Ben Dover Legal Action

[buttsie]

Rumour in the bgafd thread was he got divorced from the mrs recently
and got taken to the cleaners

Find it hard to believe myself but this type of action is akin to a speeding fine
raises lots of revenue but never addresses the core issue which is

If none of us were sharing his content would anyone even know it existed or be buying it?


The BD brand name has been on the nose for quite awhile really
Very few of the models used are exclusive any longer


I know a few diehard fans who simply stopped watching his productions when he started re-using old material to pad out new titles.

Hes gone from using exclusive models once and the popular ones 2/3 times at the most with hired studs to performing himself with housewives

Can guess why hes looking for a big payday

[pharoahegypt]

Guess the mrs leaving him would explain why he does now perform with the girls himself.... I know for a fact that ms drew used to ban him from doing so; but i guess he doesn't have to worry now. heard rumours back in the day; late 1990's; that she had this rule for two reasons; one that he didnt pick up or pass on any std's or worse to her; and two, that she would also retire and not do any porn herself, which i believe he was also keen to have her agree to.

for those younger amongst the forum members who missed the start of all this; the ben dover series started out as three soft core titles (having worked with john 'buttman' stagliano; an american porn maker of some note back then) on his british versions, ms drew helping to supply the girls, and ben the rest) and of course making friends with him, before ben/steve/lindsey then took buttman's basic idea and made the first of what were numbered ben dover films, each with three scenes. he got up to 27 as i recall, missing a few numbers out along the way; before he then repackaged and titled them for the american market; hence titles like 'butt bangers bonanza' having four scenes, but with extra scene extra added to its equivalent (numbered) british issue.

[penfold007]

Originally Posted by CARLTON BROWN

I'm sure many forum members are already aware of this story and I'm interested to know if anyone thinks this action is acceptable?

In principle, yes. A copyright holder is entitled to seek compensation from people that violate that copyright. Copyright is an important protection for all creators of original works. Even the USA has it, despite the fact it restricts the freedom of speech guaranteed in the first amendment.

Just because the internet makes it easy for us lot to get 'free' porn, does not mean we should be exempted from the rights holders seeking compensatory damages if we have violated their copyright, whatever any of us may think about individuals amongst them. The law applies to us just as it does the bloke selling dodgy DVDs at a boot sale (although he may also be involved in criminal copyright violation as well as it is done commercially for gain - I'm no lawyer though). There is no constitutional right to free porn.

There are certainly problems with identifying even IP addresses this way and it is arguable whether a civil action could succeed based on IP address evidence alone, but the difficulties in obtaining a judgement do not detract from the principle that creators should have their rights protected and be able to enforce those rights through the courts.

I come at this from the principles of individual liberty and individual responsibility. So to everyone (including me): download or not, but take responsibility for what you do and accept the consequences of your actions.

[cylnz]

Does anyone give a crap if a porno company makes money? Do the sleazoids at ben dover have rights? If BD is allowed to chase down all the downloaders, will they be forced to pay a fair share of the royalties to the girls they used?

NO?

Then eat shit and die BD. Nobody gives the first 1/2 of a damn whether you make a dime.

[steamjon]

Well £700 is under the small claims limit in the UK. Thats means Ben Dover will get little by way of legal costs and those he is pursuing will not even bother to turn up to court. He is just going to write frightning letters and hope the timid will cough up.

[CARLTON BROWN]

Originally Posted by penfold007

In principle, yes. Just because the internet makes it easy for us lot to get 'free' porn, does not mean we should be exempted from the rights holders seeking compensatory damages if we have violated their copyright, whatever any of us may think about individuals amongst them.

In some respects this is fair comment, but there are many other issues involved such as the blame squarely resting with uploaders. Can we be totally sure that someone has knowingly downloaded a file (of any type) that was someone else's copyright material?

There is also the matter of ISP being able to pass private details to companies who may or may not have a justifiable case. We've seen this happening with the DVLA selling private information to very unpleasant organisations on what appears to be a wholesale basis. So much for the UK Data Protection Act!

We've also seen the music industry throwing their weight around, until they finally discovered that file sharing was unstoppable. And of course, there is the bullying aspect which is often applied to some weak individual just to make a point and frighten others.

So I personally think that the individual should not be targetted this way.

Someone like Ben Dover needs to move with the times, start producing material people like and perhaps make it available online as an affordable download.

[Mr. Gussett]

Originally Posted by buttsie

Under the guise of SHARING we have a small number of folks making
1000s of dollars every week off the back of someone elses product
who have really brought this issue to a head with their profiteering.

Just as a matter of interest, where are these folks alleged to be uploading?

[Mr. Gussett]

Originally Posted by buttsie

Under the guise of SHARING we have a small number of folks making
1000s of dollars every week off the back of someone elses product
who have really brought this issue to a head with their profiteering.

Just as a matter of interest, where are these folks alleged to be uploading?

[mitchspur]

Out of interest, with the demise of Meagupload and the other couple that now don't work. Would they not have lost a lot of information as to whom was filesharing in those Hosts?

[penfold007]

Originally Posted by CARLTON BROWN

In some respects this is fair comment, but there are many other issues involved such as the blame squarely resting with uploaders. Can we be totally sure that someone has knowingly downloaded a file (of any type) that was someone else's copyright material?

There is also the matter of ISP being able to pass private details to companies who may or may not have a justifiable case. We've seen this happening with the DVLA selling private information to very unpleasant organisations on what appears to be a wholesale basis. So much for the UK Data Protection Act!

Couple of things - anyone downloading a torrent is an uploader as well, it's the way torrents work, which also means they are "distributing", as some criminal offences relate to distribution rather than possession. I think some people using torrents aren't aware they are also acting as an uploader. I avoid bit torrent, other than for stuff that is licensed under something like GPL (linux distros etc), working on the basis that if it's porn it will be produced by someone and so they will hold copyright and they might take issue with me.

With regard to ISPs passing on private information, the court can make them do this (it's called a Norwich Pharmacal order - worth reading about) on receipt of a valid application and there are very good reasons for this mechanism to exist.


The DVLA is an entirely separate argument (let's say I have no love for the DVLA at all with their little empire in Swansea). The music industry is more closely related to what Ben Dover is doing but again, their methods raise wider questions (such as the judgement requiring BT Internet to start using cleanfeed to block certain sites)

As for the sort of porn Ben Dover produces, it is of no interest to me as a consumer, so I won't be getting a letter. What I do have is an interest in intellectual property rights, enforcement and the problems posed by the internet, which is why I am posting on this topic. Not a vested interest, I'm just intrigued by the issues surround 'file sharing' and how everyone's rights can be protected.