WRONG. Let's say Billy Bob wanted to borrow your CC for a purchase because he doesn't have one. You let him purchase online the code, then he promptly gives you the cash for the purchase. Dish chases you but you never had the code, even to give it away. Onus is still on Dish to prove that YOU used the code, which you didn't. Simply buying something doesn't constitute guilt.
The ONLY way they could prove use of illegal codes would be to see the STB in operation, receiving signal at your residence. Even posting in open forums that you are watching such and such doesn't mean that you are watching at your place. Once again, prove it first, then charge them. If what you say is true, then it would be a case of bring the GUILTY party in, we'll give them a fair trial.
wd
Again your forgetting what is required to be successful in Civil court. The requirement is not that high. There is strong circumstantial evidence as it is without having to prove you actually used the code.
Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way).
What you are suggesting is that the plaintiffs have to actually film you using the code or something like that.
That simply is not the case in a Civil action. If the Court concludes with the evidence that it is more likely than not something occurred than that is enough. Courts know that people come up with stories like I bought it for a gift and they simply can choose not to believe you.
Just think if you are correct than why is there not one case where an end user won. I wish you were correct because than everyone who defended the action would win but I think you are missing the fact that the proof is the preponderance of the evidence meaning what is more likely than not.
GS2
also if you read the fine print on your credit card you are not supposed to loan it out and if you do you are liable. Now you can grasp at straws all day and maybe in a criminal court with a $5000 an hour lawyer you might get away with it. In civil court you are going to be hung out to dry and twisting in the breeze.
Spoon Feeders FEED Bottom Feeders
I think somebody needs to read up on how the Cdn law is written. In Canada, it is not what you are watching but how you are watching it that determines signal theft. Any time you decrypt a signal without proper authorization you are in violation of CRTC regulations. In fact, you don't have to really be doing anything at all but if you have the capabilities to do so then you are considered in vilation under the law. That means if they can link your IP to a server streaming keys or a payment to a seller then they could nail you criminally. Fortunately for you, police have more important things to do than worry about what you are watching on tv but at the same time if someone was to file a complaint they are obligated to investigate.
So really the only thing saving you at the moment is the fact you are low priority criminal activity as far as the police are concerned and DN can not file a suit against you for lost revenue due to stolen programming. At the same time, there is nothing preventing BEV from filing a suit even if you didn't have a dish pointed in their direction because under the current Cdn law you would have the capabilities to do so and that is all the judge could base his decision in the case of a Cdn civil suit.
Now i don't write those laws but I have read enough of it to know how it works and yes it is convoluted but at the same time you have to take into consideration of who wrote that law.
Spoon Feeders FEED Bottom Feeders
Actually you would be in violation of the Canadian Radio Communication Act that says the following.
9 (1) No person shall
(c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;
10 (1) Every person who
(b) without lawful excuse, manufactures, imports, distributes, leases, offers for sale, sells, installs, modifies, operates or possesses any equipment or device, or any component thereof, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the equipment, device or component has been used, or is or was intended to be used, for the purpose of contravening section 9,
You can be in possession of equipment, device, or any component thereof under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that is intended to be used. You don't have to be using it, intended to be used is a violation.
And your right law enforcement does not have the resources to go after end users but if they catch you while investigating you for something else they can charge you.
In Civil the typical fines handed out is very small so likely that won't happen either but you can never rule it out completely just say its very unlikely..
GS2
DN is sending out emails and demanding cash. It is real.
If it an e-mail how can they prove you received it. Only way this works is if you get a certified letter in the mail and even then if you don't sign for it they can't prove a thing, so I've been told...no worries.
You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Twilight Zone!