Golden Eye (International) Ltd - We have a troll trying on for the third time!

[Grotesque]

It was tempting but on a serious note, is it true that you can't put paragraphs in until reaching x-amount of posts? Or not.

[superg]

I don't think this company would get away with it going to court is risky for them as the computer could have been infected. also they may get sued themselves i hope you get this sorted out i think its hard to prove it was you even if it was

[dx100uk]

It was tempting but on a serious note, is it true that you can't put paragraphs in until reaching x-amount of posts? Or not.

 

if your post comes up without the spaces etc you put

and it was a copy n paste jobbie from what you have typed in another window [whatever the program]

 

then hit the coloured AAA icon top left of any msg box

and re paste it.

 

dx

[dx100uk]

I don't think this company would get away with it going to court is risky for them as the computer could have been infected. also they may get sued themselves i hope you get this sorted out i think its hard to prove it was you even if it was

 

 

and anyone with a BT hub has free Wi-Fi from it too!!

 

dx

[panther12]

I don't think this company would get away with it going to court is risky for them as the computer could have been infected. also they may get sued themselves i hope you get this sorted out i think its hard to prove it was you even if it was

They're relying on people incriminating themselves. In fact I doubt that they will bother with those who ignore their letter of claim but best to have everything covered and put them on the back foot from the start.

 

What I do find interesting, In the ACS [problem] at least we had the opportunity to report Crossley's activities to the regulatory bodies who got him struck off as a solicitor for 2 years. This latest [problem] is being operated privately so no one to complain to.

[citizenB]

rhino666 - I have just sent you a private message - would you please have a look and respond

[Grotesque]

They're relying on people incriminating themselves. In fact I doubt that they will bother with those who ignore their letter of claim but best to have everything covered and put them on the back foot from the start.

 

What I do find interesting, In the ACS [problem] at least we had the opportunity to report Crossley's activities to the regulatory bodies who got him struck off as a solicitor for 2 years. This latest [problem] is being operated privately so no one to complain to.

 

Good one.

[rhino666]

This makes very interesting reading!...all of it!

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/723.html

[Grotesque]

Yeah

[rhino666]

Help!

A response , but not the one I wanted. AND a without prejudice letter. Can I refuse these ?

Edited September 11, 2013 by rhino666

[unclebulgaria67]

I think in these situations, you would wise not to get into correspondence 'ping pong'. Otherwise the risk is that they will pick on you to take to court. If you have evidence that can be used to totally refute their allegations, then that would be a totally different matter. Without such evidence, I cannot see the point in replying.

 

They will pick on a few people at some stage to take to court. I think this is what has happened before, when the accusation was that the letters were just part of a speculative invoice process.

[rhino666]

Can I refuse without prejudice letters ?

[unclebulgaria67]

Can I refuse without prejudice letters ?

 

Why would you want to. They don't count in regard to any court process, so it is as if they never existed. Therefore even better reason to ignore them. You have already written to them to dispute their original allegation. I would leave it at that.

 

As advised earlier, I suspect that they will pick on people who engage in letter ping pong with them.

[rhino666]

The problem I have here is that supplying this info can only be done if the matter is taken to court because it would involve tell GEIL where I was and which which hospital patients I was attending away from hospital premises.

[dx100uk]

ignore them

 

why are you even giving tem the time of day.

 

dx

[unclebulgaria67]

The problem I have here is that supplying this info can only be done if the matter is taken to court because it would involve tell GEIL where I was and which which hospital patients I was attending away from hospital premises.

 

You don't have to tell GEIl anything. If you want to respond, you could just say that as a Healthcare professional, you have a legal duty to maintain patient confidentiality and would be able to supply a Judge in confidence of evidence that showed that you were not at home, at the time of the alleged download of copyrighted materials.

 

In any court hearing, you would be able to show a Judge the information for their satisfaction and the claimant would not get to see it.

[rhino666]

Am I the only person being put through this ???

[rhino666]

"ignore them

 

why are you even giving tem the time of day"

 

I have to. I can do without court and not paying these monkeys money for nothing.

[rhino666]

They have funding arrangements with the other companies yet they're complaining about a film that isn't even there's when a judge has said they can only take people to court for their own films. So how is this even possible to get this far.

 

In July 2012, the High Court ruled that Golden Eye would only be granted access to data in relation to Ben Dover Production films, not the titles by twelve other production companies that Golden Eye were acting on behalf

[Andyorch]

Amazing how £350 can make it all go away:lol:

 

Regards

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

att unapproved

 

at least page 3 shown all your details & login.

 

.........

 

who said you've got to pay these fleecers?

 

end of letter tennis

 

you've sent one letter

 

that's enough.

 

dx

[Grotesque]

I guess some people have already saved the .pdfs before unapproval?

[steampowered]

I personally would not respond. The letters look like templates with one or two customised paragraphs. There is not much point playing letter tennis and I think the risk of them actually issuing court proceedings is low.

[dx100uk]

no

no views I checked you are safe

dx

[panther12]

I wouldn't worry about their letter, it's designed to frighten you into giving away your hard earned - unfortunetly many will and the reason they continue this profitable [problem].

 

I see that they have made reference to YOU doing the uploads. What proof other than some IP logs have they got to identify it was actually YOU - none whatsoever! They have your letter of denial and despite your request they have failed to provide anything in support of their contention that it was YOU. If they're stupid enough to even try it on they will need to produce all the evidence - and I don't think because you're the bill payer so therefore it must be you will cut the mustard with any judge.

 

They know the score so no need to waste anymore time on them. If you still feel the need that you have to respond I'd go with something along the lines of:

 

Dear Sirs

 

I write further to your letter dated ............ I note that you have not provided any further evidence to support your allegations of Copyright Infringement, and have merely reasserted the allegations of your initial Letter of Claim dated ............

 

I refer you to my letter dated ............. in which I denied ANY offence under Sections 16(1)(d) and 20 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Once again, I vehemently deny committing any offence under the aforementioned Act, or authorising any person to commit any such offence.

 

I feel it prudent to advise you that your continuing threat of court action in this matter is tantamount to harassment, and I reserve the right to address this matter through any means available to me. I put you on notice that I have shared my concerns regarding your procedures with all relavent authorities.

 

Please note that should this matter proceed to Court, I will be seeking to fully recover any and all costs to the maximum permitted by the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

The signature of the undersigned confirms the statement provided to be accurate and legally binding under the terms required by pre-action protocol in Civil Law.