telling them that their personal data has been released, BUT has not yet received a letter from Golden Eye, is likely to receive a letter from Golden Eye in February,” Saskia adds.

Consumer Focus told us it was worth checking whether Golden Eye’s actual letter is the same as the letter approved by the High Court last year. TorrentFreak checked and some minor details aside the letter does appear to be the same.

So, what should recipients of letters be doing? We briefly spoke with a lawyer familiar with these cases whose initial and crucial advice was to “stay calm and admit nothing.”

Consumer Focus are also clear on their chosen approach.

“It’s really important that people contact Citizens Advice and respond [to the allegations],” Saskia explained, adding that the charity now has detailed scripts on how to deal with these allegations.

Citizens Advice can be contacted on 08454 04 05 06 or people can attend their local Citizens Advice Bureau. Letter recipients can 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.

“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.

Despite protestations to the contrary, the exercise amounts to an ACS:Law-style scheme to extract cash settlements from Internet users.

The one big difference is that when ACS:Law entered the ‘pay-up-or-else-market’ their targets were largely unprepared. Today the situation in the Ben Dover case is quite different, not least due to the intervention of Consumer Focus, a group that has sought to protect consumers by bringing GEIL into line.

“We intervened in this case to make sure that consumers are treated fairly. People will not have ready access to the sort of specialised legal advice necessary to respond to allegations of copyright infringement. That is why we are working with the Citizens Advice service to provide clear advice to consumers about what to do if they are accused of copyright infringement,” said Consumer Focus Chief Executive Mike O’Connor in a statement this morning.

This is welcome news. Many original ACS:Law victims, including the author of the campaigning site ACS:Bore, turned to an ill-prepared Citizens Advice service in desperation only to leave dissatisfied. Hopefully things will be different this time around.

Originally, GEIL wanted to target more than 9,000 individuals alleged to have downloaded adult movies. However, the High Court has only given permission for ISP O2 to reveal the identities of 2,845 account holders alleged to have downloaded and shared Ben Dover movies, striking out the remainder who are alleged infringers of other studios’ content. They may be back though, pending the outcome of a 2013 appeal.

So when the letters finally appear through the doors of alleged infringers, what will they look like?

TorrentFreak has obtained an advance copy of the final letter and we can confirm that it amounts to little more than a rehashed ACS:Law-style scheme to extract cash settlements from Internet users based on flawed and incomplete IP address-only ‘evidence’. While the intervention of Consumer Focus and the High Court means that it is less aggressive than the letter sent by ACS:Law, it still has plenty of faults.

We say you’re a pirate, but we can’t prove it and need you to help us

“This letter assumes that you, as the internet account holder at your address, were the user of the relevant computer on the day and time in question,” the letter states under the title “Infringing acts.”

But in common with ACS:Law, GEIL then go on to admit that they have no proof that the individual being written to is the actual infringer.

“In the event that you were not responsible for the infringing acts outlined above because, for example, another member of your household was the user of the computer, you should make full disclosure to us of the other parties at your residence using your internet connection to make the Work available for download,” the letter states.

“A failure to make such disclosure may lead to a claim being made against you with the court being asked to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that you were the user of the computer.”

While GEIL are perfectly entitled to “ask the court to conclude” whatever they like, it does not necessarily follow that a High Court judge will take their advice. The law states that if the defendant did not carry out the infringement or did not authorize someone else to do so, they are not guilty of copyright infringement. If they do not know who infringed, then it will be impossible for them to tell GEIL, despite the firm’s veiled threats.

Michael Coyle, a solicitor advocate with Lawdit Solictors, a company that previously helped people fight off ACS:Law, says that while there is a chance GEIL will take a case or two to court, this is all about settlements.

“The exercise is an attempt to obtain as much money as [GEIL] can and it will cause significant embarrassment [due to the pornographic nature of the content],” Coyle told TorrentFreak. “However the two key points remain the same, no infringement can be proven unless people accept that they did it or GEIL get to inspect their hard drive.”

And admitting to wrongdoing is exactly what GEIL are asking for people to do.

“Please state whether you admit that you have downloaded the Work and/or made it available for download by others, and if so the extent to which you have done so,” the letter adds.

It should be noted that earlier in the letter GEIL state that the level of damages claimed in any court case would be directly linked to the “extent to which you have downloaded the Work and/or made it available for download by others.” Why anyone would want to help GEIL formulate a claim against them by providing them with the ammunition is anyone’s guess. If GEIL had evidence to show the actual extent of any infringement, they would show it.

Settling with GEIL will involve paying them money, although in their first letter they don’t say how much. It is widely believed that they will ask for £700 once negotiations begin, perhaps even more if people help GEIL build a case on a full confession.

Anyone receiving a letter should 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, in complete confidence of course.

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

By now it’s a well-trodden path – send out scary letters to alleged copyright infringers and ask for money to make mostly imaginary court cases go away.

This controversial business is almost always conducted with a law firm front and center, who spend much of their public-facing time throwing around legal jargon and talking endlessly about infringed rights.

But Lyndsay Honey, who became famous in the UK for his ‘gonzo‘ style movies which placed himself at the center of the action, seems to want to ‘keep it real’ by continuing the tradition of doing his own dirty work – and that includes speaking publicly about his latest attempt at monetizing porn.

In an interview with Vice.com, Honey explains that due to “everything on the internet being free”, his income dropped by 90% in 2 years. This development didn’t go unnoticed by Revenue and Customs who apparently thought something underhand might be going on in Honey’s tax affairs. While noting that he assured them that wasn’t the case, Honey is clear about his motives for entering the ‘speculative invoicing’ market.

“At the end of the day, if I can’t make money out of porn, the only way I can make money is to get to the people who are not buying it,” Honey explains. “I need to earn a living. I’m not a charity.”

But while talking straight has its benefits, sometimes little nuggets of information leak out. From his own mouth it seems Honey isn’t that desperate for cash. After separating from his wife (their house went on the market for £2.5m), Honey now lives in a “beautiful apartment block” and goes on to admit that things are pretty good.

“I still have a very nice lifestyle,” he told Vice. “When I say I’m skint, people say, ‘No, you’re not skint mate, it’s just now you’ve only got three cars instead of five.’”

And even while claiming porn is “a sinking ship”, Honey admits that he’s still shooting movies (which of course someone must be able to sell) and to this day remains the highest earning porn star in the country.

“I still do like, two or three shoots a week in porn for other people, so I literally just turn up, fuck someone and come home and it pays good money,” said Honey.

As his venture into file-sharing settlements shows, Honey is trying squeeze every drop of revenue from the most popular items in his back catalog. His 2003 film Fancy an Indian is the movie that will appear in the letters going out later this year, but far from picking a title that hasn’t done well, the reverse is true. Honey says that Fancy An Indian and The XXX Factor are not only his most pirated titles, but also the ones he’s made the most money from.

However, according to the 60-year-old, not all free content online is bad. Currently he’s working on a mockumentary (NSFW), apparently in the style of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Ironically, Lyndsay is giving it away for free to build an audience with the intention of later selling it to a TV company.

But while an impoverished Honey isn’t an impression that springs from his interview, it may well be that getting even more rich from file-sharing settlements is something that will remain out of reach.

Due to restrictions placed on his company by the High Court, the letters sent out to O2 customers will be much more tame than those previously sent out by ACS:Law. Furthermore, when people respond with a clear “I didn’t do it, and I don’t know who did,” Honey and his associates at Golden Eye may well have to accept that answer as final rather than bully them into submission.

Internet users in the UK may have bent over initially for Andrew Crossley, but they’re better prepared for Ben Dover, there’s little doubt about that. Don’t give up your day job, Honey.

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

The solicitor at the center of that lawfirm, Andrew Crossley, was both fined and suspended from practicing law, which seemed to put a hold on similar cases.

However, it didn’t dissuade everyone. Yesterday, the UK’s High Court approved a case involving UK pornographer Ben Dover (real name Lyndsay Honey) and his company Golden Eye International. Now, ISP O2 will have to release the details of up to 9000+ subscribers listed in the document for Dover and Golden Eye. The precise number is unclear, as other companies that attempted to send letters through Golden Eye were denied the opportunity.

It’s success at last for the pornographer, as he’s had several similar cases thrown out in the past including a partnership with 170-year-old law firm Tilly Baily Irvine which ended in sanctions last year.

This claim process started 6 months ago, and with O2 stating they would not contest the case. Chief Master Weingarten, in response,  suggested that Consumer Focus (a government funded body looking after consumer rights) represent the IP addresses – the intended defendants – in court instead, a role Consumer Focus accepted.

Despite a strong defense, including pointing out all the issues with these kinds of actions, Weingarten approved the order, but with conditions. In perhaps a first for this sort of litigation, the court will be supervising the content of letters sent out to the alleged infringers, partly because of the ACS:law debacle.

In particular, the one-sided nature of the letters – only indicating the consequences should the alleged infringer lose – was not deemed appropriate, being indicative of bullying. Instead consequences should they successfully defend themselves should also be included.

Yet the most important part of the ruling is near the end, and might stop this practice once and for all; blanket fees to “make it all go away” are not acceptable.

137.   Fifthly, I think that Mr Becker’s response in his second witness statement to the point made by counsel for Consumer Focus referred to in sub-paragraph 60(v) above is telling:

“… it assumes that £700 will be successfully obtained from each of the 9000, when that is plainly wrong. In fact, it is likely that only a small proportion will result in a successfully obtained payment of any sum.”

This comes quite close to an admission that the figure of £700 has been selected so as to maximise the revenue obtained from the letters of claim, rather than as a realistic estimate of the damages recoverable by the relevant Claimant from each Intended Defendant. In any event, that is the inference I draw in the light of the matters discussed above and in the absence of any disclosure of the information referred to in paragraph 88 above.

138.   Accordingly, I do not consider that the Claimants are justified in sending letters of claim to every Intended Defendant demanding the payment of £700. What the Claimants ought to do is to proceed in the conventional manner, that is to say, to require the Intended Defendants who do not dispute liability to disclose such information as they are able to provide as to the extent to which they have engaged in P2P filesharing of the relevant Claimants’ copyright works. In my view it would be acceptable for the Claimants to indicate that they are prepared to accept a lump sum in settlement of their claims, including the request for disclosure, but not to specify a figure in the initial letter. The settlement sum should be individually negotiated with each Intended Defendant.

No more fee demands. Instead they can only state that they will accept a lump sum payment as settlement, to be negotiated if the accused accept liability. Otherwise, it will be down to the courts. It also seems that after many cases, Chief Master Weingarten has understood that these cases are about profits, not protecting rights. Very little money and a lot of grief was the prediction we highlighted earlier this month, and that seems to be the case.

Meanwhile, up to 9124 households are going to get a letter through their door talking about the porn they’ve allegedly downloaded. Let’s just hope that the tracking software, claimed to be ‘forensically accurate’ (huh?) does better than in times past, or there’s going to be a lot of needlessly embarrassed families, and unnecessary family strife when the postman calls.

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