Extract from C***sl**
MachineGuard successfully targets internet firms
28th June 2007
Up until now, firms have been able to advertise tools and devices for defrauding gaming machines with complete impunity, regardless of whether or not they work. A MachineGuard investigation could change all that.
MachineGuard, the gaming and leisure industry crime reduction federation, has been instrumental in closing down an internet business selling devices intended to be used to defraud gaming machines.
The internet business was first reported to MachineGuard last October by a member who raised concerns about the use of manufacturers' and operators' logos being displayed on websites selling devices which they claimed could empty gaming machines.
The federation began an investigation into the use of the logos and as the situation developed decided to tackle the problem from a different perspective. Due to the fact that it was not possible to verify whether the devices were actually fit for purpose i.e. their efficacy, MachineGuard reported the business to Trading Standards with the aim of seeing the business shut down under the terms of the Trades Descriptions Act.
A long investigative process with the police and Trading Standards led to the device being tested by trading officials and Ofcom who found the device being sold was a modified radio intended for illegal use. The seller's address was tracked down through his Paypal account and in June the police carried out a raid on the individual's house where they found four different types of device. The individual has been given a police caution and told to remove the sale of the original device from his website.
Robert Wiseman of MachineGuard said: "Though the process of getting this particular device removed from sale took a long eight months to complete, we are happy with this successful conclusion. One of Machine- Guard's objectives this year is to improve relationships with the police to make investigations easier and quicker to carry out. The Investigator's Guide we launched in November 2006 was the first step to achieving this and we will continue with our Target Hardening Campaign by introducing more crime reduction initiatives throughout the course of the year."
Back to News
MachineGuard
-
jeffvickers
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:05 pm
- Location: North of England
HI, I'm new to this forum, I mainly play sec 16's and the variations of DOND (on 50p play of course!)
I was trawling through the posts before this, and saw one by vickers which grabbed my attention
immediately, concerning machineguard UK.
This was interesting as I work for Trading Standards, let's say somewhere in the South West. I have to
be discreet as a few colleaugues know I have the odd punt in the pub at lunchtime when we are out on
visits or surveillances.
The gentleman I believe vickers' post refers to first came to our attention last Autumn, when we were
approached by Lawyers Letter from machineguard (MG) We were asked to investigate (a common request in
many areas, because complainants think they can get us to trawl through legislation free of charge
instead of using their own legal procurements!) what possible offences were being committed by a
certain website operator by selling items which allegedly defraud machines.
The normal procedure would be to establish if something were misdescribed, and proceed, or in some
cases establish if downright and specifically illegal. We quickly came to the conclusion that there was
no legislation in place to prevent the items in question being sold, but were uncertain if the selling
of them constituted 'incitement'. We purchased one item called a 'jammer' and this came with a gratis
piezo-electric generator and strip of toughened steel in a certain shape, called a 'hopper bar'.
This tallied with the items described by MG, and unfortunately for them came with a disclaimer as is
found on the site, the usual "only for use on buyers own equipment or with permission of equipment
owner...etc..blah.."
This essentially closed the door on any chance of prosecution for incitement (which we would have
passed on to the Constabulary anyway.) The only avenue we then had left was the actual effectiveness of
the items. The logistics of this would have been impossible; firstly to obtain a wide range of
machines, or use of them, and then have expert guidance on the items usefulness via an expert user (we
found the idea of advertising for an expert machine fraudster for temporary paid instruction out of the
question, by the way) and secondly in a bizarre and rather, in my opinion, poorly considered paradox on
the part of MG which I will explain:
In any prosecution, evidence must be made available to the defence, as I'm sure any criminals reading
will know. MG provided examples, as well as justifiable concern, that these items were being used to
defraud their members. The thing is, no items had been siezed off the alleged offenders therefore no
link could be proven to any specific seller. The ridiculous bit, as the poster above infers, is that
the very nature of it being MG making the complaint was almost a complete defence to the seller, as it
was tantamount to proving a sellers' case that the items work. At this point all we had as a sum total
was the MG's near-admission that they had members losing money to the items, and due to the disclaimer
that came with items we purchased the only possible case was a criminal one against any individual
buyers caught committing any crimes with them, NOT the seller.
MG were naturally disappointed with this, not accepting that they had explored the wrong avenue with
their attempts at this sellers blood so to speak. In order to appease them, as one item appeared to
have radio-like appearance, we passed the details over to OFCOM (Office of Communications) and the
Glos. Constabulary, who not having any idea what to do passed it over to their CID (Criminal
Intelligence Unit, by later accounts.)
This was early this year 2007. The next part I shall relate was passed onto us in a courtesy call from
OFCOM in June 2007, after the conclusion of the affair, but I remember it word-for-word almost as our
office took the call and updated our closed file with the information.
OFCOM and the CIU raided one of the sellers' properties on May 1 2007, not the date mentioned by MG in
vickers' post (traced by special powers via the sellers e-mail provided, not Paypal as article states),
and searched for a 'workshop' in outbuildings then the house itself, only finding a shoebox full of
tools, a PC and some radio parts, some steel strips and keys (presumably refill ones.) Plus several
thousand recorded delivery receipts.
The haul was photographed and split between the OFCOM and CIU teams for investigation. Apparently the
seller was surprised at first then just smirked their way through the raid, saying things maybe they'd
sell, perfectly legally, imitation firearms or knives instead, that sort of thing, go ahead charge me
any two-bob barrister would rip you apart in court and so-on.
OFCOM tested the equipment siezed, and found that operationally it was all perfectly within legal
parameters for the type of item it was, a hand-size high frequency transmitter. The other items they
took were strips, keys and piezo-generators. They had no issue with those, and in no way were they
illegal. Bingo, we got him on one thing though they said. I tried not to laugh when I heard, but
apparently the seller was guilty of a massive offence, under OFCOM rules, of, wait for it, removing the
'CE' (Conformitie Europee) sticker from casings, and supplying the items WITHOUT a CE sticker!
In the meantime the police side, the CIU, were not returning OFCOM's calls and eventually they
delivered the items the CIU siezed back to OFCOM, stating they weren't interested and there was
absolutely no evidence of any offences, were basically wasting time and had better things to do.
OFCOM subsequently issued a notice of caution to the seller and returned all their items, except 4
radio devices ready for sale, without the said CE stickers, which they destroyed. The seller was NOT
cautioned by the Police as the MG article states, Perhaps they exaggerate to appease their membership,
but I assure you an OFCOM caution was the only 'punishment' served. No order was, or indeed, could be
made to close down the site concerned.
The sum total of the 7-month involvement of TS, OFCOM and CIU was a paper caution for the seller, their
loss of 4 radio parts and presenting the seller, seriously, with a thick file of OFCOM regs. in order
that they didn't accidentally breach any other regs. if future. Plus, as said up above, and unwritten
endorsement of the items. And, probably, a higher laundry bill for the seller as they wet themselves
laughing.
I was curious of the extent of the quantities involved; apparently financial statements were siezed
from the property but provided no conclusive evidence of the scale of the items' distribution, but they
said that the sheer amount of postal receipts to over 30 countries going back 7 years indicated a
"substantial six-figure sum" as some months in the early 2000's there was apparently over 100 postage
tickets, and assuming only half of these were the most expensive items on the site, those month's
takings would have been 7-11,000 pounds.
All I can suggest with my quite extensive knowledge that MG can do is either proceed with a civil
action against the seller, although this is very costly and fraught with uncertainties, and get the
seller an order of closure of business. The thing is, with the web, it is so easy to transfer and move
entities about that this would immediately, I suspect, be circumvented.
The second, and most effective though difficult, is to lobby via industry groups for legislation
preventing the sale, ownership or import of the items. In the very long term this is the most likely
scenario. A third option I have just thought of: simply shoot the bastard.
I know this has been a right long dirge, but I was just so gobsmacked when I saw vickers' post that I
just had to type away! It isn't often my work entwines with my playing. I promise my next one will be
shorter. About fruit machines.
I was trawling through the posts before this, and saw one by vickers which grabbed my attention
immediately, concerning machineguard UK.
This was interesting as I work for Trading Standards, let's say somewhere in the South West. I have to
be discreet as a few colleaugues know I have the odd punt in the pub at lunchtime when we are out on
visits or surveillances.
The gentleman I believe vickers' post refers to first came to our attention last Autumn, when we were
approached by Lawyers Letter from machineguard (MG) We were asked to investigate (a common request in
many areas, because complainants think they can get us to trawl through legislation free of charge
instead of using their own legal procurements!) what possible offences were being committed by a
certain website operator by selling items which allegedly defraud machines.
The normal procedure would be to establish if something were misdescribed, and proceed, or in some
cases establish if downright and specifically illegal. We quickly came to the conclusion that there was
no legislation in place to prevent the items in question being sold, but were uncertain if the selling
of them constituted 'incitement'. We purchased one item called a 'jammer' and this came with a gratis
piezo-electric generator and strip of toughened steel in a certain shape, called a 'hopper bar'.
This tallied with the items described by MG, and unfortunately for them came with a disclaimer as is
found on the site, the usual "only for use on buyers own equipment or with permission of equipment
owner...etc..blah.."
This essentially closed the door on any chance of prosecution for incitement (which we would have
passed on to the Constabulary anyway.) The only avenue we then had left was the actual effectiveness of
the items. The logistics of this would have been impossible; firstly to obtain a wide range of
machines, or use of them, and then have expert guidance on the items usefulness via an expert user (we
found the idea of advertising for an expert machine fraudster for temporary paid instruction out of the
question, by the way) and secondly in a bizarre and rather, in my opinion, poorly considered paradox on
the part of MG which I will explain:
In any prosecution, evidence must be made available to the defence, as I'm sure any criminals reading
will know. MG provided examples, as well as justifiable concern, that these items were being used to
defraud their members. The thing is, no items had been siezed off the alleged offenders therefore no
link could be proven to any specific seller. The ridiculous bit, as the poster above infers, is that
the very nature of it being MG making the complaint was almost a complete defence to the seller, as it
was tantamount to proving a sellers' case that the items work. At this point all we had as a sum total
was the MG's near-admission that they had members losing money to the items, and due to the disclaimer
that came with items we purchased the only possible case was a criminal one against any individual
buyers caught committing any crimes with them, NOT the seller.
MG were naturally disappointed with this, not accepting that they had explored the wrong avenue with
their attempts at this sellers blood so to speak. In order to appease them, as one item appeared to
have radio-like appearance, we passed the details over to OFCOM (Office of Communications) and the
Glos. Constabulary, who not having any idea what to do passed it over to their CID (Criminal
Intelligence Unit, by later accounts.)
This was early this year 2007. The next part I shall relate was passed onto us in a courtesy call from
OFCOM in June 2007, after the conclusion of the affair, but I remember it word-for-word almost as our
office took the call and updated our closed file with the information.
OFCOM and the CIU raided one of the sellers' properties on May 1 2007, not the date mentioned by MG in
vickers' post (traced by special powers via the sellers e-mail provided, not Paypal as article states),
and searched for a 'workshop' in outbuildings then the house itself, only finding a shoebox full of
tools, a PC and some radio parts, some steel strips and keys (presumably refill ones.) Plus several
thousand recorded delivery receipts.
The haul was photographed and split between the OFCOM and CIU teams for investigation. Apparently the
seller was surprised at first then just smirked their way through the raid, saying things maybe they'd
sell, perfectly legally, imitation firearms or knives instead, that sort of thing, go ahead charge me
any two-bob barrister would rip you apart in court and so-on.
OFCOM tested the equipment siezed, and found that operationally it was all perfectly within legal
parameters for the type of item it was, a hand-size high frequency transmitter. The other items they
took were strips, keys and piezo-generators. They had no issue with those, and in no way were they
illegal. Bingo, we got him on one thing though they said. I tried not to laugh when I heard, but
apparently the seller was guilty of a massive offence, under OFCOM rules, of, wait for it, removing the
'CE' (Conformitie Europee) sticker from casings, and supplying the items WITHOUT a CE sticker!
In the meantime the police side, the CIU, were not returning OFCOM's calls and eventually they
delivered the items the CIU siezed back to OFCOM, stating they weren't interested and there was
absolutely no evidence of any offences, were basically wasting time and had better things to do.
OFCOM subsequently issued a notice of caution to the seller and returned all their items, except 4
radio devices ready for sale, without the said CE stickers, which they destroyed. The seller was NOT
cautioned by the Police as the MG article states, Perhaps they exaggerate to appease their membership,
but I assure you an OFCOM caution was the only 'punishment' served. No order was, or indeed, could be
made to close down the site concerned.
The sum total of the 7-month involvement of TS, OFCOM and CIU was a paper caution for the seller, their
loss of 4 radio parts and presenting the seller, seriously, with a thick file of OFCOM regs. in order
that they didn't accidentally breach any other regs. if future. Plus, as said up above, and unwritten
endorsement of the items. And, probably, a higher laundry bill for the seller as they wet themselves
laughing.
I was curious of the extent of the quantities involved; apparently financial statements were siezed
from the property but provided no conclusive evidence of the scale of the items' distribution, but they
said that the sheer amount of postal receipts to over 30 countries going back 7 years indicated a
"substantial six-figure sum" as some months in the early 2000's there was apparently over 100 postage
tickets, and assuming only half of these were the most expensive items on the site, those month's
takings would have been 7-11,000 pounds.
All I can suggest with my quite extensive knowledge that MG can do is either proceed with a civil
action against the seller, although this is very costly and fraught with uncertainties, and get the
seller an order of closure of business. The thing is, with the web, it is so easy to transfer and move
entities about that this would immediately, I suspect, be circumvented.
The second, and most effective though difficult, is to lobby via industry groups for legislation
preventing the sale, ownership or import of the items. In the very long term this is the most likely
scenario. A third option I have just thought of: simply shoot the bastard.
I know this has been a right long dirge, but I was just so gobsmacked when I saw vickers' post that I
just had to type away! It isn't often my work entwines with my playing. I promise my next one will be
shorter. About fruit machines.
Re: MachineGuard
Just to clarify the original post as above, Mr. Wiseman of MG is misinformed, or is misinforming his members. As already stated by myself the caution was from OFCOM and no official order was given to remove THE devices from sale, only THAT device in the form it was seized, as it was illegal. The outcome is that as long as the devices conform to OFCOM regs they are NOT illegal to sell, and the site is free to sell them, as they are sold with instructions concerning usage only on the buyer's equipment which is not an offence. So in effect, the site can sell an almost identical item with the same properties provided it meets OFCOM regs. The intent of the buyer is the buyer's affair in law, not the sellers.jeffvickers wrote:Extract from C***sl**
The individual has been given a police caution and told to remove the sale of the original device from his website.
Robert Wiseman of MachineGuard said: "Though the process of getting this particular device removed from sale took a long eight months to complete, we are happy with this successful conclusion. One of Machine- Guard's objectives this year is to improve relationships with the police to make investigations easier and quicker to carry out. The Investigator's Guide we launched in November 2006 was the first step to achieving this and we will continue with our Target Hardening Campaign by introducing more crime reduction initiatives throughout the course of the year."
Back to News
-
Cardinal Sin
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4166
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
Lol!!! you made a spelling mistake!cashino wrote:HI, I'm new to this forum, I mainly play sec 16's and the variations of DOND (on 50p play of course!)
I was trawling through the posts before this, and saw one by vickers which grabbed my attention
immediately, concerning machineguard UK.
This was interesting as I work for Trading Standards, let's say somewhere in the South West. I have to
be discreet as a few colleaugues know I have the odd punt in the pub at lunchtime when we are out on
visits or surveillances.
The gentleman I believe vickers' post refers to first came to our attention last Autumn, when we were
approached by Lawyers Letter from machineguard (MG) We were asked to investigate (a common request in
many areas, because complainants think they can get us to trawl through legislation free of charge
instead of using their own legal procurements!) what possible offences were being committed by a
certain website operator by selling items which allegedly defraud machines.
The normal procedure would be to establish if something were misdescribed, and proceed, or in some
cases establish if downright and specifically illegal. We quickly came to the conclusion that there was
no legislation in place to prevent the items in question being sold, but were uncertain if the selling
of them constituted 'incitement'. We purchased one item called a 'jammer' and this came with a gratis
piezo-electric generator and strip of toughened steel in a certain shape, called a 'hopper bar'.
This tallied with the items described by MG, and unfortunately for them came with a disclaimer as is
found on the site, the usual "only for use on buyers own equipment or with permission of equipment
owner...etc..blah.."
This essentially closed the door on any chance of prosecution for incitement (which we would have
passed on to the Constabulary anyway.) The only avenue we then had left was the actual effectiveness of
the items. The logistics of this would have been impossible]if[/size] future. Plus, as said up above, and unwritten
endorsement of the items. And, probably, a higher laundry bill for the seller as they wet themselves
laughing.
I was curious of the extent of the quantities involved; apparently financial statements were siezed
from the property but provided no conclusive evidence of the scale of the items' distribution, but they
said that the sheer amount of postal receipts to over 30 countries going back 7 years indicated a
"substantial six-figure sum" as some months in the early 2000's there was apparently over 100 postage
tickets, and assuming only half of these were the most expensive items on the site, those month's
takings would have been 7-11,000 pounds.
All I can suggest with my quite extensive knowledge that MG can do is either proceed with a civil
action against the seller, although this is very costly and fraught with uncertainties, and get the
seller an order of closure of business. The thing is, with the web, it is so easy to transfer and move
entities about that this would immediately, I suspect, be circumvented.
The second, and most effective though difficult, is to lobby via industry groups for legislation
preventing the sale, ownership or import of the items. In the very long term this is the most likely
scenario. A third option I have just thought of: simply shoot the bastard.
I know this has been a right long dirge, but I was just so gobsmacked when I saw vickers' post that I
just had to type away! It isn't often my work entwines with my playing. I promise my next one will be
shorter. About fruit machines.
-
Matt Vinyl
- Senior Member
- Posts: 7198
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Lost in the outback, Bryan
Welcome, yup - good first post! (Although the line spacing did give me a bit of nausea whilst reading - I'm a fast reader, but gaps throw me right off the track! 
)
Interesting stuff, I take it we 'know' who the target of this investigation was?
)Interesting stuff, I take it we 'know' who the target of this investigation was?
"And do you ever contradict yourself, Minister?" "Well, yes and no..."
I couldn't possibly comment on the sellers identity, that would be too near the knuckle, but they have had a site for several years which has been mentioned on many other forums, and sell a variety of items.
PS. apologies about the spacing; I wrote it in notepad and the copied&pasted it, as knowing it was a lengthy post I didn't want to lose my connexion and start all over. That's how it came out.
In my line of work it is seldom any investigations are proceeded with concerning gaming machines, or indeed any complaints are received. This applies both device sites or arcades and machine operators.
Judging by posts concerning dodgy arcade practices and pub landlord behaviour, I'm surprised that we don't. I suppose that players are acceptant of the possibilities of being conned and it simply goes with the territory and nature of the industry so to speak.
PS. apologies about the spacing; I wrote it in notepad and the copied&pasted it, as knowing it was a lengthy post I didn't want to lose my connexion and start all over. That's how it came out.
In my line of work it is seldom any investigations are proceeded with concerning gaming machines, or indeed any complaints are received. This applies both device sites or arcades and machine operators.
Judging by posts concerning dodgy arcade practices and pub landlord behaviour, I'm surprised that we don't. I suppose that players are acceptant of the possibilities of being conned and it simply goes with the territory and nature of the industry so to speak.
-
jeffvickers
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:05 pm
- Location: North of England
Out of curiousity, its here. http://www.superarcadia.com
Note Noobs. Don't buy anything. THEY DO NOT WORK
Note Noobs. Don't buy anything. THEY DO NOT WORK
According to MG, something does, I still have the items we got in the case file, the transmitter, hopper lever, piezo device, would have loved to test them on sample machines but the superiors wouldn't sanction this as I stated in my original reply. I gather then from the informed members here that sparking a machine, or inserting a shaped strip etc. would have NO effect?jeffvickers wrote:Out of curiousity, its here. http://www.superarcadia.com
Note Noobs. Don't buy anything. THEY DO NOT WORK
Obviously Cashino isn't a solicitor or Barrister but according to UK law the devices themselves are not illegal to sell or buy which is stated in the article in the first post first paragrah.
As soon as the seller is stating that it will empty a fruit machine then he is breaking the law under the sale of goods act, trade descriptions as the quipement is not fit for purpose.
Regarding Ofcom, the deivce in question was removed for a short period but the seller renamed it and so the process has to start again.
If Ofcom aren't going to actually be of any assistance there are other avenues to proceed as he is breaking many laws on his website, for example he is not allowed to show logo's of other manufactuers' unless he has written consent as they are copyrighted material.
If you have any questions i'll answer them via PM.
As soon as the seller is stating that it will empty a fruit machine then he is breaking the law under the sale of goods act, trade descriptions as the quipement is not fit for purpose.
Regarding Ofcom, the deivce in question was removed for a short period but the seller renamed it and so the process has to start again.
If Ofcom aren't going to actually be of any assistance there are other avenues to proceed as he is breaking many laws on his website, for example he is not allowed to show logo's of other manufactuers' unless he has written consent as they are copyrighted material.
If you have any questions i'll answer them via PM.
Yes, we did indeed examine these possibilities, but our remit is quite clear, that we are there to act and advise within our statutory powers, and prosecution is simply a last resort. Usual procedure is to offer advice and warnings, that if certain expectations and conditions are not met, we may act in future. In this case there was only one complainant, but with the 'weight' of lawyers letter.mu5icman wrote:Obviously Cashino isn't a solicitor or Barrister but according to UK law the devices themselves are not illegal to sell or buy which is stated in the article in the first post first paragrah.
As soon as the seller is stating that it will empty a fruit machine then he is breaking the law under the sale of goods act, trade descriptions as the quipement is not fit for purpose.
Regarding Ofcom, the deivce in question was removed for a short period but the seller renamed it and so the process has to start again.
If Ofcom aren't going to actually be of any assistance there are other avenues to proceed as he is breaking many laws on his website, for example he is not allowed to show logo's of other manufactuers' unless he has written consent as they are copyrighted material.
If you have any questions i'll answer them via PM.
The costs of actually hiring machines, fraud experts and fraudsters to test the items, on the basis of ONE complaint would be prohibitive and would usually be the job of the courts if a criminal case was brought, which in my opinion as the law stands and with the evidence available, would be unwinnable. This is why it was passed on to OFCOM, as we had no expertise in the area and that was all we could do.
For us to take action on the grounds that the items are misdescribed and don't ever do what they are claimed to, we would need several complaints from different parties AND complete proof they didn't.
Like all public offices, jurisprudence comes into the equation. It is also worth pointing out that MachineGuard represent an industry which has a history of complaint and allegation of unfair practices, and this would almost certainly be a preconception in the minds of any jurors.
The website in question MAY break UK laws, but what about the laws of the country that hosts it? All he would have to do is say a third party edits and runs the site, and it would be impossible to prove otherwise.
It's almost reminiscent of a squabble between two childish schoolboys in my opinion. Again, I suggest a civil prosecution most appropriate, although MG may have to prove a consequential specific loss financially, and they can't compel the defendant to testify or answer any questions.
There is one other possibility, and that is to find a client who has lost money to a device proven to have been supplied by him, and press that in civil court. I'd simply ignore him, as the site if you check has been slipping down the rankings into oblivion for years now, possibly pre-empting this recent machineguard-uk.com stunt.
Actually, am I the only one to spot the irony here??
MG UK put an article out in BACTA and CoinSlot which is false in many ways, i.e. claiming a Police caution, (it was an OFCOM one) claiming the product has been stopped from sale (it hasn't) and the website shut down (clearly not) along with other minor factual inaccuracies.
They then envisage pursuing the case on the premise of trade descriptions, in other words the devices may not do what they are described to do.
And yet they put articles out as quoted above, clearly exaggerating Machineguarduk's achievements and effects on the website/owner in question. Isn't this a form of 'false advertising' to encourage further subscribers to their business???
MG UK put an article out in BACTA and CoinSlot which is false in many ways, i.e. claiming a Police caution, (it was an OFCOM one) claiming the product has been stopped from sale (it hasn't) and the website shut down (clearly not) along with other minor factual inaccuracies.
They then envisage pursuing the case on the premise of trade descriptions, in other words the devices may not do what they are described to do.
And yet they put articles out as quoted above, clearly exaggerating Machineguarduk's achievements and effects on the website/owner in question. Isn't this a form of 'false advertising' to encourage further subscribers to their business???
I'm sorry but you sound like you are clutching at straws here. To us at TS the internet is still something we are continually updating our knowledge about, and as such we are not all-knowing, but what we have seen so far, is that this site has been using the same host for years, and appears to pay for the services.mu5icman wrote:The article was/is not misleading as we can only give out information given to us.
The website is hosted by a company in San Francisco, California. This does not matter as we can cite the same sort of reasoning to have it removed as torrent websites.
With this in mind, the original complaint (which was not actually made to our office but passed to us because the person concerned happened to reside in our region) doesn't add up. If what you advocate above was easily possible, then surely this would have been the easiest, quickest and chepaest way for you to approach the problem in the first place, well before your Lawyers complaint to us.
I would suggest that in view of the fact he pays a company in the USA to host his site, and it doesn't break any local laws there and the fact that they jealously seem to guard 'free speech' in our experience, that this failed in the past.
OK, if we assume you succeed, then in 2 hours flat he will simply copy his html to a new host in Russia or somewhere, and as his search engine rankings are via his forwarding domain names as well as the host url's, he would not experience anything but a day or two's lower ranking in search engines.
As long as his domain names are legitimately detailed, which according to our evidence they were,because apparently in the notes it was claimed that the domain provider wrote to him about the time of your original complaint to verify his details provided,and were happy with their verification.
In common with webhosts, domain-name providers will not simply stop providing services on the word of a third-party complainant without proof, and even if the DO react to third-party allegations, they will always give the registrant or customer chance to counteract beofre making a decision, unless Court Orders or similar are made in conjunction with the complaint.
If this were not the case, imagine the scenario - trolls would rule the web, simply shutting sites and services down at will for the sheer 'fun' of it!
I think you are burning up and losing hair through your campaign against the site. Treat it like smoking - unpleasant,smelly, unhealthy but LEGAL whetheryou like it or not. So, like smoking just becasue YOU don't like it, you can't ban it, you simply try to 'educate' people against it in the first place.