Letter now Court case

[ChillyWilly]

The first wolfman case just filed

[alex70olds]

The first wolfman case just filed

Hello and welcome to Satfix! lol

[ranger]

Hello and Welcome to Satfix and I guess this action answers a lot of questions !!!!!

[jeldf]

Hello and Welcome to Satfix! Thanks for your post! lol

[iq180]

did anybody read page 6, is this an end user or is it wuf,s partner and they cant find him,hmmmmm.

[dishuser]

did anybody read page 6, is this an end user or is it wuf,s partner and they cant find him,hmmmmm.

it's wuf
read it again

[Glock20C]

what I would like to know is...what's gonna happen to Mr Dixon after this is over?
does he get off after throwing everyone under the Bus

[dishuser]

what I would like to know is...what's gonna happen to Mr Dixon after this is over?
does he get off after throwing everyone under the Bus
call and ask him

[Glock20C]

call and ask him

you think he'll pick up?

[dishuser]

you think he'll pick up?
ya never know...lol

[burnsy]

you think he'll pick up?

Well he might as well he's been talking to everyone else- prick

[Anubis]

This is a court case against a end user by the name of KAILAS MAGI. Not wuffman.
It clearly states that the said defendant purchased codes from wuff in page one.
Guess Nagra are going after those that are ignoring their letters after all.

[Recove52]

Or if there are those curious enough try Pacer..ie ...Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator via the Internet. PACER is provided by the federal Judiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing public access to court information via a centralized service.

[Anubis]

Or if there are those curious enough try Pacer..ie ...Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator via the Internet. PACER is provided by the federal Judiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing public access to court information via a centralized service.

I believe this is where the document came from.

[fifties]

That paper trail of the payment, and resultant codes seem to be all that they feel they need, for a successful litigation.

Of course, they can't prove that the defendant actually watched their programming; their entire case is built on him having simply purchased the codes.
In fact, I don't see any proof that he even has a satellite dish or receiver, which are necessary to complete the "crime". He could always testify that he purchased the codes with the intent to buy a receiver and dish, then thought against it, and let it go.

The problem is, he will have to pay an attorney to bring that up in court, and lawyers ain't cheap.

[cheff]

It would cost you minimum $7500.00 to have a defense so best is to settle only cost them $400.00 to file against you , Then if you bury your head good chance default judgement of $10,000 will be on you . Good luck with that.

[MarvinGardens]

He could always testify that he purchased the codes with the intent to buy a receiver and dish, then thought against it, and let it go.


That would not be advisable as it could very well result in a criminal matter prosecuted by the US Attorney.

See "18 USC 1621". It carries a maximum of five years prison.

[hondoharry]

Notice they're sticking close to the lawyer's home base - Texas. If I got a letter in Texas I'd seriously consider negotiating a pre-lawsuit settlement.

[dishuser]

Notice they're sticking close to the lawyer's home base - Texas. If I got a letter in Texas I'd seriously consider negotiating a pre-lawsuit settlement.that's where they started with DA and then they moved further

[alex70olds]

There are 2 more now, in Indiana.

[fifties]

It would cost you minimum $7500.00 to have a defense so best is to settle
A friend of mine met Dave in court, who was suing her solely on the basis that she bought an unlooper from a busted dealer.

She beat them, but it cost her the 5 grand they were trying to extort, in her legal fees. She was damned however, if her money was gonna go to Dave, lol.



Originally Posted by fifties
He could always testify that he purchased the codes with the intent to buy a receiver and dish, then thought against it, and let it go.
That would not be advisable as it could very well result in a criminal matter prosecuted by the US Attorney.

See "18 USC 1621". It carries a maximum of five years prison.
Of course an attorney's advice on this would be the last word.

They may be able to photograph a satellite dish on one's rooftop, but "it was there when I moved in" would be difficult for them to disprove, and it's doubtful that they could show evidence of purchase or ownership of a satellite receiver.

[caretaker69]

how is it other resellers feel safe unless not based in us or even canada hope they r in mexico or offshore like the mothership server.did some1 from dn buy codes off wuf & thats how he got in trouble? lot ???? mite be answered soon.

[dishuser]

how is it other resellers feel safe unless not based in us or even canada hope they r in mexico or offshore like the mothership server.did some1 from dn buy codes off wuf & thats how he got in trouble? lot ???? mite be answered soon.

that's exactly what happened
read the docs

[ftaalltheway]

This is a court case against a end user by the name of KAILAS MAGI. Not wuffman.
It clearly states that the said defendant purchased codes from wuff in page one.
Guess Nagra are going after those that are ignoring their letters after all.

curious though,,, why isnt this posted on satscums?

to me,,, its all so ridiculous,,,to think a person can donate (buy a code)
and claimant not even have to PROVE it was even used??? something wrong with this world
when DN and their lawyers can even make such a case,,,so then if
they can point to an enduser connecting to servers?? wouldnt thousands and thousands more be
in same boat,,,thhis is cherry picking at its best,,,

or, it can be a test case for going after endusers,,,imho

[Anubis]

curious though,,, why isnt this posted on satscums?

to me,,, its all so ridiculous,,,to think a person can donate (buy a code)
and claimant not even have to PROVE it was even used??? something wrong with this world
when DN and their lawyers can even make such a case,,,so then if
they can point to an enduser connecting to servers?? wouldnt thousands and thousands more be
in same boat,,,thhis is cherry picking at its best,,,

or, it can be a test case for going after endusers,,,imho
They have 3 they served so far. Rest assured there is more coming. Satsc**ms is not going to post each individual on a daily basis. Wait and I am sure you are going to see a whole list of end users that judgment was made against. It just the trickling effect right now.

[iq180]

curious though,,, why isnt this posted on satscums?

to me,,, its all so ridiculous,,,to think a person can donate (buy a code)
and claimant not even have to PROVE it was even used??? something wrong with this world
when DN and their lawyers can even make such a case,,,so then if
they can point to an enduser connecting to servers?? wouldnt thousands and thousands more be
in same boat,,,thhis is cherry picking at its best,,,

or, it can be a test case for going after endusers,,,imho
there are 4 more now for a total of 5, but i must say i dont understand how they can prove a dollar amount when they cant prove
the code was ever used.

[ftaalltheway]

notice how they word it a "pirate satellite receiver" as opposed to an FTA receiver

that claim is full of crapola

they are actually trying to make it look like the enduser is actually decrypting the signal

by saying they are receiving the CW that is coming from the IKS server, blah blah blah
,,,lil known fact

forgotten by many,,,few yrs back, DN used to have a channel advising endusers they might be watching

their channels illegally if using anything other than their own equipment, along thos lines

anyways, he went on to say, words to the effect,,,"if you had someone install equipment
that gives you access to free channels, pls know it is illegal" and youd be better to contact us to subscribe
with propper equipment,,,these installers are selling you unauthorized equipment and is illegal

this was all an attempt to scare many BUT they realized that many endusers were fully UNAWARE
they were breaking any laws under the DMC...

once THAT message failed, DN tried other tactics,,,this is their last ditched attempt,,,after reading this claim
i would be floored if they won,,,unless of course they have lawyers working both sides of the fence,,and WHO would be the wiser??

i wished i had loads and loads $$$$$ i would happily pay that endusers' lawyer fees
BUT i would
make damned sure I would get the very best and who could care LESS
about DN and their cronies and show the judge just how DESPERATE they are,,,

[ftaalltheway]

there are 4 more now for a total of 5, but i must say i dont understand how they can prove a dollar amount when they cant prove
the code was ever used.

they can't...yet they are still claiming
Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain

to which a GOOD lawyer should argue,,,there is and never was a "commercial advantage" and/or "financial gain"
as an ENDUSER

therefore the damages to DN are inconsequential,,,the judgement, then, if anything
should be in the mere hundreds
NOT thousands like those who sell the hardware and decrypt signals
...BUT we all know they always get a judge to see it their way,,,well, in the past
hopefully a new judge will see this for what it TRULY is,,,"scare mongering" at its best

if DN dont want endusers to view their shiate for FREE,??? go after the servers THERE is your
problem,,otherwise IKS will ive on as long as you cant touch them,,,now i cant wait till they go
after all endusers who loaded the software (bins) from all those sites they took over (shut down)

so laughable :) :)

[ranger]

From reading everything that I found about the purchases and Law actions, the common element seems to be Pay Pal and of course the Mod that helped !!! Has anyone seen anything else ???

[alex70olds]

there are 4 more now for a total of 5, but i must say i dont understand how they can prove a dollar amount when they cant prove
the code was ever used.

Under the DMCA they can seek actuall damages OR Statutory (isp?) claims. It is what we do in the US, bow to lobbiests.

[sat*]

curious though,,, why isnt this posted on satscums?

to me,,, its all so ridiculous,,,to think a person can donate (buy a code)
and claimant not even have to PROVE it was even used??? something wrong with this world
when DN and their lawyers can even make such a case,,,so then if
they can point to an enduser connecting to servers?? wouldnt thousands and thousands more be
in same boat,,,thhis is cherry picking at its best,,,

or, it can be a test case for going after endusers,,,imho

No sure if it was anything do with case... But i was told there server was hack no one know who the hacker was or how much information they got. There server was hack at the beginning of this month and the case started roll out on 18. But if all they have is person buying donate that a long shot for dn imo. They much have getting more info that we don't know about or going after people that brought code over long period of time (like every 10-12 month) don't know how long of record W guy keep.

[MarvinGardens]

Under the DMCA they can seek actual damages OR Statutory (sp?) claims.

Besides statutory damages, you also could be liable for DN's attorney fees which could total into the thousands.

[iq180]

No sure if it was anything do with case... But i was told there server was hack no one know who the hacker was or how much information they got. There server was hack at the beginning of this month and the case started roll out on 18. But if all they have is person buying donate that a long shot for dn imo. They much have getting more info that we don't know about or going after people that brought code over long period of time (like every 10-12 month) don't know how long of record W guy keep.
if DN had anything to do with that hack they cant use that info in court, infact they would be in more trouble than the end users,
so if they do have that server info its no good to them.

[alex70olds]

No sure if it was anything do with case... But i was told there server was hack no one know who the hacker was or how much information they got. There server was hack at the beginning of this month and the case started roll out on 18. But if all they have is person buying donate that a long shot for dn imo. They much have getting more info that we don't know about or going after people that brought code over long period of time (like every 10-12 month) don't know how long of record W guy keep.

His rcords went back to at least Jan of 2011, as seen in the forth case filed.


24. Dixon's business records show that Defendant purchased subscriptions to the
Nfusion Private Server television service on or about January 11 and December 30, 2011.

[forzaazzurri]

That paper trail of the payment, and resultant codes seem to be all that they feel they need, for a successful litigation.

Of course, they can't prove that the defendant actually watched their programming; their entire case is built on him having simply purchased the codes.
In fact, I don't see any proof that he even has a satellite dish or receiver, which are necessary to complete the "crime". He could always testify that he purchased the codes with the intent to buy a receiver and dish, then thought against it, and let it go.

The problem is, he will have to pay an attorney to bring that up in court, and lawyers ain't cheap.

They won't win the case based on solely purchasing codes. Not sure if they plan on digging into his IP logs but even then they would have to match the server side to prove what he was connecting to.

[dishuser]

They won't win the case based on solely purchasing codes. Not sure if they plan on digging into his IP logs but even then they would have to match the server side to prove what he was connecting to.
if they didn't think they could win they wouldn' t bother

[forzaazzurri]

if they didn't think they could win they wouldn' t bother

They would bother if it scares the **** out of everyone who gets a demand letter to show they mean business.
100's of demand letters and only 1 court case filed ????

[ftaalltheway]

They would bother if it scares the **** out of everyone who gets a demand letter to show they mean business.
100's of demand letters and only 1 court case filed ????

theyll b a few more BUT certainly NOT the thousands one would
expect going on all the sites they shut down ...to me, paypal has NOTHING to do
with this case...they simply found out where wufman was operating out of and went after his ass and got lucky

much like nfusion fiasco while back,,,

one day they scared peeps into thinking all you needed to do was dll a bin
and WHAMMO your toast,,,heck even FTA sites were closing shop to protect all peeps
why?? cuz DN scared them into it,,,you cant tell me DN dont still have all records of those sites
of all peeps that logged in and dll files and bins to CIRCUMVENT their signal via FTA
receivers,,,i mean,,, like i says, reading between the lines here,,,this is a TEST case
no skin off their nose, peanuts really,, in grand scheme of things

if they win?? then maybe the list grows in leaps and bounds BUT that still doesnt stop the
train,,,iks servers will still connect,,, no matter

[MarvinGardens]

100's of demand letters and only 1 court case filed ????

At least six already filed spanning from Texas to Florida to Indiana to Kentucky.

[Anubis]

They would bother if it scares the **** out of everyone who gets a demand letter to show they mean business.
100's of demand letters and only 1 court case filed ????
More than one.

theyll b a few more BUT certainly NOT the thousands one would
expect going on all the sites they shut down ...to me, paypal has NOTHING to do
with this case...they simply found out where wufman was operating out of and went after his ass and got lucky

much like nfusion fiasco while back,,,

one day they scared peeps into thinking all you needed to do was dll a bin
and WHAMMO your toast,,,heck even FTA sites were closing shop to protect all peeps
why?? cuz DN scared them into it,,,you cant tell me DN dont still have all records of those sites
of all peeps that logged in and dll files and bins to CIRCUMVENT their signal via FTA
receivers,,,i mean,,, like i says, reading between the lines here,,,this is a TEST case
no skin off their nose, peanuts really,, in grand scheme of things

if they win?? then maybe the list grows in leaps and bounds BUT that still doesnt stop the
train,,,iks servers will still connect,,, no matter

Not sure what you consider a few more but having 5 different individual cases in less than 4 days tells me there's a lot more coming down the pipe.
These are dates from 2011. Wuffman sold up until when? oh ya, mid 2012. You do the math. I think you are going to see more than a "few" on this one. JMO

[ftaalltheway]

More than one.


Not sure what you consider a few more but having 5 different individual cases in less than 4 days tells me there's a lot more coming down the pipe.
These are dates from 2011. Wuffman sold up until when? oh ya, mid 2012. You do the math. I think you are going to see more than a "few" on this one. JMO

i hear ya,,,a few, in relative terms,,,if you think about how many thousands
connect to iks?? one would think there should be hundreds of these claims going to court

to me a dozen to even 50 is still a few,,,it will be interesting,,,its all a numbers game at this point
the more they file the better chances at a home run,,,some forget,,,even if found guilty
one can still appeal,,,on and on it goes,,,like i says, IF PP had anything to do with this??

you would see a whole lot more heads (resellers) roll,,,i would like to hope one of these cases
goes all the way and see what evidence they had/have and see if in fact PP records on wuff
was subpoenaed,,,THAT would set the record straight once and for all,,,anyways, its NOT a game
changer by any means,,there will always be endusers connecting to iks until they crash all those servers
for good or those servers run out of seeds,,,imho

[MarvinGardens]

even if found guilty
one can still appeal

When you appeal a civil judgment you have to deposit the entire amount of the judgment against you with the court while the appeal is pending.

So if the trial court determines that you owe DN $10,000 in damages you have to give the court that money before you can even file an appeal.

Then when you lose the appeal, you will also have to pay DN's attorney fees for fighting your appeal.

[ftaalltheway]

When you appeal a civil judgment you have to deposit the entire amount of the judgment against you with the court while the appeal is pending.

So if the trial court determines that you owe DN $10,000 in damages you have to give the court that money before you can even file an appeal.

Then when you lose the appeal, you will also have to pay DN's attorney fees for fighting your appeal.

10,000??? u really and truly beleive these will be the numbers?? highly doubt that,,,

appeal is still good option BUT only for those who can afford to,,, so i get that,,,

isnt anyone in this game rich and only in it (hobby) for funzies?? LOL

side note; earlier today,notice how at NFPS home site they closed the thread started on this
subject?? curious, no? they think just b/c wuffman didnt log in over there,,,still is hypocritical

[MarvinGardens]

10,000??? u really and truly beleive these will be the numbers?? highly doubt that,,,


The court has consistently awarded DN $10,000 in each of the DA default cases.

[alex70olds]

When you appeal a civil judgment you have to deposit the entire amount of the judgment against you with the court while the appeal is pending.

So if the trial court determines that you owe DN $10,000 in damages you have to give the court that money before you can even file an appeal.

Then when you lose the appeal, you will also have to pay DN's attorney fees for fighting your appeal.

Sonicview is apealing, and they did not have this requirement.


10,000??? u really and truly beleive these will be the numbers?? highly doubt that,,,

appeal is still good option BUT only for those who can afford to,,, so i get that,,,

isnt anyone in this game rich and only in it (hobby) for funzies?? LOL

side note; earlier today,notice how at NFPS home site they closed the thread started on this
subject?? curious, no? they think just b/c wuffman didnt log in over there,,,still is hypocritical

Lmao 10k is the established number for endusers. Dont ever think all cases end up on Satscams.

[ftaalltheway]

The court has consistently awarded DN $10,000 in each of the DA default cases.

cept we all know DA is much diffrent from this type claim..plus
to think DN would actually believe (if they win) they would get a customer out of
these end users if they make them go broke??knowing how piss poor
most endusers are in this hobby?? if its to scare you away from the hobby??
well, good luck with THAT,,,
the ONLY judgement that would make sense???
is make an enduser PROMISE to never be involved with IKS and then make
them sign for a 3yr agreement with a sub to their premium line-up

THAT is IF a judge has a brain in their head...dn makes me laugh

[burnsy]

Sonicview is apealing, and they did not have this requirement.



Lmao 10k is the established number for endusers. Dont ever think all cases end up on Satscams.

Blasphemer!!!!!!! you cast doubt on the all knowing ones LOL

[MarvinGardens]

Sonicview is apealing, and they did not have this requirement.


Most district courts require posting of a bond in order to stay the judgment, ultimately it is up to the discretion of the court.

[iq180]

The court has consistently awarded DN $10,000 in each of the DA default cases.
the DA case is not the same thing as we have here, in the DA case they had the server logs, them people were screwed from the start and should have just paid the money, but in this case they dont have the server logs, but only time will tell all.

[alex70olds]

the DA case is not the same thing as we have here, in the DA case they had the server logs, them people were screwed from the start and should have just paid the money, but in this case they dont have the server logs, but only time will tell all.

Legally, judgement wise, it is the same thing. The evidence may be different.

[fifties]

A good, spirited discussion.

Yes, a bond is the usual way to satisfy a judgment on appeal, just as it is to satisfy a bail. After all, how many average ppl have 10 grand they can fork over, just like that?

DN is following Dave's playbook, to a degree. Dave had dealers busted and obtained their sales records, in order to locate purchasers of equipment that could have been used to hack their cards (card programmers, unloopers, boot boards, etc.).

Then they did their best to convince the bench that the use of these items was strictly limited to piracy (because they were bought from a "pirate" dealer), and on that basis the purchaser MUST have used it to hack into their service illegally, and they were therefore entitled to damages (a judgment).

Of course, the fact that it was SPECULATION on their part (that the equipment was used to hack their signal) could only be illuminated if one paid an attorney to meet them in court. Often times, "pirate" dealers -those advertising on satellite hacking forums (remember, "Pirates Den"?) had lower prices on items that were perfectly innocent, such as card programmers, and drew customers completely outside the satellite hacking community, who were also served by Dave.

[alex70olds]

I agree bro, gr8 discusion. Dish has failed before going after the enduser. It reminded me of this case. It will be interesting to see exactly what they have.

17471
17472

[fputs]

DN is going to win in court or out of court for all the cases because they have more money period. They can drag out the court because they can pay the bills and it will never be feasible to defend a civil case against a giant. If this was a criminal matter then you would fight for your life, but on a civil case your fight is never worth the cost or stress. Unless you have plenty of money, you should think twice before going to a fight for purely sake of principle.

[fifties]

I agree bro, gr8 discusion. Dish has failed before going after the enduser. It reminded me of this case. It will be interesting to see exactly what they have.

17471
17472
Thx for the linx; DN sued the defendant because (1) there were sales records indicating that he had purchased a satellite receiver that MAY have been modified to receive their programming, and (2) he had then dropped his sub with them.

"Individuals who purchased modified FTA receivers WOULD have the ability to utilize the modified FTA receivers to decrypt DISH network's signals without authorization." It was speculation, just like owning a rifle WOULD give one the ability to commit murder.

Unfortunately, the poor defendant got stuck with his own attorney's fees, which prolly equaled or exceeded whatever preliminary letter DN may have sent him in the beginning. That's the part I find unfair; they caused him financial (not to mention emotional) damage with their fishing expedition, and he apparently had no recourse with them.

I think I'd sue the bastards in small claims court, where attorneys aren't allowed, lol. Emotional strife to the tune of whatever the legal fee happened to amount to (within the small claims limit, of course).

[sat*]

So the case is basically on buying his code and your pm too him.. He probability had Receive Email Notification of new Private Messages setting on so copy all pm is in his email box. So if he clear his pm on the site it will still be in his email.

[johnnysat]

Are any Canadians feeling the pinch from this case?

[dishuser]

Are any Canadians feeling the pinch from this case?

no
and none have in the past except dealers

[hondoharry]

They may not have server logs from the server end but they can always get them from your ISP. We'll have to see if they go that far in evidence gathering once the cases are adjudicated and promoted on Satscums.

[bandit]

not the only place that censorship is practiced---(they only want you to hear one side of the story) ==i=remember all===========i truly hope ,some one fights the allegations----lets see some facts---least we forget----the very first guy -that-came forward--and how he was treated!

[dishuser]

not the only place that censorship is practiced---(they only want you to hear one side of the story) ==i=remember all===========i truly hope ,some one fights the allegations----lets see some facts---least we forget----the very first guy -that-came forward--and how he was treated!keep your whining at pros
they don't care about truth...lol

[abouttosnap]

not the only place that censorship is practiced---(they only want you to hear one side of the story) ==i=remember all===========i truly hope ,some one fights the allegations----lets see some facts---least we forget----the very first guy -that-came forward--and how he was treated!

Do the damn words - dry up - mean anything to you?

[surfinisfun]

Do the damn words - dry up - mean anything to you?

I think JCO's buddy is a bitter buddy.lol

[franky932]

l read all post..they can do nothing against server oversea? right? bad timing for me..........my donation had expire

yesterday........i will have a hard time to buy one.....grrrrrrrrrr

[fifties]

l read all post..they can do nothing against server oversea? right?
Wrong.

It depends on the country of residence of the server's owner. If he lives here in the US, he is subject to our laws.

[kyzursozay]

very interesting that just before/as these cases are filed the code database was supposedly stolen by employee? former employee? (former employee under threat of indictment?possibly) necessitating new 12 digit codes & no more WU ......... coincidences ..........

[juka]

Even a paranoid can have enemies.
Henry A. Kissinger

[bandit]

Do the damn words - dry up - mean anything to you?-------------nope-==========-sounds like an order=i dont do well with those lol
and to rotten --i learned most every thing i know from you--****ty having only one site to hang out at being banned at most of em hey bro--o well--fook em!

[dishuser]

-------------nope-==========-sounds like an order=i dont do well with those lol
and to rotten --i learned most every thing i know from you--****ty having only one site to hang out at being banned at most of em hey bro--o well--fook em!
Still hang at plenty of sites...funny thing is not one person at pros knows about most of them

[JCO]

Still hang at plenty of sites...funny thing is not one person at pros knows about most of them

He wont be able to reply, I didnt like his response to abouttosnap, so Bandit is on a long vacation..
Cant wait to see his whinning at his usual hangout..ROFLMAO

[alvirgieca]

question about those donation code? those code that they get are all been expire can it be presented in the court while that donation code is not working anymore?

[fputs]

question about those donation code? those code that they get are all been expire can it be presented in the court while that donation code is not working anymore?

In civil cases, there is usually a 3 years statute of limitation. Criminal can be more.

[MarvinGardens]

In civil cases, there is usually a 3 years statute of limitation. Criminal can be more.

The statute of limitation clock begins to run when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that they were wronged by your actions.

In other words, DN has up to three years to file a lawsuit against you from the time when they first discovered that you violated their copyright.

The statute of limitations has no relationship with whether you have an active IKS subscription.

[ypmug]

It is never wise to get your legal advise from forums. Statute of Limitations usually starts with last activity. If you were violating DMCA laws, and are still doing it, then statute hasn't started yet. Also 3 years is not always the case, as it varies from state to state. Civil statute in my state is 6 years, and is the same for misdemeanors here.

[MarvinGardens]

It is never wise to get your legal advise from forums. Statute of Limitations usually starts with last activity. If you were violating DMCA laws, and are still doing it, then statute hasn't started yet. Also 3 years is not always the case, as it varies from state to state. Civil statute in my state is 6 years, and is the same for misdemeanors here.

The DMCA is Federal law and your reference to state law is meaningless.

[fputs]

The statute of limitation clock begins to run when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that they were wronged by your actions.

In other words, DN has up to three years to file a lawsuit against you from the time when they first discovered that you violated their copyright.

The statute of limitations has no relationship with whether you have an active IKS subscription.

I agree with YPMUG that the statute of limitation runs from the last date of the defendant's violation and not from the date of discovery. The duration on the statute of limitation would depend upon the rule of the governing court that the litigation is brought fourth.

[fifties]

Yes, the DMCA is a federal law, but would be relevant only if a criminal charge were lodged against the defendant, by the government (the only ones that can do it). Then that statute would come into...

[MarvinGardens]

You are very very wrong. See Federal statute 17 USC section 507. <br />
<br />
Federal copyright law states a three year statute of limitations on civil actions. <br />
<br />
Federal law is the supreme law of the land...

[MarvinGardens]

I agree with YPMUG that the statute of limitation runs from the last date of the defendant's violation and not from the date of discovery. The duration on the statute of limitation would depend upon the rule of the governing court that the litigation is brought fourth.

The statute of limitations is "tolled" for the period when the copyright holder (DN) did not have knowledge of the infringement or could not have had knowledge of the infringement through reasonable means. The three year clock starts when the copyright holder gains knowledge of the infringement.

So in the case of IKS infringement, the statute of limitations clock started when DN was able to identify the person committing infringement.

[ypmug]

You are very very wrong. See Federal statute 17 USC section 507.

Federal copyright law states a three year statute of limitations on civil actions.

Federal law is the supreme law of the land and always trumps state law.You are wrong. By law, DMCA violations have a 5 year statute of limitations.
§507(a). The five-year limitations period was first established by the NET Act, Pub. L. No. 105-147 §2(c), 111 Stat. 2678 (1997).

[MarvinGardens]

You are wrong. By law, DMCA violations have a 5 year statute of limitations.

It is THREE years for civil actions, read subsection (b) below:


§ 507. Limitations on actions

(a) Criminal Proceedings. — Except as expressly provided otherwise in this title, no criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose.

(b) Civil Actions. — No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

[fputs]

The statute of limitations is "tolled" for the period when the copyright holder (DN) did not have knowledge of the infringement or could not have had knowledge of the infringement through reasonable means. The three year clock starts when the copyright holder gains knowledge of the infringement.

So in the case of IKS infringement, the statute of limitations clock started when DN was able to identify the person committing infringement.

You are so stubborn, you're driving us all crazy. First of all you need to take note the difference of being sued civilly by an entity such as DN or being prosecuted criminally by the government. You need to understand the difference before citing statutes.

Secondly, I don't think you have ever sued someone or been involved in a lawsuit, because if you had you would know the difference. The court to which a suit is filed is the governing body and the laws to be applied in the case. For example, you can't sue someone in state Superior Court and use statutes, RCWs, or case laws of the Federal court and vice versa. Just because as you quote the Federal law is the law of the land and that overules everything shows everyone just how ignorant you are.

Lastly, in regards to Statute of limitation you should understand the logic of it all. Let's say 20 years following the last time you used $P IKS, DN discovers that fact and sues you. According to your definition of Statute of Limitation, this would still be applicable. How could you defend yourself if you no longer have access to any resources or records to defend yourself and prove that what they are accusing you of is completely false. My friend, in civil cases the statute of limitation runs from the time that the harm and damage was last done to the plaintiffs from the defendant.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen and been involved in my share of lawsuits from both the plaintiff and defendant side.

[MarvinGardens]

You are so stubborn, you're driving us all crazy. First of all you need to take note the difference of being sued civilly by an entity such as DN or being prosecuted criminally by the government. You need to understand the difference before citing statutes.

I never ever mentioned criminal prosecution in any of my posts. Why do you keep bringing this up?

DN is suing people under CIVIL statutes not CRIMINAL. Don't you get that???

Only the US Attorney can bring a CRIMINAL complaint against someone.


The court to which a suit is filed is the governing body and the laws to be applied in the case. For example, you can't sue someone in state Superior Court and use statutes, RCWs, or case laws of the Federal court and vice versa. Just because as you quote the Federal law is the law of the land and that overules everything shows everyone just how ignorant you are.

You are completely ignorant of the US Constitution and the Supremacy Clause. The DMCA is a FEDERAL statute. DN is suing under the DMCA and EVERY court in the US has to follow this FEDERAL statute.

Read this and learn about your Constitution:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause


Lastly, in regards to Statute of limitation you should understand the logic of it all. Let's say 20 years following the last time you used $P IKS, DN discovers that fact and sues you. According to your definition of Statute of Limitation, this would still be applicable. How could you defend yourself if you no longer have access to any resources or records to defend yourself and prove that what they are accusing you of is completely false. My friend, in civil cases the statute of limitation runs from the time that the harm and damage was last done to the plaintiffs from the defendant.


I never said that the Statute runs indefinitely, it runs for THREE years.

[fifties]

The DMCA is a FEDERAL statute. DN is suing under the DMCA.
DN is suing people who have "stolen" their signal, and using the DMCA as their legal reference for the theft violation. That reference protects them from ppl intercepting and decrypting an encoded signal without authorization.

In most cases, the litigation has and will likely continue to be, well within any statute of limitations, since their pattern has been to instigate proceedings very soon after discovering the ID's of IKS customers.

Based on that, all of this fuss about the statute of limitations seems rather ludicrous.

[alandcin]

keep your whining at pros
they don't care about truth...lol

ill pass this post along for ya.

[burnsy]

ill pass this post along for ya.

ahhhhh who cares is that supposed to be a threat LOL are ya scared DU

[dishuser]

ill pass this post along for ya.
really?
you're not too bright are ya?
the mod who banned me there is a mod here...lol

[alandcin]

hahahahaha!!!!!!! my humblest apologies for noticing you've been banned. and your right, i guess im not too bright to think you would still be a member there ..never knew till now. lmfao....good!!
btw, how many user names do you have now?? pfft

[dishuser]

hahahahaha!!!!!!! my humblest apologies for noticing you've been banned. and your right, i guess im not too bright to think you would still be a member there ..never knew till now. lmfao....good!!
btw, how many user names do you have now?? pfft
two
have had them both for over a decade
pffft...lol

[burnsy]

OK let's keep the crap from other sites at the other site

[alex70olds]

Marvin is exactly right, no matter what people want to believe.


http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=echostar&search=Search&stateorcourt=&judge=&lawsuittype=&documentfilter=allcases&after=&before=

All Federal law suits, federal statutes and limitations apply.

[smallyjohnson]

The first wolfman case just filed

i notice that on the first page of this complaint there is no case # in the designated area ... just at the top as if it was faxed...was this pulled from pacer?

[Anubis]

i notice that on the first page of this complaint there is no case # in the designated area ... just at the top as if it was faxed...was this pulled from pacer?

Got to first page of this thread and read post 13 and 14. It may be an idea to read the whole thread as a lot of info has been posted and may answer any future questions you have.

[alex70olds]

9 cases filed now.

[Anubis]

9 cases filed now.
Shall we start a pool as to total number???? :tehe:

[iq180]

Shall we start a pool as to total number???? :tehe:
i say there will be about 50, one for each state in the us, looks like they are testing the court system in each state,JMO.

[fifties]

Originally Posted by alex70olds
9 cases filed now.

i say there will be about 50, one for each state in the us, looks like they are testing the court system in each state,JMO.
Are these nine filed cases each in different states?

[iq180]

Are these nine filed cases each in different states?
from what i have seen they are.

[alex70olds]

Are these nine filed cases each in different states?

Texas, Kentucky, Florida, Mississippi, 2 in Indiana, 2 in California. D@mn I cant count, actually only 8 filed.

[JCO]

Texas, Kentucky, Florida, Mississippi, 2 in Indiana, 2 in California. D@mn I cant count, actually only 8 filed.

Geez there going after Southern States only so far..

[alex70olds]

Geez there going after Southern States only so far..

I cant count, and you need a geograghy lesson lmao.

[Anubis]

Geez there going after Southern States only so far..


I cant count, and you need a geograghy lesson lmao.

OMG. frick and frack need schooling bad! :tehe:

[fifties]

If these suits are against wufmans customers, I would have to believe that for the length of time he was selling codes, eight seems to be a pitifully small fraction.

Yes, there are prolly more coming down the pike, but one would think that a flurry of them would have already occurred.

Maybe they aren't totally sure yet of a slam dunk...

[dishuser]

If these suits are against wufmans customers, I would have to believe that for the length of time he was selling codes, eight seems to be a pitifully small fraction.

Yes, there are prolly more coming down the pike, but one would think that a flurry of them would have already occurred.

Maybe they aren't totally sure yet of a slam dunk...it takes time to file
before they file it takes time to find an attorney to represent them in each state
my guess since it was asked earlier is 1,000 or better
then watch the sheeple run
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/2518/5v7n0n.gif

[smallyjohnson]

Got to first page of this thread and read post 13 and 14. It may be an idea to read the whole thread as a lot of info has been posted and may answer any future questions you have. not trying to start a argument here ...however I have read each and every post in thread ...and the question remains ...was it posted on pacer? or was the OP with one post only just putting it up there for us to see.....i have a freind who lives in IL and they sent him 3 different demand letters .one asking for 3500 and a admission of guilt...the next..was another demanding 5000....the next was a complaint such as the one posted...with the SAME as the OP and no atty filled in AND a improper court juristiction listed ... again just asking.... i also read alex70olds post about 9 so far i assume they are listed on pacer ....

[alex70olds]

not trying to start a argument here ...however I have read each and every post in thread ...and the question remains ...was it posted on pacer? or was the OP with one post only just putting it up there for us to see.....i have a freind who lives in IL and they sent him 3 different demand letters .one asking for 3500 and a admission of guilt...the next..was another demanding 5000....the next was a complaint such as the one posted...with the SAME as the OP and no atty filled in AND a improper court juristiction listed ... again just asking.... i also read alex70olds post about 9 so far i assume they are listed on pacer ....

The 8 cases I mentioned are all on PACER. It is possible they are sending a copy of the complaint before it is filed.

[alex70olds]

not trying to start a argument here ...however I have read each and every post in thread ...and the question remains ...was it posted on pacer? or was the OP with one post only just putting it up there for us to see.....i have a freind who lives in IL and they sent him 3 different demand letters .one asking for 3500 and a admission of guilt...the next..was another demanding 5000....the next was a complaint such as the one posted...with the SAME as the OP and no atty filled in AND a improper court juristiction listed ... again just asking.... i also read alex70olds post about 9 so far i assume they are listed on pacer ....

Here is new one today (#9, unless I miscounted again, running out of fingers lol) Notice case # is hand written in.

17536

[JCO]

I cant count, and you need a geograghy lesson lmao.

Umm I thought the only Northern State was Alaska..LOL

[smallyjohnson]

thank you for the clarification

[fifties]

Umm I thought the only Northern State was Alaska..LOL
Nope; anything north of Santa Barbara would constitute a northern state, eh eh. ;)

[fifties]

Here is new one today (#9, unless I miscounted again, running out of fingers lol) Notice case # is hand written in.

17536
Same suit, just with a different defendant.

The only thing they have on him, is his purchase of a sub to an IKS server. That's it.

Paragraphs 26, "defendant used a pirate satellite receiver", and 34, "defendant engaged in the unauthorized reception of DN's satellite programming" are speculation; they show no evidence of his ownership of a receiver, nor his actual viewing of their programming.

The defendant could simply say, "I was going to try it, but decided not to", and they would have no way of refuting that, unless they went to the trouble of accessing his ISP records, and locating his connections to the server IP. So far, we have not heard of them going to that length. They have simply been using a purchase paper trail for their extortion basis.

I think their game plan is a hope that they can get one or more judgments in their favor, using this limited "evidence", and then use those as precedents to go after the thousand that DU suggested may happen, and I would believe that that's what's gonna take place.

[1boxman]

I still do not think they have enough to get a court order ..for isp records...and some do not keep them long either .
Even government has a hard enough time to get them ...unless is pidos or as bad or worse . But lets not go there .

[Anubis]

Same suit, just with a different defendant.

The only thing they have on him, is his purchase of a sub to an IKS server. That's it.

Paragraphs 26, "defendant used a pirate satellite receiver", and 34, "defendant engaged in the unauthorized reception of DN's satellite programming" are speculation; they show no evidence of his ownership of a receiver, nor his actual viewing of their programming.

The defendant could simply say, "I was going to try it, but decided not to", and they would have no way of refuting that, unless they went to the trouble of accessing his ISP records, and locating his connections to the server IP. So far, we have not heard of them going to that length. They have simply been using a purchase paper trail for their extortion basis.

I think their game plan is a hope that they can get one or more judgments in their favor, using this limited "evidence", and then use those as precedents to go after the thousand that DU suggested may happen, and I would believe that that's what's gonna take place.
Unless they paid the said defendants a visit and confiscated a sat receiver then yes you're right pure speculation.

[Nostradamus]

Unless they paid the said defendants a visit and confiscated a sat receiver then yes you're right pure speculation.

not really!

say John Doe bought a code from Wufman. before he did that he was on here wanting to know how to contact him. After the purchase he was on here thanking wuf for the quick service or looking for help on how to configure his NFPS code. All that info is public domain and would be enough to hang somebody out to dry once they are already cornered. Now it might not be enough evidence for DN to get an award but it is certainly enough circumstantial evidence to make a defense lawyer squirm and rack up a big bill for the defendant. DN is hoping you just settle rather than get saddled with a large lawyer bill is what is going on. The other thing to take into consideration is that this is civil and not criminal proceedings so all DN has to do is have enough evidence to "make" you look guilty to win the case. Anybody going into court and intending on using ignorance, stupidity, or some other half baked idea like yes I bought a code but I never got it to work may as well save their breath. Unless you have some real proof like you were in Afghanistan when the code was purchased and only returned home after the demand letter showed up then you are better off just to pay the extortion fee because what else could you possibly use for proof over a time period of that length?

[Anubis]

Yup, overlooked the posting in public thing which would be tightening the noose.

[fifties]

I would certainly agree that it's damning evidence, and may just be enough to push the scale balance slightly in their favor, which is all they need in civil. <br />
<br />
<br />
That's it exactly, and the same...

[dishuser]

so I bought a gram of cocaine just to see what it looked like should get me off if caught?lol

[JCO]

so I bought a gram of cocaine just to see what it looked like should get me off if caught?lol

How about I bought it to give it as a gift to someone that has a numbers habit..LOL

[dishuser]

How about I bought it to give it as a gift to someone that has a numbers habit..LOL

I'm good with that..lol
but these guys who are being sued cause of wuf are screwed
looks like they might finally realize it's illegal to steal
remember the chocolate bar commercial?lol

[JCO]

I'm good with that..lol
but these guys who are being sued cause of wuf are screwed
looks like they might finally realize it's illegal to steal
remember the chocolate bar commercial?lol

Ya I heard about your adiction to the number 69..LOL

[fifties]

so I bought a gram of cocaine just to see what it looked like should get me off if caught?lol
Do we know that purchasing a code to an IKS server is against the law? If so, I stand corrected.

[cheff]

Remember also in US civil cases only need 50% evidence . The only option is to settle as it appears they are not only demand letters but proof of civil action. It will cost more to litigate and Dick knows it so ur had if u got a letter. :innocent:

[dishuser]

Do we know that purchasing a code to an IKS server is against the law? If so, I stand corrected.

why is it purchased?
to steal tv?
or to look at some digits?

[Nostradamus]

the only reason I tossed a time frame in there as that I believe unless you could prove it wasn't you that purchased or used it. Ie. military deployment or maybe doing time in a state pen from the date of purchase to the date of the original demand letter you have absolutely no defense.

[fifties]

why is it purchased?
to steal tv?
or to look at some digits?
It doesn't matter why it was purchased; you equated purchasing Cocaine as being the same, in jest of course, but it's not, just as purchasing a firearm doesn't label one as automatically a murderer.

I saw no citation in their lawsuit of a legal code violation, in the purchase of the IKS code, and you can bet the farm that they certainly would have cited it if one existed in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which by itself, would be their slam dunk.


the only reason I tossed a time frame in there as that I believe unless you could prove it wasn't you that purchased or used it. Ie. military deployment or maybe doing time in a state pen from the date of purchase to the date of the original demand letter you have absolutely no defense.
I disagree.

The burden is not on you to prove that you didn't use it, but on them, to prove that you did. They can't prove ownership of a satellite receiver in most cases, nor a satellite dish (unless they trespass to photograph one not visible from the street), both being necessary components to "complete the crime". Perhaps ISP logs displaying connection to the server addy would put them over the top, but again, that evidence has not been included in their suits, to date.

Edit; this is what they cite; 17 USC § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems. (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
(1)
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Buying the code by itself doesn't violate the law, prove that he used it, nor prove that he had the other equipment necessary.

All of this being discussed, however, given that one receives the first letter, payment of the 35 hundred is going to be the cheapest, least nerve-wracking, and easiest escape, no question.

[dishuser]

paper trail just like the DA cases
I can't see DN losing

[alex70olds]

It seems to me people get confused as to burden of proof - Civil VS Criminal.


In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. Both are lower burdens of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact by a high probability. Criminal trials employ a higher standard of proof because criminal defendants often face the deprivation of life or liberty if convicted while civil defendants generally only face an order to pay money damages if the plaintiff prevails.

[1boxman]

I think in these cases... cocaine and codes are pretty much the same intent .
Meaning they only have one use and both are illegal .

In the one letter ..dn proved how and what the code did .

Sense it is civil ... I do not think a prove of use will be necessary ..or isp records .
They where buying a code for one purpose ...not a donation to anything and than received a code .

They have a paper trial .
There purchase.
What the code does.
wuf Paypal records.
and will speculate ....wufs testimony on everything .
Just a few ...and sure there are more .

Now what we do not know ..is wuf confirming any of these transaction personally ???
If so ...that makes a witness .

[kenkell1]

paper trail just like the DA cases
I can't see DN losing

Exactly..... there is no difference between these codes and and the shat Justin from DarkAngel sold those that were busted.
The paper trail for these codes are Damning Evidence and I also can't see DN losing.

[JCO]

Exactly..... there is no difference between these codes and and the shat Justin from DarkAngel sold those that were busted.
The paper trail for these codes are Damning Evidence and I also can't see DN losing.

Didnt they also get DA's server logs with the ip's??

[hondoharry]

It will be interesting to see exactly what evidence they'll be presenting at trial. The letters have revealed the paper trail but will they bother to get more? I don't think it's so hard to get ISP logs given what they have already and forum posts are easy. Many dishes are visible from the street or Google Earth.

[fifties]

Didnt they also get DA's server logs with the ip's??
If so (and most likely), that would prove usage, and therefore violation of the DMCA's circumvention rule.

There is no such similar evidence here. Just because they bought the code doesn't prove that they used it. A preponderance of the evidence would include proof of ownership of a dish and receiver, and/or an ISP log showing connection to the server.

[Nostradamus]

well proving he had a dish is not a problem. Stand in the street and snap a picture or even easier google earth it. fairly easy to see sat dishes using those sat pics and that is what anybody has access to. What DN would have access to in a court case could be quite a bit better and more high res that those images. US & Russian spy satellites can read road signs and license plates from outer space and that technology is over 20 years old.

point is DN is not going to drag anybody into court to lose. No judge in those courts is going to give the benefit of a doubt to the defendant. I am sure the judge is going to sit there and mull over the fact that the guy bought a code, the intent was there but he didn't have a dish or a receiver so he did nothing wrong.

Uh-UH he is going to slam his gavel down and find in favor of the plaintiff and then holler "Next!"

[hondoharry]

Most Google Earth overhead images are aerial photography from airplanes, not satellite images. They only use lower res satellite for areas where no aerial images are available. Street view shows even higher detail.

I've yet to see proof that they can read a number plate from a satellite. More likely an urban legend.

[fifties]

"The dish was mounted there when I moved in".

We are still innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

The purchase of the codes may prove intent, but they don't indicate usage. Whether that alone is enough remains to be seen.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

It doesn't matter why it was purchased; you equated purchasing Cocaine as being the same, in jest of course, but it's not, just as purchasing a firearm doesn't label one as automatically a murderer.

I saw no citation in their lawsuit of a legal code violation, in the purchase of the IKS code, and you can bet the farm that they certainly would have cited it if one existed in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which by itself, would be their slam dunk.


I disagree.

The burden is not on you to prove that you didn't use it, but on them, to prove that you did. They can't prove ownership of a satellite receiver in most cases, nor a satellite dish (unless they trespass to photograph one not visible from the street), both being necessary components to "complete the crime". Perhaps ISP logs displaying connection to the server addy would put them over the top, but again, that evidence has not been included in their suits, to date.

Edit; this is what they cite; 17 USC § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems. (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
(1)
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Buying the code by itself doesn't violate the law, prove that he used it, nor prove that he had the other equipment necessary.

All of this being discussed, however, given that one receives the first letter, payment of the 35 hundred is going to be the cheapest, least nerve-wracking, and easiest escape, no question.


They state you ( defendant ) used the server to illegally descramble their signal. The onus now shifts to the defendant to say he did not and say why he purchased the subscription to the server.


Your hung up that they have to prove you used it but if its morely likely than not than the defendant can lose without them proving you use it.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

If so (and most likely), that would prove usage, and therefore violation of the DMCA's circumvention rule.

There is no such similar evidence here. Just because they bought the code doesn't prove that they used it. A preponderance of the evidence would include proof of ownership of a dish and receiver, and/or an ISP log showing connection to the server.



Again why are you saying they have to prove useage for it to be more likely than not. Is it more likely than not that you subscribed to private server that provided the control words to decrypt their signal to access their signals illegally ? or its more likely not that you didn't. ?


I think preponderance of the evidence tilts their way.



GS2

[MarvinGardens]

Again why are you saying they have to prove useage for it to be more likely than not. Is it more likely than not that you subscribed to private server that provided the control words to decrypt their signal to access their signals illegally ? or its more likely not that you didn't. ?


I think preponderance of the evidence tilts their way.GS2

I agree.

When DTV lost their early court cases it was because the court did not accept DTV's claim that simply owning an unlooper or ISO programmer was convincing evidence that there was illegal access to their signals.

That's because the court said that unlooper's and ISO programmers could have a use that is not illegal.

The court further said that if DTV could show that the person also owned a sat dish and receiver then that would have convinced the court.

Here being in possession of access codes to an IKS server only has one purpose. DN does not have to prove anything else.

[Nostradamus]

Most Google Earth overhead images are aerial photography from airplanes, not satellite images. They only use lower res satellite for areas where no aerial images are available. Street view shows even higher detail.

I've yet to see proof that they can read a number plate from a satellite. More likely an urban legend.

there was a satellite tracking station about 25 miles from where I used to live and I had 2 different neighbors that worked there. They both told me the same story at different times about how they locked on to a Russian sat one night going over and decided to have a look at what the Russians were looking at. Well the story was the same from both of them and they said the Ruskies were looking at the girls on a beach in Florida and you could easily read the signs there. Well had one said it, or both of them had been together I might have doubted it but I heard the same story twice. Whether it is true or not I can't testify to it because it is only heresay but I tend to believe it. Especially a Russian sat buzzing over Cape Canaveral area would have been quite high tech cutting edge stuff as well

[JCO]

there was a satellite tracking station about 25 miles from where I used to live and I had 2 different neighbors that worked there. They both told me the same story at different times about how they locked on to a Russian sat one night going over and decided to have a look at what the Russians were looking at. Well the story was the same from both of them and they said the Ruskies were looking at the girls on a beach in Florida and you could easily read the signs there. Well had one said it, or both of them had been together I might have doubted it but I heard the same story twice. Whether it is true or not I can't testify to it because it is only heresay but I tend to believe it. Especially a Russian sat buzzing over Cape Canaveral area would have been quite high tech cutting edge stuff as well

Well I can vouch for the high res capacity of satelite images.. Just look at what they had as images in the 70's from an sSR71 and that was on film.. with older optics..
The russians were probably able to see the non died roots in the blonds hair..ROFLMAO

[fifties]

The court further said that if DTV could show that the person also owned a sat dish and receiver then that would have convinced the court.

Here being in possession of access codes to an IKS server only has one purpose. DN does not have to prove anything else.
No, I don't think that the purchase of the codes shows anything more than intent.

It certainly does not prove that the defendant actually used the codes.

Now if DN supplied ISP logs showing lengthy connections to the IKS server (at least an hour, daily), then I would agree that the scale is certainly tipped.

Dave lost a case when he couldn't prove to the court that the defendant actually owned a satellite dish antenna. I think that case is an excellent reference for a defense, especially because during discovery, the plaintiff has to show what his evidence is. If he has nothing to prove there is a dish at the defendants house...And beyond that, proof of ownership of a satellite receiver.

There are four components at play here; ownership of the codes, usage of the IKS server via internet connection, a satellite dish antenna, and a satellite or other capable receiver. The dish antenna could be explained away as, "it was already there when I moved in". I think if Charlie can prove two of the others, however, he gets his judgment.

[MarvinGardens]

No, I don't think that the purchase of the codes shows anything more than intent.

It certainly does not prove that the defendant actually used the codes.

The RIAA wins case after case for simply downloading music from a file sharer. They never have to prove that you actually listened to the music you illegally downloaded.

There is no viable defense to asking for and accepting IKS server access codes.

There is a strong inference that you actually used the codes that cannot be overcome by any rational explanation to the alternative.

[fifties]

The RIAA wins case after case for simply downloading music from a file sharer. They never have to prove that you actually listened to the music you illegally downloaded.

There is no viable defense to asking for and accepting IKS server access codes.

There is a strong inference that you actually used the codes that cannot be overcome by any rational explanation to the alternative.
Downloading music from a file sharer would be akin to proof -ISP logs, for example- that one connected to an IKS server, and in that case, the plaintiff wins, no argument.

Paying for and receiving IKS codes all by itself proves nothing, beyond possible intent.

[Nostradamus]

well maybe purchasing codes would show more than intent. what would happen if the ones getting the letters had made more than one purchase on different dates? Now that would look like a little more than intent

[fifties]

well maybe purchasing codes would show more than intent. what would happen if the ones getting the letters had made more than one purchase on different dates? Now that would look like a little more than intent
"I was going to use it with an IKS server, but never got around to purchasing a receiver. I also bought one later on for my girlfriend to use, but she then decided against it".

Remember, as long as they can show no proof of either a receiver, or connection to the server, all they have is/are code purchase(s). We haven't seen where it has been established that ownership of the codes has been determined to be illegal.

Cases (wisely) settled out of court in the DA situation -where the plaintiff had server information, can't be displayed as an example because of that reason.

[dishuser]

"I was going to use it with an IKS server, but never got around to purchasing a receiver. I also bought one later on for my girlfriend to use, but she then decided against it".

Remember, as long as they can show no proof of either a receiver, or connection to the server, all they have is/are code purchase(s). We haven't seen where it has been established that ownership of the codes has been determined to be illegal.

Cases (wisely) settled out of court in the DA situation -where the plaintiff had server information, can't be displayed as an example because of that reason.what server info was used in the DA cases?they showed the paper trail

[fifties]

what server info was used in the DA cases?they showed the paper trail
I never saw the complaint, nor the evidence, used in the DA cases.

Do you know what the paper trail consisted of?

[Nostradamus]

sure that is going to fly with a judge, yeah I bought one for me I never used and then I bought one for the old lady and never used that etc. etc. There are some things in this world that...

[fifties]

Lol, where do you get that? Anyone actually going to court would be crazy not to be represented by an attorney, because they are gonna have one. <br />
<br />
And as I had posted, in case you missed it;

[dishuser]

I never saw the complaint, nor the evidence, used in the DA cases.

Do you know what the paper trail consisted of?it showed the transactions between clients and justin

[Hannibalector]

Again why are you saying they have to prove useage for it to be more likely than not. Is it more likely than not that you subscribed to private server that provided the control words to decrypt their signal to access their signals illegally ? or its more likely not that you didn't. ?


I think preponderance of the evidence tilts their way.



GS2

bingo the seeder is the one that actually DECRYPTED the signal

Downloading music from a file sharer would be akin to proof -ISP logs, for example- that one connected to an IKS server, and in that case, the plaintiff wins, no argument.

Paying for and receiving IKS codes all by itself proves nothing, beyond possible intent.

for once fifties I'm going to agree with you...lol, simply possesion or intent of purchase means squat of actual use of CW's without a box and a bin with a Nagra image on it those CW's can't do squat, CW's themselves are useless and have no means of decryption without a nagra image, as stated to GS2 the seeder is decrypting, yes it's parsing the obvious but nonetheless that takes place 1st, wheres the proof theres a bin involved to decrypt anything ? wouldn't that matter ? lol

[iq180]

in the DA case they did not need a paper trail, they dont need to prove how you got the code, all they need to do is prove you used
a code and that was done with server logs, this case is not the same, they dont have the server logs, if they did this case would be
over and i would say its time to pay the man, i still think without the server logs they dont have good case, time will tell all,JMO.

[Nostradamus]

well how do you know they do not have server logs? and they could have went to the IP instead and got those logs. Both would show the same thing

[Hannibalector]

well how do you know they do not have server logs? and they could have went to the IP instead and got those logs. Both would show the same thing

is the service still ongoing or is it shut down ?

[dishuser]

in the DA case they did not need a paper trail, they dont need to prove how you got the code, all they need to do is prove you used
a code and that was done with server logs, this case is not the same, they dont have the server logs, if they did this case would be
over and i would say its time to pay the man, i still think without the server logs they dont have good case, time will tell all,JMO.
then why did they show the records of purchase?

[Nostradamus]

is the service still ongoing or is it shut down ?

yeah it is still running to the best of my knowledge but who is at the helm? Not the point! did you even read my post? they could go to the defendents internet provider and obtain their logs instead. That would show connections as well

[Hannibalector]

yeah it is still running to the best of my knowledge but who is at the helm? Not the point! did you even read my post? they could go to the defendents internet provider and obtain their logs instead. That would show connections as well

yes I read your whole post...... lol, if the service is still running it's not Nagra at the helm, so I would stop guessing on that one, even if they had insiders and left it running that wouldn't fare to well in court, so that would leave it up to the ISP, damned ambulance chasers anyways....lol

[Hannibalector]

in any of the letters or from the people that recieved them did they have any evidence showing that records were obtained from there ISP ? was it in the court doc's

[iq180]

well how do you know they do not have server logs? and they could have went to the IP instead and got those logs. Both would show the same thing
thats is my point, we dont know and want know untill the case goes to court, then we will know what they have or dont have.

[alex70olds]

in any of the letters or from the people that recieved them did they have any evidence showing that records were obtained from there ISP ? was it in the court doc's
I dont understand how you can come here and argue a point, one way or another, without knowing any of the facts.

[Hannibalector]

I dont understand how you can come here and argue a point, one way or another, without knowing any of the facts.

just asking a few questions alex that's all ....you ok this morning you sound a bit irritable ?

[Nostradamus]

thats is my point, we dont know and want know untill the case goes to court, then we will know what they have or dont have.
well then I guess you will never find out because there is somebody with a big stack of money to burn they will just settle out of court because that is the cheapest way out and then DN has to reveal nothing more than they already have but I am betting if it went to court any place that DN has more then one ace up their sleeve

[alex70olds]

just asking a few questions alex that's all ....you ok this morning you sound a bit irritable ?

Ah you know, was just hoping we could maintain a certain level of intelligent conversation in here. ;)

[Hannibalector]

Ah you know, was just hoping we could maintain a certain level of intelligent conversation in here. ;)

ooooh such wit alex, I guess I'm tired of seeing people get rail roaded over things (yes it's there fault) with regards to extortion, I wonder what Nagra will say to the content providers at the Nab show convention next month with regards to being asked if there signal is secure and there answer is umm no the encrytpion pops out CW's like a vending machine but were doing everything we can to eliminate piracy by sending people over to direct after charging them 3500 dollars, wouldn't you think it's better to come out with a cam that has no way of being intercepted between card and ird ? wouldn't that be more inline with securing a signal ? isn't that Kudelski's / Nagra's job ? signal integrity ?

I know it's not viewed as extortion alex, but I'm asking things in a succession to find answers thats all, you never know what bright minds there are out there alex

[Hannibalector]

this has been ongoing for over 2 years now with no end in sight everything just gets shifted from one spot to another in a 3 card monty game and the results have not changed, IKS is still going and the signal has not changed one aiota.

Nagra has a chance to put an end to the IKS crap and they choose not to, instead they choose to chase ambulances

[alex70olds]

Ok HL, when you have something of value to add to the subject of this thread, please post it. The soap box routine may add to your self proclaimed celeb status, but adds nothing of value to the content of this thread.

Thanks for understanding,

@13X

[iq180]

well then I guess you will never find out because there is somebody with a big stack of money to burn they will just settle out of court because that is the cheapest way out and then DN has to reveal nothing more than they already have but I am betting if it went to court any place that DN has more then one ace up their sleeve
never say never, lol, they mite piss off some one with money that will go all the way to court.

[Nostradamus]

never say never, lol, they mite piss off some one with money that will go all the way to court.

there is always that chance but like I said they would need to have more money than brains to spend $10 - 15K on court and lawyer fees on the chance of getting things dropped than to just pay $3500 and forget about it.

[iq180]

i have been thinking about this for some time now but what if the server had some legal use other than iks, like a forum or somthing, would that not make it hard for DN to prove that an end user was useing it for iks, that way it would have a legal use.

[Nostradamus]

i have been thinking about this for some time now but what if the server had some legal use other than iks, like a forum or somthing, would that not make it hard for DN to prove that an end user was useing it for iks, that way it would have a legal use.

I would think that it would be just the opposite as most legit sites have valid info in whois registration. That in itself would save the NCIS boys some legwork and they would approach that person asking about other services being offered on a different port. If the registrant is cloaked the way many of these sites are now it makes them look guilty again and you are back to where you are now.

[fifties]

All this speculation;

in the DA case, we DO know that they had sales records, and that alone may have been sufficient enough to convince the defendants to settle. I have not seen anything stating as to whether or not they also used server logs, as additional evidence. Since they seized the DA server, they most likely would have had that information as well.

The wufman case is entirely different. They DO have sales records, but so far, no one knows what, if anything else, they possess. No one has been to court over this so far, so no discovery has been exhibited, which would display exactly what their evidence is. We do not know, for certain, as to whether or not they have subpoenas to obtain ISP logs, which would be the smoking guns. Getting a judge to issue a court order for something so menial might or might not fly.

Wuf, as I understand, had access to the mod panel at the Z site, but I can't see how that would be damaging to any of the NFPS server subs.

[iq180]

I would think that it would be just the opposite as most legit sites have valid info in whois registration. That in itself would save the NCIS boys some legwork and they would approach that person asking about other services being offered on a different port. If the registrant is cloaked the way many of these sites are now it makes them look guilty again and you are back to where you are now.
i would think that would depend on what country that server was in and you know as well as i do that if DN could take that server
down they would have done so a long time ago.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

"I was going to use it with an IKS server, but never got around to purchasing a receiver. I also bought one later on for my girlfriend to use, but she then decided against it".

Remember, as long as they can show no proof of either a receiver, or connection to the server, all they have is/are code purchase(s). We haven't seen where it has been established that ownership of the codes has been determined to be illegal.

Cases (wisely) settled out of court in the DA situation -where the plaintiff had server information, can't be displayed as an example because of that reason.


Before you would say it was not illegal to have bins but then you saw a ruling that it was illegal. You really don't need a specific ruling that says ownership of codes is illegal therefore making legal without one. We rarely get rulings certaintly not from trial.


As far as not proving there is a receiver you have to go back and see where that applied as to what law. They allege violation of three separate acts in their claim.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

bingo the seeder is the one that actually DECRYPTED the signal


for once fifties I'm going to agree with you...lol, simply possesion or intent of purchase means squat of actual use of CW's without a box and a bin with a Nagra image on it those CW's can't do squat, CW's themselves are useless and have no means of decryption without a nagra image, as stated to GS2 the seeder is decrypting, yes it's parsing the obvious but nonetheless that takes place 1st, wheres the proof theres a bin involved to decrypt anything ? wouldn't that matter ? lol


So you think its legal to view signals without their authorization or without payment because your defense is that the seeder decrypted the signal.



If it was that easy then why is that defense not being used in any of the DA cases.


I think I court can determine that the intent of the purchase of a subscription to a server that enabled you to view signals unlawfully being the only purpuse is damaging in itself what your intent was.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

Ok HL, when you have something of value to add to the subject of this thread, please post it. The soap box routine may add to your self proclaimed celeb status, but adds nothing of value to the content of this thread.

Thanks for understanding,

@13X

value ? really ? I would hope that anyone that has recieved one of these letters has had enough sense to obtain a lawyer and for that lawyer to ask exactly what evidence they have in order to proceed past a demand letter, I mean everything, right down to the meat of things as in the CW's the bin the box the decryption, evidence more then purchase and nics kept on a spreadsheet and (donations) made to saving the whales, thats called due dilligence before capitulating to demands of $3500, I've read the docs alex so to say I have no clue is ok by me, as for celeb status ? thats not me, allthough trying to bring light to the corrupt nature of the ambulance chasers and the board rooms by way of trying to get Alex Jones to accept a spot in his buzy agenda to take a look at the past corruption is the story not me

[Hannibalector]

So you think its legal to view signals without their authorization or without payment because your defense is that the seeder decrypted the signal.



If it was that easy then why is that defense not being used in any of the DA cases.


I think I court can determine that the intent of the purchase of a subscription to a server that enabled you to view signals unlawfully being the only purpuse is damaging in itself what your intent was.



GS2

it's two fold think about it

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

well then I guess you will never find out because there is somebody with a big stack of money to burn they will just settle out of court because that is the cheapest way out and then DN has to reveal nothing more than they already have but I am betting if it went to court any place that DN has more then one ace up their sleeve


Right evidence would come out later during discovery if someone files a defense and it gets to that stage.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

ooooh such wit alex, I guess I'm tired of seeing people get rail roaded over things (yes it's there fault) with regards to extortion, I wonder what Nagra will say to the content providers at the Nab show convention next month with regards to being asked if there signal is secure and there answer is umm no the encrytpion pops out CW's like a vending machine but were doing everything we can to eliminate piracy by sending people over to direct after charging them 3500 dollars, wouldn't you think it's better to come out with a cam that has no way of being intercepted between card and ird ? wouldn't that be more inline with securing a signal ? isn't that Kudelski's / Nagra's job ? signal integrity ?

I know it's not viewed as extortion alex, but I'm asking things in a succession to find answers thats all, you never know what bright minds there are out there alex



Its not viewed as extortion because demand letters are not extortion. Actually they give an opportunity to a defendant to settle before an action is filled if they wish.




GS2

[Hannibalector]

Its not viewed as extortion because demand letters are not extortion. Actually they give an opportunity to a defendant to settle before an action is filled if they wish.



GS2

I'm glad to see you're a glass is half full kinda guy

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

this has been ongoing for over 2 years now with no end in sight everything just gets shifted from one spot to another in a 3 card monty game and the results have not changed, IKS is still going and the signal has not changed one aiota.

Nagra has a chance to put an end to the IKS crap and they choose not to, instead they choose to chase ambulances


Yes rumors are that they are on to nag 4 and I guess you think they purpoesly put out weak encryptions so they have the ability to go to court while probably dealing with big penalties and loss of potential business.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

value ? really ? I would hope that anyone that has recieved one of these letters has had enough sense to obtain a lawyer and for that lawyer to ask exactly what evidence they have in order to proceed past a demand letter, I mean everything, right down to the meat of things as in the CW's the bin the box the decryption, evidence more then purchase and nics kept on a spreadsheet and (donations) made to saving the whales, thats called due dilligence before capitulating to demands of $3500, I've read the docs alex so to say I have no clue is ok by me, as for celeb status ? thats not me, allthough trying to bring light to the corrupt nature of the ambulance chasers and the board rooms by way of trying to get Alex Jones to accept a spot in his buzy agenda to take a look at the past corruption is the story not me



So you think all a lawyer has to do is ask what evidence they have on a a demand letter and they will just say here it is. It does not work that way.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I'm glad to see you're a glass is half full kinda guy


I don't know what that means or how it relates to demand letters adding up to extortion. I have used demand letters and and so have millions. Its common practice and courts prefer that you use a demand letter before you file an action.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

Yes rumors are that they are on to nag 4 and I guess you think they purpoesly put out weak encryptions so they have the ability to go to court while probably dealing with big penalties and loss of potential business.



GS2

one added measure over N2 and that was suppose to be the lynch pin in securing the deal for Kudelski in a long term contract to secure Echo, Europe and North America had IKS going immediately, you tell me how that was to the benefit of DN, if N4 is in the works in no way can there be communication between ird and cam thats a fact, the only way thats possible is a card swap and or ird cam swap, if so I wish them luck with N4

[Hannibalector]

let me rephrase interceptable communication

[Nostradamus]

if so I wish them luck with N4

I guess that must be a tongue in cheek type of comment as I really don't believe you mean that :) after all what would you talk about then?

[alex70olds]

This is exactly what I was talking about.


ooooh such wit alex, I guess I'm tired of seeing people get rail roaded over things (yes it's there fault) with regards to extortion, I wonder what Nagra will say to the content providers at the Nab show convention next month with regards to being asked if there signal is secure and there answer is umm no the encrytpion pops out CW's like a vending machine but were doing everything we can to eliminate piracy by sending people over to direct after charging them 3500 dollars, wouldn't you think it's better to come out with a cam that has no way of being intercepted between card and ird ? wouldn't that be more inline with securing a signal ? isn't that Kudelski's / Nagra's job ? signal integrity ?

I know it's not viewed as extortion alex, but I'm asking things in a succession to find answers thats all, you never know what bright minds there are out there alex

Since you have read the docs, you know that in every, every single case that dish has filed in federal court contains verbiage to the effect:
17596

This is all they need to meet their burden of encryption according to the DMCA. Every case they have ever filed. They don't have to meet NSA standards, or even be good at decryption to meet the standard. To fill these peeps heads that got letters full of nonsensical gibberish is just wrong, and counter productive to the discussion at hand.


bingo the seeder is the one that actually DECRYPTED the signal


for once fifties I'm going to agree with you...lol, simply possesion or intent of purchase means squat of actual use of CW's without a box and a bin with a Nagra image on it those CW's can't do squat, CW's themselves are useless and have no means of decryption without a nagra image, as stated to GS2 the seeder is decrypting, yes it's parsing the obvious but nonetheless that takes place 1st, wheres the proof theres a bin involved to decrypt anything ? wouldn't that matter ? lol

Again the gibberish soap box. The seeder does not decrypting the encrypted content, if it did, who would need an STB? it would just be streaming the programming. You obviously know this because you go on to say the seeders CW are useless with out the STB. :tehe:

Again in Civil court the burden of proof is only to show that it is more likely than not the enduser decrypted the encrypted content. Fact is, as stated numerous times in this thread, we dont know everything they have, but to crusade on crazy thoughts, does no one any good.

[Hannibalector]

This is exactly what I was talking about.



Since you have read the docs, you know that in every, every single case that dish has filed in federal court contains verbiage to the effect:
17596

This is all they need to meet their burden of encryption according to the DMCA. Every case they have ever filed. They don't have to meet NSA standards, or even be good at decryption to meet the standard. To fill these peeps heads that got letters full of nonsensical gibberish is just wrong, and counter productive to the discussion at hand.



Again the gibberish soap box. The seeder does not decrypting the encrypted content, if it did, who would need an STB? it would just be streaming the programming. You obviously know this because you go on to say the seeders CW are useless with out the STB. :tehe:

Again in Civil court the burden of proof is only to show that it is more likely than not the enduser decrypted the encrypted content. Fact is, as stated numerous times in this thread, we dont know everything they have, but to crusade on crazy thoughts, does no one any good.

where the hell do you get off suggesting I'm filling peoples heads with nonsensicle information ? I have told people to seek legal council and ask for all information they have before hand, don't ever suggest a low blow like that again to suit you and your ego alex, how many people did it take to go through the gibberish during DTV days before it was finally determined lack of proof or other means of use.

the seeder does so decrypt the CW's ffs, how else is it done ? smoke and mirrors ? you can't get sh*t from an STB alone alex but you know that and fail to answer that because the presents of a BIN is required as well, at least one that has N2 or Nagra on it right ? am I right alex ? tell everyone right now to fold there tents and go away wheres that going to leave things ?

[alex70olds]

where the hell do you get off suggesting I'm filling peoples heads with nonsensicle information ? I have told people to seek legal council and ask for all information they have before hand, don't ever suggest a low blow like that again to suit you and your ego alex, how many people did it take to go through the gibberish during DTV days before it was finally determined lack of proof or other means of use.

the seeder does so decrypt the CW's ffs, how else is it done ? smoke and mirrors ? you can't get sh*t from an STB alone alex but you know that and fail to answer that because the presents of a BIN is required as well, at least one that has N2 or Nagra on it right ? am I right alex ? tell everyone right now to fold there tents and go away wheres that going to leave things ?

No, you are not right. Not right at all.

[torpainter]

You might not agree with each others opinions but I will not allow this thread to digress into name calling
Lets all agree to that!!!
Thank you

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

where the hell do you get off suggesting I'm filling peoples heads with nonsensicle information ? I have told people to seek legal council and ask for all information they have before hand, don't ever suggest a low blow like that again to suit you and your ego alex, how many people did it take to go through the gibberish during DTV days before it was finally determined lack of proof or other means of use.

the seeder does so decrypt the CW's ffs, how else is it done ? smoke and mirrors ? you can't get sh*t from an STB alone alex but you know that and fail to answer that because the presents of a BIN is required as well, at least one that has N2 or Nagra on it right ? am I right alex ? tell everyone right now to fold there tents and go away wheres that going to leave things ?


A bin is not required. There is nothing in law that talks about a bin or that it is needed. If your watching their encrypted programming without their authorization than your circumventing their encryption. I don't think a court cares all that much how you did it. The only purpose of subscribing to that server was to do that and that is where the problem is. What it more likely than not. Again as mention by several people the proof required in Civil is a low standard.


The problem is these types of legal situations have been going on for a long time. Many now see things differently because of what has happened in court. So here we are again with people offering defenses like I didn't order it my sister did. They don't work. Go look back at threads like ones from DA with suggestions for defense. These are not lawyer thought up defenses and if any viable defense comes up it will be from a lawyer. I don't have to be a lawyer to say what I did. I hope there is some defense based on law but unlikely anyone is going to take it to trial to find out. Now if there are some technical problem like you were not served properly you can try that. That is a defense. If they don't have proper jurisdiction or you don't think so you can try that. These are based on law. Fifties mentions the court decision about purchase or possession not being interpretated as sufficient enough as a violation. That is based on law.




GS2

[dishuser]

are you forgetting about ird's?lol
where the hell do you get off suggesting I'm filling peoples heads with nonsensicle information ? I have told people to seek legal council and ask for all information they have before hand, don't ever suggest a low blow like that again to suit you and your ego alex, how many people did it take to go through the gibberish during DTV days before it was finally determined lack of proof or other means of use.

the seeder does so decrypt the CW's ffs, how else is it done ? smoke and mirrors ? you can't get sh*t from an STB alone alex but you know that and fail to answer that because the presents of a BIN is required as well, at least one that has N2 or Nagra on it right ? am I right alex ? tell everyone right now to fold there tents and go away wheres that going to leave things ?

[fifties]

Originally Posted by fifties
"I was going to use it with an IKS server, but never got around to purchasing a receiver. I also bought one later on for my girlfriend to use, but she then decided against it".

Remember, as long as they can show no proof of either a receiver, or connection to the server, all they have is/are code purchase(s). We haven't seen where it has been established that ownership of the codes has been determined to be illegal.

Cases (wisely) settled out of court in the DA situation -where the plaintiff had server information, can't be displayed as an example because of that reason.
Before you would say it was not illegal to have bins but then you saw a ruling that it was illegal. You really don't need a specific ruling that says ownership of codes is illegal therefore making legal without one. We rarely get rulings certaintly not from trial.


As far as not proving there is a receiver you have to go back and see where that applied as to what law. They allege violation of three separate acts in their claim.



GS2
Decryption bins, per se, were never declared illegal until the trial of TDG, wherein the judgment against him, some 55 million or so dollars, was based on how many times the bins he had provided were D/L from certain "FTA" sites.

Sites based in the U.S. that were directly hosting the bins would have been in violation of the law, had this ruling appeared before, so I would have to disagree with you that they were illegal, before being specifically adjudicated as such from a trial.

I believe that the DMCA does in fact refer in so many words to any device that can decrypt an encoded system, but apparently, given that laws are supposed to be construed in the broadest possible context, it seems that such devices have to be specified.
A case in point was where the RIAA sued a woman because she had a device (I can't remember what it was, H/W or S/W) that could have been used for D/L music, and they lost, because they couldn't prove that although she owned it, whether she actually used it for D/L music.

This specific type of evidence is important, because sans their proof that a defendant actually owns a satellite receiver, how do they prove that he used IKS codes? You stated that they allege three separate violations in their claim; all well and good for them, but can they prove their allegations? That's where evidence comes into play, and so far, all I've seen is a paper trail for purchase of codes, which by themselves do nothing.

If I buy bullets, does that mean that I killed someone with them, if you can't prove that I also own a firearm?

[Nostradamus]

If I buy bullets, does that mean that I killed someone with them, if you can't prove that I also own a firearm?

you are still mixing up criminal with civil so maybe I can make it easier for you. All you need in civil is circumstantial evidence you do not need absolute proof!

So here we go! yes you bought bullets, and then you and someone you despise are locked in a room together with your bullets and there just happens to be a gun there. A day later they unlock the room and you are sitting there and the other guy is laying in a heap with a hole in his head. Are you guilty? Not criminally without proof you pulled the trigger. But how do you look as far as police and everybody else is concerned? GUILTY! The odds are not very high that the guy offed himself just to frame you. You need to get over that hurdle of absolute proof in a civil suit and then you will see you really have no defense

[fifties]

All you need in civil is circumstantial evidence you do not need absolute proof!
News to me. Circumstantial is hardly, "a preponderance of the evidence"...The operative word here, is "evidence"...

When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence


You need to get over that hurdle of absolute proof in a civil suit and then you will see you really have no defense
See the above, "clear and convincing evidence" standard...

Ownership of codes to an IKS server, by themselves, prove absolutely nothing beyond possible intent. And intent, by itself, isn't enough to garner a judgment.

[Nostradamus]

well I am done dealing with you simply because you are unable to comprehend a simple concept. Here read your own definition and see if that sinks in ....

A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true

so I guess the real question is what do you have for evidence to refute the fact you bought a code? back to the law books there perry mason. Read those court docs really close. I haven't seen anywhere in them where they have accused anybody of using those codes. They do state what the codes are used for though but the way I interpret them is that they are accusing the defendants of buying the codes and not using them. So re-read a few and see if you can see where they actually accuse anybody who got that letter of using the code. Remember that is a legal document and the wording is very precise so it is not open to your off the wall speculation and assumptions. Ok fifties go for it! The ball is in your court

[Condor]

I usually dont get "tangled" in these discussions... But in civil cases there are many factors involved.... Here is another little quote from the "standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action"

"For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence......The majority of civil claims are subjected to a preponderance of evidence standard. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence."

So it's basically up to the judge as to how easy or difficult he wants to make it for the claimant..Of course if there is no jury involved..

[JCO]

you are still mixing up criminal with civil so maybe I can make it easier for you. All you need in civil is circumstantial evidence you do not need absolute proof!

So here we go! yes you bought bullets, and then you and someone you despise are locked in a room together with your bullets and there just happens to be a gun there. A day later they unlock the room and you are sitting there and the other guy is laying in a heap with a hole in his head. Are you guilty? Not criminally without proof you pulled the trigger. But how do you look as far as police and everybody else is concerned? GUILTY! The odds are not very high that the guy offed himself just to frame you. You need to get over that hurdle of absolute proof in a civil suit and then you will see you really have no defense

Come on now its obvious the guy comited suicide..

[fifties]

well I am done dealing with you simply because you are unable to comprehend a simple concept. Here read your own definition and see if that sinks in ....

A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true
Not my definition, that I posted here, but I agree with it.


so I guess the real question is what do you have for evidence to refute the fact you bought a code?
I never suggested denial of purchasing the code; if they have the paper trail, that is prima facie evidence, no question.


back to the law books there perry mason. Read those court docs really close. I haven't seen anywhere in them where they have accused anybody of using those codes.
What do you think they are suing for, then? "The defendant bought the codes, printed them out, and placed them on his mantel, so he could admire them?" Of course they are suggesting that the codes were used, by virtue of the fact that the defendant bought them. That's it...That's their case, short of ISP logs, and/or proof of ownership of a receiver. Is that, "a preponderance of the evidence"? If they could support the purchase of the codes, with one or both of the other items, then I would agree that they've tipped the scale enough.

They do state what the codes are used for though but the way I interpret them is that they are accusing the defendants of buying the codes and not using them. So re-read a few and see if you can see where they actually accuse anybody who got that letter of using the code. Remember that is a legal document and the wording is very precise so it is not open to your off the wall speculation and assumptions. Ok fifties go for it! The ball is in your court
Exactly! They are admitting that they cannot prove that the defendant used the codes; only that he purchased them. You are quite correct, legal documentation has to be exact and precise.

Too bad nothing has gone all the way to the courtroom, so we could all see what would be needed for one side to defeat the other.

You keep ignoring the lack of proof of hardware here. Dave lost a case when he was challenged to prove that the defendant owned a satellite dish, and couldn't, so don't be so quick to scoff at potential defenses.

[MarvinGardens]

Are you guilty? Not criminally without proof you pulled the trigger.

Actually with those facts you will also be found to be criminally guilty. Circumstantial evidence plays a big part in criminal trials. Criminal jurors can draw inferences from the facts and make a finding on those inferences.

For instance, you are sitting in your pickup on the side of a road miles from civilization. Engine is running and you are alone. A cop contacts you to see if you are ok and smells alcohol on your breath. Does a breath test and you have a 0.15% blood alcohol level. You are arrested for drunk driving and will be convicted of drunk driving.

Very strong inference that you drove the vehicle to that spot with at least a 0.08% blood alcohol level.

[JCO]

So I bought a pack of Zig Zag rolling papers, does that mean I rolled and smoked a doobie...LOL

[fifties]

So I bought a pack of Zig Zag rolling papers, does that mean I rolled and smoked a doobie...LOL
With THOSE dentures, nobody would believe it! ;)

[JCO]

Actually with those facts you will also be found to be criminally guilty. Circumstantial evidence plays a big part in criminal trials. Criminal jurors can draw inferences from the facts and make a finding on those inferences.

For instance, you are sitting in your pickup on the side of a road miles from civilization. Engine is running and you are alone. A cop contacts you to see if you are ok and smells alcohol on your breath. Does a breath test and you have a 0.15% blood alcohol level. You are arrested for drunk driving and will be convicted of drunk driving.

Very strong inference that you drove the vehicle to that spot with at least a 0.08% blood alcohol level.

You dont have to be driving just being in possesion of a vehicle over the limit gets you convicted... Same as if your ridding your bycycle over the legal limit and have a valid drivers licence you get convicted and loose your driving license.. HAppened to a giod friend of mine..

[Nostradamus]

or any motorized vehicle and that includes boats and lawnmowers LOL

back to the case in point I am not ignoring the hardware issue but I don't think anybody is going to have the balls to try that defense for a couple of reasons. One is there probably isn't anybody that bought the codes and had the letter that didn't have a box and an ulterior motive and secondly the way those complaints are filed it looks like Dn is going more for possession of the code itself as being an offense and would probably try to have that defense tossed out since they are not suing on those grounds. The thing is nobody knows how much info they have or how they obtained most of it and unless somebody really challenges them nobody will either so it will be the same old story when the next wave of letters hit whenever that may be

[Condor]

With THOSE dentures, nobody would believe it! ;)
LMAO.... They would find Plants growing in them.....Heheheheheeee

[Hannibalector]

well I am done dealing with you simply because you are unable to comprehend a simple concept. Here read your own definition and see if that sinks in ....

A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true

so I guess the real question is what do you have for evidence to refute the fact you bought a code? back to the law books there perry mason. Read those court docs really close. I haven't seen anywhere in them where they have accused anybody of using those codes. They do state what the codes are used for though but the way I interpret them is that they are accusing the defendants of buying the codes and not using them. So re-read a few and see if you can see where they actually accuse anybody who got that letter of using the code. Remember that is a legal document and the wording is very precise so it is not open to your off the wall speculation and assumptions. Ok fifties go for it! The ball is in your court

please try to respect someone other then yourself ?

[Hannibalector]

You might not agree with each others opinions but I will not allow this thread to digress into name calling
Lets all agree to that!!!
Thank you

no name calling and understand I respect alex if you have the need to thrust bs onto this as an Admin fly at it

[Hannibalector]

are you forgetting about ird's?lol

not at all.........

[fifties]

back to the case in point I am not ignoring the hardware issue but I don't think anybody is going to have the balls to try that defense for a couple of reasons. One is there probably isn't anybody that bought the codes and had the letter that didn't have a box and an ulterior motive
There's no question of the motive, which is proven from their purchase of the codes, and that would be a supporting issue.

The problem for them is, that they won't be able to prove that the defendant owns a "box".


and secondly the way those complaints are filed it looks like Dn is going more for possession of the code itself as being an offense and would probably try to have that defense tossed out since they are not suing on those grounds.
OK, NOW we are getting to the meat of the bone.

DN needs to have a case wherein the code is ID'd by a judge as being illegal to possess. Will that be enough for them to get a judgment, W/O showing any evidence that the defendant (1) had the means to de-scramble and receive their signal -such as ownership of a satellite receiver- and (2) connected to their server as proven by ISP or server logs? We have no court case(s) to go by, so far.


The thing is nobody knows how much info they have or how they obtained most of it and unless somebody really challenges them nobody will either
And we don't know how much they really need, as offered in the paragraph above.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Decryption bins, per se, were never declared illegal until the trial of TDG, wherein the judgment against him, some 55 million or so dollars, was based on how many times the bins he had provided were D/L from certain "FTA" sites.

Sites based in the U.S. that were directly hosting the bins would have been in violation of the law, had this ruling appeared before, so I would have to disagree with you that they were illegal, before being specifically adjudicated as such from a trial.

I believe that the DMCA does in fact refer in so many words to any device that can decrypt an encoded system, but apparently, given that laws are supposed to be construed in the broadest possible context, it seems that such devices have to be specified.
A case in point was where the RIAA sued a woman because she had a device (I can't remember what it was, H/W or S/W) that could have been used for D/L music, and they lost, because they couldn't prove that although she owned it, whether she actually used it for D/L music.

This specific type of evidence is important, because sans their proof that a defendant actually owns a satellite receiver, how do they prove that he used IKS codes? You stated that they allege three separate violations in their claim; all well and good for them, but can they prove their allegations? That's where evidence comes into play, and so far, all I've seen is a paper trail for purchase of codes, which by themselves do nothing.

If I buy bullets, does that mean that I killed someone with them, if you can't prove that I also own a firearm?



They were only ruled illegal only then because the issue went before a court but I think it was illegal from before. Its like saying it was not legal because no court ruled it was legal.


They don't go after every site and any site they did unfortunately they were successful.


As far as that case with the woman and music you have mentioned it before but I could not find it. Not saying it does not exist. Really all I found was defendants losing.


Its my view they don't have to prove the defendant used the codes. We don't agree on that. I feel if its more likely than not that the person bought the codes with the intent to access signals illegally than that is a problem. They don't show all their evidence until later. They could get evidence as a trial moves on if one does. If they have a case they will send out their goon investigators if need be to get evidence if they can find any. Defendants will be exposed during discovery. They don't know what questions will come. Some of them get caught lying. Anyone who has been through it will probably say I did not know they had what they did. We found out they went to neighbor's houses to get them to testify against their neighbor defendant. Defendant and probably anyone would not have forseen that. First time I saw that in a case. There is a factor of unknown.


Though if you argue your defense based on law they won't need to get investigators because your not saying you did not purchase the codes. Your saying its not illegal to buy codes which would support your position. I would not feel comfortable with that defense but its better I believe than saying your sister ordered it.




GS2

[fifties]

Its my view they don't have to prove the defendant used the codes.
Well I know that you've been through court trials in Canada in regards to satellite TV issues, so your opinion does carry some gravity.

I base my speculation about this on prior cases that Dave lost.

In addition to losing because he couldn't prove ownership of a dish, he also lost when, using the purchase of multiple boot boards as his evidence, the defendant displayed how he bought them to use in security doors, and purchased from a pirate satellite dealer because they offered the best price.

So there are defenses that will work, and the above examples might actually be useful as precedents in certain litigation.

Given that, paying the $3500 initially is going to be the cheapest way out, as I have posted several times before.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

What information would be in server logs. ?



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Well I know that you've been through court trials in Canada in regards to satellite TV issues, so your opinion does carry some gravity.

I base my speculation about this on prior cases that Dave lost.

In addition to losing because he couldn't prove ownership of a dish, he also lost when, using the purchase of multiple boot boards as his evidence, the defendant displayed how he bought them to use in security doors, and purchased from a pirate satellite dealer because they offered the best price.

So there are defenses that will work, and the above examples might actually be useful as precedents in certain litigation.

Given that, paying the $3500 initially is going to be the cheapest way out, as I have posted several times before.


Dave lost a case when they didn't show that defendant prossessed the necesarry equipment to intercept the signal. Perhaps that's the one your referring to with not proving ownership of a dish. ? That case was appealed and the defendant ended up settling after Dave made a motion to bring in 5 potential expert witnesses to testify plus supplying a CD- ROM to the defendant. It sounded like they had possibly had more evidence of sales of devices to the defendant on top of the unlooper they initially went after him for.


The defendant who was able to demonstrate that he bought devices for security doors did well. If you really can demonstrate you bought these code subcriptions for another purpose othen than the one they allege go for it. I don't know what other purpose there may be. But this is why the onus really shifts to the defendant to prove what he bought it for versus the Plaintiff proving it. They already allege what they say you bought the subscription for.


On the case where Dave lost on the mere possession on appeal it applies to 2512(1)(b). DN is alleging violation of 2511(1)(a) not 2512(1)(b)


They probably purposely stay away from citing that violation where the defendant won and remains in effect as the interpretation since there is no appeal from that decision. None of it reflects on the DMCA and the other violation they allege. It appears that Dave ruling loss is a non issue in the current cases although a lawyer would need to confirm that.




GS2

[fifties]

I would assume that they would show user IP's. <br />
<br />
<br />
Their case would appear to hinge solely on the purchase of the subscription. <br />
<br />
The counter could simply be, &quot;yes I bought it with the intention...

[dishuser]

not at all.........

really?
then why do you keep mentioning bins and stb's?

[dishuser]

There's no question of the motive, which is proven from their purchase of the codes, and that would be a supporting issue.

The problem for them is, that they won't be able to prove that the defendant owns a "box".


OK, NOW we are getting to the meat of the bone.

DN needs to have a case wherein the code is ID'd by a judge as being illegal to possess. Will that be enough for them to get a judgment, W/O showing any evidence that the defendant (1) had the means to de-scramble and receive their signal -such as ownership of a satellite receiver- and (2) connected to their server as proven by ISP or server logs? We have no court case(s) to go by, so far.


And we don't know how much they really need, as offered in the paragraph above.
have you still not read the DA cases?
they lost because they subscribed

[Hannibalector]

really?
then why do you keep mentioning bins and stb's?

are you forgetting about ird's?lol

[torpainter]

no name calling and understand I respect alex if you have the need to thrust bs onto this as an Admin fly at it


It was a comment directed to everyone so if you wish to continue this with me it'll be a short conversation

[hondoharry]

Who said anything about 'buying codes'? Weren't they donating to a poor guy with family problems? Never received any 'codes'.

[dishuser]

Who said anything about 'buying codes'? Weren't they donating to a poor guy with family problems? Never received any 'codes'.
good luck with that
wanna bet they have the emails and pm's with codes

[Hannibalector]

It was a comment directed to everyone so if you wish to continue this with me it'll be a short conversation

I'd much rather stick around and torment you for awhile if thats ok ?

[torpainter]

I'd much rather stick around and torment you for awhile if thats ok ?
Lol I have no issues personally with anyone as long as they behave

[Just_angel]

Lol I have no issues personally with anyone as long as they behave


LOL me neither i'm just watching quietly waiting for the sparks to fly!!!

popcorn anyone?

[Hannibalector]

A bin is not required. There is nothing in law that talks about a bin or that it is needed. If your watching their encrypted programming without their authorization than your circumventing their encryption. I don't think a court cares all that much how you did it. The only purpose of subscribing to that server was to do that and that is where the problem is. What it more likely than not. Again as mention by several people the proof required in Civil is a low standard.




















The problem is these types of legal situations have been going on for a long time. Many now see things differently because of what has happened in court. So here we are again with people offering defenses like I didn't order it my sister did. They don't work. Go look back at threads like ones from DA with suggestions for defense. These are not lawyer thought up defenses and if any viable defense comes up it will be from a lawyer. I don't have to be a lawyer to say what I did. I hope there is some defense based on law but unlikely anyone is going to take it to trial to find out. Now if there are some technical problem like you were not served properly you can try that. That is a defense. If they don't have proper jurisdiction or you don't think so you can try that. These are based on law. Fifties mentions the court decision about purchase or possession not being interpretated as sufficient enough as a violation. That is based on law.




GS2

the part in bold is the dumbest thing I've heard you say in along time and you're a pretty smart fella, of course it's required GS2 you can't circumvent without it there has to be a bin present with a Nagra image on it, it's needed ....lol

[Hannibalector]

LOL me neither i'm just watching quietly waiting for the sparks to fly!!!

popcorn anyone?

no flying sparks J_a, I'm not here to cause anyone any grief, seriously ...lol

[MarvinGardens]

I've attached a complaint and motion for default judgment from a DA case.

You will see that DN did not have to allege and prove ownership of satellite equipment to get their default judgment.

All that was needed was to prove subscription to an IKS service.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Its just not a subscription its a subscription to an illegal service. If the defendant says he bought it to use it but never did than I don't think that would be good because hes saying he bought it...

[surfinisfun]

I've attached a complaint and motion for default judgment from a DA case.

You will see that DN did not have to allege and prove ownership of satellite equipment to get their default judgment.

All that was needed was to prove subscription to an IKS service.

They also had server logs to back them up so lets not distort what they had or didn't.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

the part in bold is the dumbest thing I've heard you say in along time and you're a pretty smart fella, of course it's required GS2 you can't circumvent without it there has to be a bin present with a Nagra image on it, it's needed ....lol


No its not required. Really you need to read the law. It doesn't matter how you circumvent the encryption. What your trying to say is I am innocent if they can't prove I had a bin. That is pretty dumb in my opinion. That really will not help any defendant.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

No its not required. Really you need to read the law. It doesn't matter how you circumvent the encryption. What your trying to say is I am innocent if they can't prove I had a bin. That is pretty dumb in my opinion. That really will not help any defendant.


GS2

it is so required, jeez, you can't circumvent without it, what part of that don't you understand ?

[MarvinGardens]

They also had server logs to back them up so lets not distort what they had or didn't.

DN did not have to even allege or present any server logs to get their judgment from the court.

[surfinisfun]

DN did not have to even allege or present any server logs to get their judgment from the court.

Gee,j...I wonder why.

[alex70olds]

Great discussion. I did think DN had a slam dunk, but do they? Still only 9 cases filed, the last Jan 30. I cant imagine everyone else has settled. I also find it kind of funny a user in this thread (jacksonj) registered and made 13 posts, all in this thread urging people to settle. I am sure his username initials are just a coincidence. lol :P

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

it is so required, jeez, you can't circumvent without it, what part of that don't you understand ?


If defendants are found guilty by preponderance of the evidence by puchasing codes do you think it was proved that the defendant had a bin or that they even tried.


So where is this requirement in law. I can not find it. Now you tell me what part of that you did not understand. This bin requirement according to you does not exist in law.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

I've attached a complaint and motion for default judgment from a DA case.

You will see that DN did not have to allege and prove ownership of satellite equipment to get their default judgment.

All that was needed was to prove subscription to an IKS service.

hmm just read this part in the case file:

To access the IKS server, the defendent used a pirate sattelite reciever loaded with piracy software, which is a software device designed to circumvent.

number 26 in Defendents wrongful conduct

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

hmm just read this part in the case file:

To access the IKS server, the defendent used a pirate sattelite reciever loaded with piracy software, which is a software device designed to circumvent


They alleged it. They did not prove the defendant owned a sat receiver. They did not have to for the default judgment. It went uncontested.




GS2

[surfinisfun]

Let me pose a question: If a Grandmother in Florida went on line and bought a code,now keep in mind she is in a retirement housing facility with no dish's allowed.

Are they going to come after her for this purchase?......is it still illegal?

[alex70olds]

They alleged it. They did not prove the defendant owned a sat receiver. They did not have to for the default judgment. It went uncontested.




GS2

Thanks, because I think everyone missed it was a default.

[Hannibalector]

GS2 read the case file, it's necessary, allthough in the case file theres no evidence of a download to any bins or files, it simply makes the assertion, thats right default thanks for pointing that out

[Hannibalector]

They alleged it. They did not prove the defendant owned a sat receiver. They did not have to for the default judgment. It went uncontested.



GS2

do you think it's necessary to prove it in court ? if not why allege it ?

[MarvinGardens]

A court will not automatically grant a default judgment. If that were the situation everyone would be filing lawsuits in the hope that the defendant will not contest. Much better odds than playing the lottery.

The court still has to consider the evidence before it will grant the default. Motions for default judgment are regularly denied.

In the DA cases the court found that there was sufficient evidence before it (evidence that did not include ownership of sat equipment or server logs) to grant the judgment.

My point is that DN did not have to prove to the court that the defendant had the means to complete the copyright violation and that's why they will win with the current round of litigation.

Subscription to the IKS service is all the evidence they need.

[Hannibalector]

just say you're right Hanni and we can get passed this little issue ....lol kidding

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

do you think it's necessary to prove it in court ? if not why allege it ?


They have to explain to the court how this works so it will make sense. I do not think its necesarry to prove. It will be up to the defendant to prove why he/she purchased the codes from an illegal service.



GS2

[alex70olds]

A court will not automatically grant a default judgment. If that were the situation everyone would be filing lawsuits in the hope that the defendant will not contest. Much better odds than playing the lottery.

The court still has to consider the evidence before it will grant the default. Motions for default judgment are regularly denied.

In the DA cases the court found that there was sufficient evidence before it (evidence that did not include ownership of sat equipment or server logs) to grant the judgment.

My point is that DN did not have to prove to the court that the defendant had the means to complete the copyright violation and that's why they will win with the current round of litigation.

Subscription to the IKS service is all the evidence they need.

I agree with most everything you posted except this. cite me one case were a default judgement was denied were proper service was made. Let me know the case and I will pull the PACER docs. I have been wrong before, always willing to learn.

[MarvinGardens]

I agree with most everything you posted except this. cite me one case were a default judgement was denied were proper service was made. Let me know the case and I will pull the PACER docs. I have been wrong before, always willing to learn.

Like I said, if it were automatic it would be better than playing the lottery.

Do a google search. Here's one:



http://www.arb.uscourts.gov/orders-rules-opinions/opinions/evans/Bryant.pdf


Here's another one:


http://www.semmes.com/publications/cases/default-judgment-case.asp

And another:


http://louisianarecord.com/news/234028-clerk-denies-plaintiffs-request-for-default-judgment-in-who-dat-case

[Just_angel]

no live links please.......

[ICEMAN]

ooppsss JA we both killed links at the same time..lol thanks

[alex70olds]

Like I said, if it were automatic it would be better than playing the lottery.

Do a google search. Here's one:



http://www.arb.uscourts.gov/orders-rules-opinions/opinions/evans/Bryant.pdf

In this case, the plaintiff was filing for a default Judgement, before an entry of default. In fact you are correct that the ruling was against an entry of default, but the defendat did reply, only 5 days late. In the echo cases they usually dont even file for default until aprox 90 days after proof of service.Again, I did not say it was automatic after 30 days, only it is automatic if no response, and defendant is not an infant nor in military service


Here's another one:


http://www.semmes.com/publications/cases/default-judgment-case.asp

Again in this case, you are confusing motion for default vs motion for default judgement. Of course a judgement is not automatic, but defaulting on the case is. A motion for default judgement is always reviewed by the judge, and damages awarded by the judge.



And another:


http://louisianarecord.com/news/234028-clerk-denies-plaintiffs-request-for-default-judgment-in-who-dat-case

Again Motion for default is not and completely seperate from default judgement. In fact, the assessed damages in BPG's case were lowered to 25K by the judge in the default judgement stage. That said, once a default judgement was entered in the DA cases of 10K, Dish used it as precident, and it was as close to automatic as you can get.

In the first case you cited, it shows the difference between default, and default judgement.


In addressing Plaintiffs’ Application and Motion, it is important to distinguish
between the entry of a “default” and the entry of a “default judgment.” Federal Rule of Civil
EOD
by L Schacherbauer
7/20/2010
1:10-ap-01068 Doc#: 14 Filed: 07/20/10 Entered: 07/20/10 16:26:14 Page 1 of 4
Procedure 55 concerning default applies to adversary proceedings. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055.
“The entry of the default by the Clerk under Federal Rule 55(a) is a docket entry.” Editor’s
Comment, Bankruptcy Rule 7055. If a party fails to plead or otherwise defend against a
complaint and a default has been entered, the next step is the entry of a default judgment.
See Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 140 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1998) (citation and
internal quotes omitted) (“When a party has failed to plead or otherwise defend against a
pleading listed in [Federal Rule] 7(a), entry of default under [Federal Rule] 55(a) must
precede grant of a default judgment under [Federal Rule] 55(b).”)

Edit, lol I cited judgement. My bad, I meant default. Thanks, I should have known better, unfortunately, I am involved in civil cases. I was the one confused, not the first time, wont be the last lol.

[fifties]

I don't see anything displaying that DN has been challenged in court on their "allegation", demanding proof beyond the mere fact of a defendant purchasing codes. No evidence to support their usage, such as showing a log wherein they connected to the server, or proof of ownership of a dish and receiver.

A good defense lawyer might be able to beat them, given that their evidence is flimsy, but it would cost well more than the $3500 initial letter demand.

What they have managed to do, apparently, is develop a precedent for future cases, by virtue of simply alleging theft of their service, and using the fact of purchase of codes as their only evidence.

You have to wonder why they haven't started an onslaught of letter mailing then, since they seem to have their (legal) ducks in a row.

[1boxman]

I pointed out kinda of the same thing..and if ..well we are sure they have evidence ..from a reseller ..and sure .have probed for more . Why they haven't said as much in letters .

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Plaintiffs simply don't show all their evidence in a complaint. It will come out with testimony, affidavits, papers, photos, emails, messages, etc later on . You can assume they have nothing else...

[alex70olds]

Like I said, if it were automatic it would be better than playing the lottery.



To further your point (And I did learn something) and also for some ammo of those with letters, please see attached.

17604