Busted

[sodusme]

I think someone accused of this should flat out ask them in court "So you can show a traffic analysis of these control words having went to i.p. 123.456.789.000 right"? Or ask them to cough up some ISP records? That would IMO be a sure fire to kill this off. Because lets face it I seriously doubt they have any traffic records of this copyright infringement. By the time this makes it to court most ISP's don't have traffic records anymore. Depending on the ISP they may be purging those every 30 or 90 days.

I mean at that point hell what do you have to lose?

[kutter]

I think someone accused of this should flat out ask them in court "So you can show a traffic analysis of these control words having went to i.p. 123.456.789.000 right"? Or ask them to cough up some ISP records? That would IMO be a sure fire to kill this off. Because lets face it I seriously doubt they have any traffic records of this copyright infringement. By the time this makes it to court most ISP's don't have traffic records anymore. Depending on the ISP they may be purging those every 30 or 90 days.

I mean at that point hell what do you have to lose?

there's 2 sides to an IKS connection ... and your receiver communicates with the server a few times a minute ... all your requests as well as the replies are at both ends ... so there's more than one way to analyze the traffic ...

if you didn't pay the $3500 and went to court then of course you have nothing to lose by trying any and all arguments. At that point you have nothing to lose.

[sodusme]

Something just struck me as amusing that is posted on the ultimate "scam" site I'm sure you folks know what I'm referring to:


Is a FTA box with IKS traceable?

YES, absolutely. All IP addresses as well as mac addresses (your digital fingerprint) are stored in the offshore server, this unique address is required in order for the offshore server to send the information.

There are numerous ways to trace these incoming and outgoing connections including the obvious server and end user ISP trace routs. These include previously and presently obtained IKS servers, legally obtained search and seizure warrants. Tracing subscribed receivers used for IKS.

In the digital age NOTHING is untraceable. And all piracy modes are eventually obtained.

So my "digital footprint" is stored huh? Nope sorry ultimate scam site but you missed the mark on that one. Your PC MAC address is never passed from your ISP's WAN gateway. The packet is stripped down at that point and the MAC of that router is included in the packet and then the packet is torn down again at the next hop and the process is repeated with each "hop" or router inserting its own MAC into the packet so the only MAC that is seen is from the last router in the path of your connection to the server. So I'm curious what "digital footprint" is stored on the offshore server? Perhaps the MAC from the dongle or receiver is what they are referring to but that's not linked to you or your ISP in any way, shape or form. Or its the MAC from the last router in the path. Either way its definitely no the IKS users "digital footprint". LOL

Funny thing is if there are "numerous" ways to do all this tracing then hell do it is what I say. Why is there never any mention of these traces or incoming and outgoing connections? LOL I would think if you have them then they would certainly help a case to include them....right?

Oh wait I know the reason 'cause they are full of sh*t and they don't really have them. LOL That is closer to the truth.

[sodusme]

there's 2 sides to an IKS connection ... and your receiver communicates with the server a few times a minute ... all your requests as well as the replies are at both ends ... so there's more than one way to analyze the traffic ...

if you didn't pay the $3500 and went to court then of course you have nothing to lose by trying any and all arguments. At that point you have nothing to lose.

Funny thing is though like my post before this one says they never include these in a court case. Why not? I mean I would think that would be the death blow with no possible defense to be mounted. You can't lie about internet traffic.

I realize the traffic is seen on both ends but what are they using to "capture" this? They aren't using anything server side I can assure you of that for the simple fact they (D/N) would have to be in possession of the server and they are not. Now that leaves client side. So are they subpoenaing ISP records? I don't ever read anything about that not to mention ISP retention records vary from ISP to ISP with some only keeping them for 30 days. After those are gone they are gone.

I'm not trying to be a smart*ss here really but what other ways are you referring to to "analyze" the traffic? I'm just curious if I'm forgetting something here?

[kutter]

Something just struck me as amusing that is posted on the ultimate "scam" site I'm sure you folks know what I'm referring to:



So my "digital footprint" is stored huh? Nope sorry ultimate scam site but you missed the mark on that one. Your PC MAC address is never passed from your ISP's WAN gateway. The packet is stripped down at that point and the MAC of that router is included in the packet and then the packet is torn down again at the next hop and the process is repeated with each "hop" or router inserting its own MAC into the packet so the only MAC that is seen is from the last router in the path of your connection to the server. So I'm curious what "digital footprint" is stored on the offshore server? Perhaps the MAC from the dongle or receiver is what they are referring to but that's not linked to you or your ISP in any way, shape or form. Or its the MAC from the last router in the path. Either way its definitely no the IKS users "digital footprint". LOL

Funny thing is if there are "numerous" ways to do all this tracing then hell do it is what I say. Why is there never any mention of these traces or incoming and outgoing connections? LOL I would think if you have them then they would certainly help a case to include them....right?

Oh wait I know the reason 'cause they are full of sh*t and they don't really have them. LOL That is closer to the truth.

You're correct. It is never passed ... at least not in the headers :)

[sodusme]

You're correct. It is never passed ... at least not in the headers :)

Its never passed period.

Its a layer 2 transmission which means it ends once the packet reaches layer 3 of the OSI model. Its done that way first and foremost because routers are layer 3 devices which means they pass on packets based on i.p.'s and they do not pass on MAC's from layer 2. Secondly because its easier to trace a packet to the last hop or router that dropped it that way instead of having to trace the packet all the way back to its origination.

The only way a MAC can be passed from your local PC to a server is with a malicious Javascript request.

[bigbadbrother]

Something that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread. DN has far,far more money then everyone at this site combined and can keep a person in court till ten years after the sun goes nova. they can spend millions on one person just to make a point while their attorneys argue every single point. how many here can afford to keep up a defense? bills need to be paid, food for the table and the cost of having a life. so who do you think would win? maybe some here think they could put up a front to this but they are wrong plain and simple.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Actually that is my debate from earlier pages they cannot prove you received control words. How can they? They would have to capture traffic in real time from that server to your PC (or subpoena ISP records). The same thing that someone claiming a music video or song was pirated would have to do. They have an i.p., they have a Paypal address, they may or may not have PM's and forum posts from you. If all they have is an i.p. and Paypal you could potentially make the claim that you didn't watch anything. I know even though you paid for the sub you didn't watch anything but that is not that far fetched of a defense. Can they prove you did? They add up sums in these court cases based on pricing on what they say they lost and I can guarantee you that most if not all of these individuals didn't watch half of what their damages claim they did.

The burden of proof should be on THEM to prove you DID watch it not the other way around and lets be honest here there is no way in hell they can prove you did. So they have an i.p.---again that doesn't signify an individual and it doesn't signify that packets actaully passed to any particular PC at all.

This is why this whole DMCA clause is flawed. Its based on "possession" and "purchase" of some codes and NOT based on "copyright infringement" like its meant to be. It can't be because there is no way they can prove you watched anything unless they could get a hold of ISP records and by the time they are compiling these court cases most of the ISP's have long since purged any traffic records.




The burden of proof as you know is by preponderance of the evidence. Its the weight of the evidence. They need not prove you watch it. You would come to appreciate that if your ever a plaintiff that has filled a lawsuit. If you have a business where people are stealing from it ask yourself what you think should be fair as far as evidence for you to win against those people. Courts can reason whether its more likely than not and they need to be able to do that for all Civil litigation. But even in Criminal cases and murders cases to boot circumstantial evidence can meet the burden of proof in a criminal case without the actual proof of seeing the person having committed the murder nor at times even needing a body to prove there was a murder.




GS2

[Anubis]

Something that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread. DN has far,far more money then everyone at this site combined and can keep a person in court till ten years after the sun goes nova. they can spend millions on one person just to make a point while their attorneys argue every single point. how many here can afford to keep up a defense? bills need to be paid, food for the table and the cost of having a life. so who do you think would win? maybe some here think they could put up a front to this but they are wrong plain and simple.

It's been mentioned previously.;)

[sodusme]

Honestly if I was a business owner operating a pay TV service I would provide packages that people actually wanted to watch so the need to steal from me wasn't so great in the first place. Secondly...

[sandiver]

Time for a reality check.

How many people do a google search for free tv and get a ton of results? (actually About 3,760,000,000 results (0.23 seconds)

How many people have been suckered into the 3000 free channels scheme and paid only to find out it's a list of websites?

How many people bought into a IPTV solution only to find out they don't have enough band width to support streaming?

How many people bought a code from a dealer or anyone and asked for their money back because they couldn't figure out how to make it work?

How many people bought a receiver and code only then to find out they needed a satellite dish installed on their roof and said the hell with it?

How many after all this they get a stinking letter asking for $3500 accusing them of stealing tv and they never even figured how to get the damn thing to work?

This legal letter sounds like a total scam, they get hold of a IP address and find a name and address and shoot off a boilerplate letter asking for $3500. Like most scams if they get a 1% success rate they just keep churning out the letters. Letters are cheap.

If they mention a seller you might ask what the rate of unsatisfied customers who asked for their money back, because they couldn't figure out how to make it work.

There are a lot of idiots out there (myself included) who never could figure out how to make it work and still wonder if the whole hobby is a scam.

Take that to court and see how they prove you stole tv.

End of lesson.

[Anubis]

Time for a reality check.

How many people do a google search for free tv and get a ton of results? (actually About 3,760,000,000 results (0.23 seconds)

How many people have been suckered into the 3000 free channels scheme and paid only to find out it's a list of websites?

How many people bought into a IPTV solution only to find out they don't have enough band width to support streaming?

How many people bought a code from a dealer or anyone and asked for their money back because they couldn't figure out how to make it work?

How many people bought a receiver and code only then to find out they needed a satellite dish installed on their roof and said the hell with it?

How many after all this they get a stinking letter asking for $3500 accusing them of stealing tv and they never even figured how to get the damn thing to work?

This legal letter sounds like a total scam, they get hold of a IP address and find a name and address and shoot off a boilerplate letter asking for $3500. Like most scams if they get a 1% success rate they just keep churning out the letters. Letters are cheap.

If they mention a seller you might ask what the rate of unsatisfied customers who asked for their money back, because they couldn't figure out how to make it work.

There are a lot of idiots out there (myself included) who never could figure out how to make it work and still wonder if the whole hobby is a scam.

Take that to court and see how they prove you stole tv.

End of lesson.

They got your info and that's all they need not to mention you just incriminated yourself in this post.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

If you don't want their service choose Dave or a cable company or whatever. Get an off air antenna. This idea that that the need to steal is because the packages are not good or prices are too high...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Time for a reality check.

How many people do a google search for free tv and get a ton of results? (actually About 3,760,000,000 results (0.23 seconds)

How many people have been suckered into the 3000 free channels scheme and paid only to find out it's a list of websites?

How many people bought into a IPTV solution only to find out they don't have enough band width to support streaming?

How many people bought a code from a dealer or anyone and asked for their money back because they couldn't figure out how to make it work?

How many people bought a receiver and code only then to find out they needed a satellite dish installed on their roof and said the hell with it?

How many after all this they get a stinking letter asking for $3500 accusing them of stealing tv and they never even figured how to get the damn thing to work?

This legal letter sounds like a total scam, they get hold of a IP address and find a name and address and shoot off a boilerplate letter asking for $3500. Like most scams if they get a 1% success rate they just keep churning out the letters. Letters are cheap.

If they mention a seller you might ask what the rate of unsatisfied customers who asked for their money back, because they couldn't figure out how to make it work.

There are a lot of idiots out there (myself included) who never could figure out how to make it work and still wonder if the whole hobby is a scam.

Take that to court and see how they prove you stole tv.

End of lesson.


I have bought many products that I could not get to work. In those cases I returned them for a refund. If I buy an illegal product or service I known darn well the risks involved in doing so.


When I buy something that is legal and get scammed I report it to the police. Not something your going to do when you buy an IKS subscription are you ? Your not about to try to sue the IKS server for a bad product/service are you ? And why would that be ?



GS2

[sodusme]

I'm not saying everyone should steal a signal because they don't agree with the packages offered. I'm saying as a business owner of a pay TV service I would make it how shall I say...."not as...

[dvp99ca]

I enjoyed reading this comments and as i put in a while back i dont think DN really cares about canucks stealing their signals because in Canada its illegal to even purchase a legit sub of any foreign company. So when Canadians go the iks route someone is still buying all the ppvs and all the premium channels and that way dish is still making hundreds and thousands of dollars per year with how many iks servers are out there right now. Dick net might catch one guy here and there so they can show the rcmp see look we got a major bust but they turn a blind eye to everyone else. RCMP in Canada states that encoding satellite signals is not a victimless crime that its taking money away from people who have families such as people who work for bell or rogers but the funny thing is how do u prove those guys using iks would subscribe to rogers or bell if they werent using iks. How do u prove that and take that to court?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Not sure how you can say you would do it differently when your really not in a position nor am I to comment on running that business differently. You or I have no idea about programming contracts,...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Let me pose to you what if a person bought the service for another family member or a friend or coworker? Should the person who bought it be liable because they bought it for someone else? Should they be held responsible even though they didn't use it?

What if you bought the service and then maybe your wife found out about it and didn't want you having any part of it. You already paid your money do you think the guy selling the service is gonna give you a refund for buyers remorse? Should that user be fined because he bought the service and then had his wife overrule his decision?

What if you bought the service and then your receiver quit working or your dongle quit working? You didn't have the money to invest into a new one so you said "Eh the hell with it". Should you be punished because you simply made a purchase that you didn't use?

What if as the other guy posted you just couldn't figure it out. You had no idea what a "port" was or "DNS" or any of that because you just weren't "intelligent" enough to figure it out. Should that guy be punished because he made a purchase and someone got popped and now his information is in the hands of D/N and Nagra? Should he be held liable?

In the boyfriend scenario at least there is some "investigation" and "evidence" of a crime where you have maybe a black eye or a bruise or a broken arm. You have cold hard evidence. Now whether the boyfriend actually did it would have to be "investigated". Typically boyfriends don't go to jail where the girlfriend says "But he purchased a set of brass knuckles online to beat me up with" and then the cops say "Well we have his Paypal records, we have his i.p. address, we have his email, hell we even have some forum posts about him talking about beating his wife---therefore he MUST be guilty". It doesn't work that way so why is it allowed to work this way in a civil case? Cold hard evidence CAN be provided. They choose not to. And furthermore they "brag" on the scam site about all this evidence they CAN provide but don't. I say don't brag about it hell put up or shut up is what I say.



Taken from the TDG case.




Ward has failed to refute
any allegations of undisputed fact offered by Plaintiffs except to summarily state that
Plaintiffs’ evidence shows that there is a genuine issue of fact concerning whether Ward
actually sent or posted the piracy software on the Internet and in messages. Specifically,
Ward argues that multiple people lived at his address and could have accessed his computer,
i.e., his son, with whom he operated a business, could have sent the piracy software, and/or
that a computer hacker could have sent the piracy software. Ward’s arguments, however, are
nothing more than blanket denials, and are unsupported in the record.
Importantly, Rule 56 (e) requires the nonmoving party to proffer evidence to establish
that a reasonable jury could rule in his favor: “The movant has the burden of showing that
there is no genuine issue of fact, but the [nonmovant] is not thereby relieved of his own
burden of producing in turn evidence that would support a jury verdict.”


If you think as the nonmovant in the case you can meet the burden with your evidence to support a verdict for you than go for it. You just saying it won't work. If your not intelligent enough to have figure it out as one of your examples and think you can prove it than you can try although seriously doubt you would be successful. Do you have any legit communication with the seller saying you could not get it to work, did you have any communication showing you asked for a refund. Any communication of anything. You were intelligent enough to go sign up for it. Besides in my opinion it would not matter than you bought an illegal service and were just not smart enough to make it work.


I think a lot of your suggestions could easily be labeled in court as blanket denials that are not supported.


GS2

[sodusme]

I'm sorry but the
evidence is you paid for a service that has one sole purpose and that is to steal the signal still doesn't prove you stole anything. It proves at best that you made a purchase....nothing more.

I'll revert back to the crimes you mentioned of OJ killing his g/f and her b/f or of the girlfriend accusing her boyfriend of beating her. In both of those scenarios you have cold hard irrefutable evidence that a crime actually took place. In the first you have a dead body---actually two dead bodies in OJ's g/f and her b/f. In the other you would probably have a battered girlfriend. There is "proof" of a crime being committed, I won't get into all the semantics of "who" did or could have committed said crime but you have a very easily, definable crime having been committed. There is no "guess" work of well its "more than likely" a crime occurred.

In these cases you have the purchase of some codes and that is the ONLY "crime" and I'll even add in the only perceived crime having been committed because these guys are unwilling to go the extra mile of tracking people down like they say they can and will.


Why are they talking about providers hunting you down ? Because its illegal and all the other stuff is to convince your in good hands that they won't be able to hunt you down.

True, very true it is illegal to connect to and watch the providers copyrighted signal but again they are not showing that. They are showing that you purchased some codes therefore you are guilty. Its all circumstantial evidence.


I am not technical so try to stay away from discussing stuff like that and don't know how you trace connections but if they don't need to do it than why bother with it.

Show some traffic analysis, show some ISP records, subpoena some hosting records for these domains that the servers are located on. You don't have to be "technical" to see how they could actually put some teeth into this evidence if they really tried. They choose not to. Has D/N or Nagra even contacted any of these hosting companies that these IKS servers operate on? Some one is paying for hosting fees for these servers? Who's paying for them? How are they paying for them? What method of payment is being used? Have they subpoenaed ISP records for these servers i.p.'s? Where are the i.p.'s located at? Who are the i.p.'s registered to? These are all questions that would put a stop to this nonsense but again D/N and Nagra do nothing. I have read that snippet of drivel you found on the 'net and I don't know who wrote that nor do I care but I know its filled with bullsh*t and if D/N and Nagra really wanted to do something about this terrible "IKS problem" that is allegedly costing them millions in lost revenue they could.

That's the whole key the judicial system is set up so they do not need it so why bother? I'm not trying to be a smart*ss here but I hope you remember your stance on this if you are ever accused of a crime and there is only "circumstantial" evidence against you. I would hate to see that happen to anyone but it could happen to anyone.

[iq180]

Ok so they have an end users PP info and they know you did buy a code, I say so what, how can they say that code was used for
DN, it could have been used B3v or sky or amazonas or claro or any other provider, the only way they could know what the code was used for is to have the server logs, know server logs no case,JMO.

[sodusme]

Ok so they have an end users PP info and they know you did buy a code, I say so what, how can they say that code was used for
DN, it could have been used B3v or sky or amazonas or claro or any other provider, the only way they could know what the code was used for is to have the server logs, know server logs no case,JMO.

Kind of presumptuous on their part huh? That's actually a good point you raise. They "assume" that you used it for their programming when in fact like you said without doing the proper "due diligence" they simply cannot tell.

Great post and definitely makes you think.

[sodusme]

Ok so they have an end users PP info and they know you did buy a code, I say so what, how can they say that code was used for
DN, it could have been used B3v or sky or amazonas or claro or any other provider, the only way they could know what the code was used for is to have the server logs, know server logs no case,JMO.

LMFAO OK so here is your defense: "Yeah I bought a code and I used it for Sky"....now sue me. Wonder how that would play out in court? Of course you'd have Nagra probably shifting gears and going after you for Sky then.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I'm sorry but the still doesn't prove you stole anything. It proves at best that you made a purchase....nothing more.


I think it meets the requirement. I think reasonable minds can conclude your liable to the plaintiff. Its like your saying if you signed up and paid for an online illegal child porn service for months a jury should not find you in conflict unless they can prove you watched it. It just does not work that way.



I'll revert back to the crimes you mentioned of OJ killing his g/f and her b/f or of the girlfriend accusing her boyfriend of beating her. In both of those scenarios you have cold hard irrefutable evidence that a crime actually took place. In the first you have a dead body---actually two dead bodies in OJ's g/f and her b/f. In the other you would probably have a battered girlfriend. There is "proof" of a crime being committed, I won't get into all the semantics of "who" did or could have committed said crime but you have a very easily, definable crime having been committed. There is no "guess" work of well its "more than likely" a crime occurred.


Where was the proof showing he actually committed the crime himself being murder ? According to you, you have to show that . There's proof a crime was committed but where was the proof showing he did it ? You signed up to an illegal service. You signed up to receive the codes. To me you than become liable.



In these cases you have the purchase of some codes and that is the ONLY "crime" and I'll even add in the only perceived crime having been committed because these guys are unwilling to go the extra mile of tracking people down like they say they can and will.


They tracked down copies of the transactions and got an affidavit from the seller. Why should they have to do more when they have reasonable evidence that reasonable minds can conclude its more likely than not. ?




True, very true it is illegal to connect to and watch the providers copyrighted signal but again they are not showing that. They are showing that you purchased some codes therefore you are guilty. Its all circumstantial evidence.


And that is fine that's its circumstantial evidence versus direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime.



Show some traffic analysis, show some ISP records, subpoena some hosting records for these domains that the servers are located on. You don't have to be "technical" to see how they could actually put some teeth into this evidence if they really tried. They choose not to. Has D/N or Nagra even contacted any of these hosting companies that these IKS servers operate on? Some one is paying for hosting fees for these servers? Who's paying for them? How are they paying for them? What method of payment is being used? Have they subpoenaed ISP records for these servers i.p.'s? Where are the i.p.'s located at? Who are the i.p.'s registered to? These are all questions that would put a stop to this nonsense but again D/N and Nagra do nothing. I have read that snippet of drivel you found on the 'net and I don't know who wrote that nor do I care but I know its filled with bullsh*t and if D/N and Nagra really wanted to do something about this terrible "IKS problem" that is allegedly costing them millions in lost revenue they could.

That's the whole key the judicial system is set up so they do not need it so why bother? I'm not trying to be a smart*ss here but I hope you remember your stance on this if you are ever accused of a crime and there is only "circumstantial" evidence against you. I would hate to see that happen to anyone but it could happen to anyone.



Why ? is it because you think they need to ? I think no matter what they have someone can still its not enough because simply you want them not to be able to succeed. I don't either but I can't ignore that they will probably succeed because they have what is required to. Would you want buyers of child porn to succeed because the opponent couldn't prove they watched it ? The crime is the illegal IKS server and you buying into it. The way you say it is all someone has to say is there TV was broken so they never watched the signals. Its reasons like that, that there is preponderance of evidence as the bar of proof required.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Kind of presumptuous on their part huh? That's actually a good point you raise. They "assume" that you used it for their programming when in fact like you said without doing the proper "due diligence" they simply cannot tell.

Great post and definitely makes you think.


Yes its a great idea to say you used it for Bev. I think not. Also Nag is a plaintiff.


I hope no one reads this and thinks its a good idea to say you use it to steal from a different provider and as the non movant than bring in evidence to support it.



Specifically,
Ward argues that multiple people lived at his address and could have accessed his computer,
i.e., his son, with whom he operated a business, could have sent the piracy software, and/or
that a computer hacker could have sent the piracy software. Ward’s arguments, however, are
nothing more than blanket denials, and are unsupported in the record.


Here you have a defendant already saying several people who live in his house including his son could have done it. And than says a computer hacker could have sent the software.


Its the kind of things you are suggesting as defenses. Did the court turn around and say well the defendant is right anyone in his house could have done it and you the plaintiff needs to prove the defendant in this case did it ? No and why not ?


You can keep coming up what the plaintiffs needs to prove but in actual fact the plaintiffs lays out the allegations than the onus will be on you to prove the allegations are not true. Your defense is I did not watch/use it. Personally I think that will result in the same conclusion of blanket denials.




GS2

[kutter]

That's the whole key the judicial system is set up so they do not need it so why bother? I'm not trying to be a smart*ss here but I hope you remember your stance on this if you are ever accused of a crime and there is only "circumstantial" evidence against you. I would hate to see that happen to anyone but it could happen to anyone.

So what if the evidence is largely circumstantial.

Show me one innocent person that has been persecuted for using IKS.

Even the guilty will be afforded the opportunity to fool the system. I know this much, if I was innocent I wouldn't pay the $3500. At that point it's a matter of principle. If I was guilty, I doubt I would waste my time and money.

[kutter]

Ok so they have an end users PP info and they know you did buy a code, I say so what, how can they say that code was used for
DN, it could have been used B3v or sky or amazonas or claro or any other provider, the only way they could know what the code was used for is to have the server logs, know server logs no case,JMO.

The one thing that I see wrong with your argument is, that you will not know how much evidence they actually have until you decide to fight it.

[sodusme]

That's a little difficult to prove the innocence of anyone that was charged with this without actually knowing the person firsthand. <br />
<br />
The evidence is all circumstantial. Even if you were innocent...

[kutter]

If I was innocent, I would call their bluff. If the system failed me then it would cost me. <br />
<br />
I don't think D/N said they could see your MAC address ... they said it was transmitted to the server...

[kutter]

it's not a matter that I think circumstantial evidence is enough ... it's a matter of knowing that there are plenty of instances where it is enough ...

[sodusme]

If I was innocent, I would call their bluff. If the system failed me then it would cost me.

I don't think D/N said they could see your MAC address ... they said it was transmitted to the server during the initial setup ... in other words it was contained in the packet ... not in the header :)

No this is what they said verbatim:


YES, absolutely. All IP addresses as well as mac addresses (your digital fingerprint) are stored in the offshore server, this unique address is required in order for the offshore server to send the information.

The only MAC address that could be stored might be that of the dongle but there is no way that a MAC of your router or your modem would transcend all the routers in the path to that server. Its not possible and its not how networks are designed to work. A header is part along with a footer of a packet but they absolutely do not contain the MAC of any of your personal PC equipment i.e. modem, router or PC. The header contains the i.p. as that is all that remains constant in a packet from the time it leaves your PC to the time it reaches its destination. The MAC of your router or modem will be present in the packet until it leaves your LAN or your ISP's gateway. At that point the packet is stripped down and "re-encapsulated" with the MAC of the next router in the path of its journey to the server along with the sending router MAC of your ISP's gateway. The i.p. will remain constant and the process of the MAC being swapped out with the sending router and receiving router occurs over and over until the packet reaches its destination. At which time the MAC present in it will be that of the last sending router in the path and the MAC of the router gateway that delivered the packet to the final server destination.

[sodusme]

Here is a writeup on how a router goes about including the MAC address of another router in the packet it is encapsulating.


http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc940021.aspx


As each outgoing addressed IP datagram is encapsulated in a frame, source and destination MAC addresses must be added. Determining the destination MAC address for each frame is the responsibility of ARP.


ARP broadcasts an ARP Request frame on the local subnet, requesting that the owner of the IP address in question reply with its MAC address. When an ARP Reply is received, the ARP cache is updated with the new information, and it is used to address the packet at the data-link layer.

This is saying in a nutshell that the router will send out the packet on a certain interface based on the i.p. that is in the packet. It will scan its "table" and it will encapsulate the packet with the proper MAC that matches the interface for the device that will handle that packet. If it cannot find an interface to handle the packet it will put out a broadcast and will request the MAC address of the device that is to handle the forwarding of that packet based on the i.p. it will also remember that MAC in its table for future reference. The router can also have a "gateway of last resort" set up which means it will dump any unknown i.p.'s out a certain interface and let the next router deal with them. It also includes the MAC of that gateway in the packet that it encapsulates.

[kutter]

No this is what they said verbatim:



The only MAC address that could be stored might be that of the dongle but there is no way that a MAC of your router or your modem would transcend all the routers in the path to that server. Its not possible and its not how networks are designed to work. A header is part along with a footer of a packet but they absolutely do not contain the MAC of any of your personal PC equipment i.e. modem, router or PC. The header contains the i.p. as that is all that remains constant in a packet from the time it leaves your PC to the time it reaches its destination. The MAC of your router or modem will be present in the packet until it leaves your LAN or your ISP's gateway. At that point the packet is stripped down and "re-encapsulated" with the MAC of the next router in the path of its journey to the server along with the sending router MAC of your ISP's gateway. The i.p. will remain constant and the process of the MAC being swapped out with the sending router and receiving router occurs over and over until the packet reaches its destination. At which time the MAC present in it will be that of the last sending router in the path and the MAC of the router gateway that delivered the packet to the final server destination.

No need for a tutorial on the TCP/IP protocol ... because I know that a MAC address can't be seen by anyone that isn't directly connected to your network ... I'm still not certain what they are saying.

Are they saying that the info is required for normal communications or are they saying it's required before the server will send any info.

It's possible that I misinterpreted ... wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last time :)

[kutter]

Here is a writeup on how a router goes about including the MAC address of another router in the packet it is encapsulating.


http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc940021.aspx





This is saying in a nutshell that the router will send out the packet on a certain interface based on the i.p. that is in the packet. It will scan its "table" and it will encapsulate the packet with the proper MAC that matches the interface for the device that will handle that packet. If it cannot find an interface to handle the packet it will put out a broadcast and will request the MAC address of the device that is to handle the forwarding of that packet based on the i.p. it will also remember that MAC in its table for future reference. The router can also have a "gateway of last resort" set up which means it will dump any unknown i.p.'s out a certain interface and let the next router deal with them. It also includes the MAC of that gateway in the packet that it encapsulates.

01:23:45:67:89:ab

well look at that ... a mac address ... wonder why this packet didn't crash and burn :)

[sodusme]

No need for a tutorial on the TCP/IP protocol ... because I know that a MAC address can't be seen by anyone that isn't directly connected to your network ... I'm still not certain what they are saying.

Are they saying that the info is required for normal communications or are they saying it's required before the server will send any info.

It's possible that I misinterpreted ... wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last time :)

No worries I don't even think they know what they are saying LMAO.

Honestly I have read that over and over and I think they are trying to say that your MAC is left on the server (but as you said which MAC). Not sure who wrote that up but they are definitely wrong as you and I both know if its the local MAC. :)

I'm thinking the MAC of the dongle (or receiver) would be included because isn't it in the "client" that you are using? I mean if it forwards the DES key which it would have to it stands to reason that it also forwards the MAC if its also keyed into the client? And I mean "client" as the online GUI I guess you would call it where you put in the i.p. address of the server and the DES key and port and DNS and all that? Don't you also include your MAC in that GUI?

[jb26]

No worries I don't even think they know what they are saying LMAO.

Honestly I have read that over and over and I think they are trying to say that your MAC is left on the server (but as you said which MAC). Not sure who wrote that up but they are definitely wrong as you and I both know if its the local MAC. :)

I'm thinking the MAC of the dongle (or receiver) would be included because isn't it in the "client" that you are using? I mean if it forwards the DES key which it would have to it stands to reason that it also forwards the MAC if its also keyed into the client? And I mean "client" as the online GUI I guess you would call it where you put in the i.p. address of the server and the DES key and port and DNS and all that? Don't you also include your MAC in that GUI?

From what I know of newcamd, the client mac is not contained in the payload of any packets sent to the server. A dongle or other some such proprietary crap may be "keyed" to certain mac ranges, but none of that is part of client/server iks. I'm pretty sure they just want things to sound as scary as possible.

[kutter]

No worries I don't even think they know what they are saying LMAO.

Honestly I have read that over and over and I think they are trying to say that your MAC is left on the server (but as you said which MAC). Not sure who wrote that up but they are definitely wrong as you and I both know if its the local MAC. :)

I'm thinking the MAC of the dongle (or receiver) would be included because isn't it in the "client" that you are using? I mean if it forwards the DES key which it would have to it stands to reason that it also forwards the MAC if its also keyed into the client? And I mean "client" as the online GUI I guess you would call it where you put in the i.p. address of the server and the DES key and port and DNS and all that? Don't you also include your MAC in that GUI?

The local MAC can be seen by any device connected to your router ... if D/N is suggesting that your local MAC is stored on the server then the guys writing the software for the dongles and or boxes would have some explaining to do :)

[sodusme]

From what I know of newcamd, the client mac is not contained in the payload of any packets sent to the server. A dongle or other some such proprietary crap may be "keyed" to certain mac ranges, but none of that is part of client/server iks. I'm pretty sure they just want things to sound as scary as possible.

The MAC of the dongle or receiver has to be sent to the server in some fashion or they have no way of keeping track of duplicate devices on the server. I'm thinking its sent as part of the "data" or message of the packet.


The local MAC can be seen by any device connected to your router ... if D/N is suggesting that your local MAC is stored on the server then the guys writing the software for the dongles and or boxes would have some explaining to do :)

I'm not following what you are saying here? What are you referring to as your "local" MAC?

If you have a router connected your i.p. is assigned to your WAN side MAC of your router. If you have just a modem your i.p. will be assigned to that modem MAC. Neither of those MAC's can be seen by anyone outside your local ISP. Whether you are running a router or a modem, transmission of those MAC's ends at your ISP's router. Once that router gets a packet and forwards it out over the internet it has stripped that packet down and has searched its cache for the MAC of the next router (based on the i.p and i.p. only contained in that packet) and will encapsulate that packet with its own MAC (as the sending MAC) and the MAC of the next router in the path (as the receiving MAC). It repeats that process again, and again until the packet reaches its destination. So at server side the only MAC visible in that packet is the MAC of the last router that handled that packet.

So please verify with me what you mean by "local" MAC?

[kutter]

The MAC of the dongle or receiver has to be sent to the server in some fashion or they have no way of keeping track of duplicate devices on the server. I'm thinking its sent as part of the "data" or message of the packet.



I'm not following what you are saying here? What are you referring to as your "local" MAC?

If you have a router connected your i.p. is assigned to your WAN side MAC of your router. If you have just a modem your i.p. will be assigned to that modem MAC. Neither of those MAC's can be seen by anyone outside your local ISP. Whether you are running a router or a modem, transmission of those MAC's ends at your ISP's router. Once that router gets a packet and forwards it out over the internet it has stripped that packet down and has searched its cache for the MAC of the next router (based on the i.p and i.p. only contained in that packet) and will encapsulate that packet with its own MAC (as the sending MAC) and the MAC of the next router in the path (as the receiving MAC). It repeats that process again, and again until the packet reaches its destination. So at server side the only MAC visible in that packet is the MAC of the last router that handled that packet.

So please verify with me what you mean by "local" MAC?

I didn't say they can be seen by anyone outside of the network, but you can bet your ass that any propriety hardware or software can send your MAC. You're a smart guy, consider the nature of propriety hardware and software.

I'm not saying that it is happening, I'm only pointing out that it can be done.

[jb26]

The MAC of the dongle or receiver has to be sent to the server in some fashion or they have no way of keeping track of duplicate devices on the server. I'm thinking its sent as part of the "data" or message of the packet.


The mac is not sent to the server...that is not how they check for duplicate devices. All the server knows and cares about is the client IP address, username/password, interval between cw requests, and sid vs. sidless requests.

[sodusme]

I didn't say they can be seen by anyone outside of the network, but you can bet your ass that any propriety hardware or software can send your MAC. You're a smart guy, consider the nature of propriety hardware and software.

I'm not saying that it is happening, I'm only pointing out that it can be done.

Your MAC of your local PC can be sent from a malicious Javascript request but that is the only way I'm aware of. That is how all those guys from the deep web got caught on TOR is through a malicious Javascript request embedded in the TOR software they downloaded.

Basically anything that communicates over the internet has to follow the OSI model for compatibility with other devices it encounters on its network travel to its destination. If MAC's were able to be forwarded in any way there would be no need for i.p.'s.

I'm not trying to start an argument here but can you give me an example of what you are referring to hardware or software wise that can send a MAC?


The mac is not sent to the server...that is not how they check for duplicate devices. All the server knows and cares about is the client IP address, username/password, interval between cw requests, and sid vs. sidless requests.

Hmm ok then.

[kutter]

Your MAC of your local PC can be sent from a malicious Javascript request but that is the only way I'm aware of. That is how all those guys from the deep web got caught on TOR is through a malicious Javascript request embedded in the TOR software they downloaded.

Basically anything that communicates over the internet has to follow the OSI model for compatibility with other devices it encounters on its network travel to its destination. If MAC's were able to be forwarded in any way there would be no need for i.p.'s.

I'm not trying to start an argument here but can you give me an example of what you are referring to hardware or software wise that can send a MAC?



Hmm ok then.

LOL ... nope ... no examples :)

This has turned into something that it shouldn't have. I am not suggesting that the server has your MAC. Those weren't my words. I was disputing your statement that it's not possible. You are correct that it's not possible via conventional methods.

Do I think the server has your MAC? No, there is no logical reason for them to need or want it. Besides if it was actually occurring it would have been caught long ago.

[sodusme]

LOL ... nope ... no examples :)

This has turned into something that it shouldn't have. I am not suggesting that the server has your MAC. Those weren't my words. I was disputing your statement that it's not possible. You are correct that it's not possible via conventional methods.

Do I think the server has your MAC? No, there is no logical reason for them to need or want it. Besides if it was actually occurring it would have been caught long ago.

That was the answer I was hoping I would get. ;)

So I think we are on the same page here. I was just trying to grasp my head around something that I might have forgotten. I been doing this for a very long time and some things slip my mind pretty easily and its usually the "common" things. :)

I wouldn't say its turned into something that it shouldn't have I think its been pretty informative for some of the other members. Hell it has been for me as i don't run IKS so I have no idea how any of this works from a server/client relationship other than what I know of the networking models it would follow.

I still don't understand though how do they keep someone from sharing their account? I mean lets say you have a subscription and you have always used a VPN to connect and its got a static i.p. and of course you use the username/password assigned with your account. Suppose you share both of those (the VPN account and the username/password) with your buddy? How would the server know that you are not that individual? The i.p. would match and the username/password would match? Why wouldn't the MAC be sent (from the receiver or dongle) as a checks and balances to keep account sharing from occurring?

[jb26]

That was the answer I was hoping I would get. ;)

So I think we are on the same page here. I was just trying to grasp my head around something that I might have forgotten. I been doing this for a very long time and some things slip my mind pretty easily and its usually the "common" things. :)

I wouldn't say its turned into something that it shouldn't have I think its been pretty informative for some of the other members. Hell it has been for me as i don't run IKS so I have no idea how any of this works from a server/client relationship other than what I know of the networking models it would follow.

I still don't understand though how do they keep someone from sharing their account? I mean lets say you have a subscription and you have always used a VPN to connect and its got a static i.p. and of course you use the username/password assigned with your account. Suppose you share both of those (the VPN account and the username/password) with your buddy? How would the server know that you are not that individual? The i.p. would match and the username/password would match? Why wouldn't the MAC be sent (from the receiver or dongle) as a checks and balances to keep account sharing from occurring?

1. the servers can allow/disallow multiple concurrent logins from the same IP and/or same username. Of course someone could share their account, just not use it at the same time. There is no reason for the server ops to care about this...still just 1 paid account in use at any given time.
2. the server can see the frequency of cw requests. This is important if someone tries to reshare off a single login. The server can see essentially how many devices are drawing off the login by how often the requests come in. It should usually be around 15 seconds for a single device in most circumstances (there are some caveats to that, but it's a fair general statement).

The designers of iks software probably left out the mac as a means of account control because it is a damning "digital fingerprint" :)

[kutter]

That was the answer I was hoping I would get. ;)

So I think we are on the same page here. I was just trying to grasp my head around something that I might have forgotten. I been doing this for a very long time and some things slip my mind pretty easily and its usually the "common" things. :)

I wouldn't say its turned into something that it shouldn't have I think its been pretty informative for some of the other members. Hell it has been for me as i don't run IKS so I have no idea how any of this works from a server/client relationship other than what I know of the networking models it would follow.

I still don't understand though how do they keep someone from sharing their account? I mean lets say you have a subscription and you have always used a VPN to connect and its got a static i.p. and of course you use the username/password assigned with your account. Suppose you share both of those (the VPN account and the username/password) with your buddy? How would the server know that you are not that individual? The i.p. would match and the username/password would match? Why wouldn't the MAC be sent (from the receiver or dongle) as a checks and balances to keep account sharing from occurring?

Sharing would be tough to prevent without using some form of unique identifier.

Maybe they aren't concerned with the few people that might share.

[sodusme]

1. the servers can allow/disallow multiple concurrent logins from the same IP and/or same username. Of course someone could share their account, just not use it at the same time. There is no reason for the server ops to care about this...still just 1 paid account in use at any given time.
2. the server can see the frequency of cw requests. This is important if someone tries to reshare off a single login. The server can see essentially how many devices are drawing off the login by how often the requests come in. It should usually be around 15 seconds for a single device in most circumstances (there are some caveats to that, but it's a fair general statement).

The designers of iks software probably left out the mac as a means of account control because it is a damning "digital fingerprint" :)


Sharing would be tough to prevent without using some form of unique identifier.

Maybe they aren't concerned with the few people that might share.

That's what I was thinking is that they could obviously control account sharing by not allowing a duplicate i.p. to use the account. I know some server setups (not IKS) that actually check i.p.'s on a login and match it with the "subscribers" i.p.--if they do not match or are off by X amount of geographical miles the system immediately disables the account and forwards a new password to the subscriber via email. Its called Phantom Frog GEO IP software and its particularly nasty for hackers and crackers to overcome. Not impossible---but very hard to overcome. ;)

[iq180]

That's what I was thinking is that they could obviously control account sharing by not allowing a duplicate i.p. to use the account. I know some server setups (not IKS) that actually check i.p.'s on a login and match it with the "subscribers" i.p.--if they do not match or are off by X amount of geographical miles the system immediately disables the account and forwards a new password to the subscriber via email. Its called Phantom Frog GEO IP software and its particularly nasty for hackers and crackers to overcome. Not impossible---but very hard to overcome. ;)
Only 1 packet is sent every 15 seconds, so if you try to use more than 1 receiver only 1 will get the packet the other want and it
will freeze, then that receiver would the next packet and the other 1 will freeze.
Now as to why nagra has not shut it all down I cant answer, all they would need to do is speed up the call word request for there
sub receivers from 15 seconds to 2 1/2, seconds and IKS would be dead, the only thing I can think is they are getting a boat load
of cash from the demand letters.

[kutter]

Only 1 packet is sent every 15 seconds, so if you try to use more than 1 receiver only 1 will get the packet the other want and it
will freeze, then that receiver would the next packet and the other 1 will freeze.
Now as to why nagra has not shut it all down I cant answer, all they would need to do is speed up the call word request for there
sub receivers from 15 seconds to 2 1/2, seconds and IKS would be dead, the only thing I can think is they are getting a boat load
of cash from the demand letters.

I guess that means no channel surfing then :)

[jb26]

I guess that means no channel surfing then :)

Yeah...his post was a bit off. The server does not limit you strictly to cw interval of 15 seconds. As you indicate, if someone changes channels, they receive a new ecm hash, need a new CW, have to send a request to server. Channel flipping causes the interval to drop well below 15s.

Server usually will just flag the user as a possible reshare, and ban if necessary.

*of course I know nothing about this hobby at all, all my posts are purely speculation. I do not condone piracy in any form.

[kutter]

Yeah...his post was a bit off. The server does not limit you strictly to cw interval of 15 seconds. As you indicate, if someone changes channels, they receive a new ecm hash, need a new CW, have to send a request to server. Channel flipping causes the interval to drop well below 15s.

Server usually will just flag the user as a possible reshare, and ban if necessary.

*of course I know nothing about this hobby at all, all my posts are purely speculation. I do not condone piracy in any form.

lol ... as it should be :)

[alex70olds]

They have subpoena the ISP. They also had control over the resellers panel for a view days before anybody knew SI was in control of the reseller account.

http://i39.tinypic.com/110c09e.png

[jb26]

They have subpoena the ISP. They also had control over the resellers panel for a view days before anybody knew SI was in control of the reseller account.



That is really not good for the customers of that reseller!!! I wonder how long it will take to track people down and send letters.

[alex70olds]

That is really not good for the customers of that reseller!!! I wonder how long it will take to track people down and send letters.

That is just an example. It is surprising how many have these panels. They don't need server logs when they have control of the panel logs.

[jb26]

That is just an example. It is surprising how many have these panels. They don't need server logs when they have control of the panel logs.

Yes, but hopefully the damage to the end-users is contained to just the particular reseller they busted rather than everyone that used beav.

[alex70olds]

Re share algo.

refresh_tier_file=60
reshare_period_warning_threshold=4
reshare_period_warning_minimum_requests=40
reconnect_period_warning_threshold=300
reconnect_period_warning_minimum_reconnects=10
ignore_request_sids=0
allow_sidless_requests=1
ignore_emms=1
allow_client_ids=
deny_client_ids=
safe_ecm_blacklisting=0
persistence_file=./fslb.persist
messaging_persistence_timeout=1440
messaging_persist=1
messaging_persistence_file=./fslb.messaging

And

der127|feeder128|feeder129|feeder130|feeder131|fre sno|fresno2
ecm_feeder_mode_users_return_cws=1
send_backend_keepalives=1
refresh_user_file=60
refresh_tier_file=60
reshare_period_warning_threshold=6
reshare_period_warning_minimum_requests=60
reconnect_period_warning_threshold=90000
reconnect_period_warning_minimum_reconnects=50000
ignore_request_sids=0

[alex70olds]

Everything after "=" is set by server operator in fslb.conf.

[kutter]

They have subpoena the ISP. They also had control over the resellers panel for a view days before anybody knew SI was in control of the reseller account.


I guess the reason for the panel is so the reseller can troubleshoot problems with their customers. Still seems like a stupid idea to allow a reseller to have that much incriminating evidence.

[toronto9413]

So a beav reseller was caught, but not beav himself or were they all caught?

[samaark]

Nowadays People have started to advertise their services openly in online classified . They are selling FTA equipment and receivers and charging monthly fee for it.

Is it safe to buy services from them??

[sodusme]

Nowadays People have started to advertise their services openly in online classified . They are selling FTA equipment and receivers and charging monthly fee for it.

Is it safe to buy services from them??

Personally I would not....

Maybe others have had experience buying from those classified but I would not. To me its just trouble when you "advertise" something like that.

[kutter]

Personally I would not....

Maybe others have had experience buying from those classified but I would not. To me its just trouble when you "advertise" something like that.

I would venture to guess that it's a big part of the problem. Open flaunting of it makes it an obvious target.

[kutter]

Nowadays People have started to advertise their services openly in online classified . They are selling FTA equipment and receivers and charging monthly fee for it.

Is it safe to buy services from them??

Common sense would dictate that if you found it that easy the providers have also. That doesn't mean they will be able to bust the guy but it's certainly the first step. Personally, I can't see them just ignoring someone that's advertising in public.

[Hannibalector]

Common sense would dictate that if you found it that easy the providers have also. That doesn't mean they will be able to bust the guy but it's certainly the first step. Personally, I can't see them just ignoring someone that's advertising in public.

bah splash it up a bit maybe consider an ad man, half page ad with glitz and IKS as bold as you can make it with the words cheap like borscht

[kutter]

bah splash it up a bit maybe consider an ad man, half page ad with glitz and IKS as bold as you can make it with the words cheap like borscht

lol ... giver s h i t :)

[Marcella]

BORSCHT is great soup. lol lol

[Hannibalector]

lol ... giver s h i t :)

easy on the language ......it's kutter not gutter

[kutter]

easy on the language ......it's kutter not gutter

my apologies ...
just a moment of weakness :)

[sodusme]

bah splash it up a bit maybe consider an ad man, half page ad with glitz and IKS as bold as you can make it with the words cheap like borscht

Maybe a big glowing billboard on 95 South? LOL

[nob0dy]

They have subpoena the ISP. They also had control over the resellers panel for a view days before anybody knew SI was in control of the reseller account.

http://i39.tinypic.com/110c09e.png


nice work ;D ;D ;D

[alex70olds]

nice work ;D ;D ;D
Lol the pic was an example of what the panel looks like. Found it somewhere, but I am sure we both know where it came from lol. :D

[nob0dy]

Lol the pic was an example of what the panel looks like. Found it somewhere, but I am sure we both know where it came from lol. :D

:laughat: sodusme did it ;D

[Condor]

:laughat: sodusme did it ;D

Just don't blame it on us "Metzicans"... :innocent:

http://i493.photobucket.com/albums/rr298/bolivia_04/anon%20mex/Zapata_anonymous_2_zps2a27a311.jpg (http://s493.photobucket.com/user/bolivia_04/media/anon%20mex/Zapata_anonymous_2_zps2a27a311.jpg.html)

[Hannibalector]

Lol the pic was an example of what the panel looks like. Found it somewhere, but I am sure we both know where it came from lol. :D

:rolleyes: oh jeez, really ?

[alex70olds]

:rolleyes: oh jeez, really ?

Dont you have an interview to do or something? lol

[sodusme]

:laughat: sodusme did it ;D

Haven't you learned anything from PM'ing me---I crack I don't hack. ;)

[Hannibalector]

Dont you have an interview to do or something? lol

Chapter 1 alex70olds

kinda catchy don't you think

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

c/p



in march 2014, bell expressvu limited partnership, nagrastar llc, echostar technologies llc, and dish network l.l.c. Commenced a civil action and executed an anton piller (civil search) order against jeremy latchford of belleville, ontario, john mcsevney of hamilton, ontario, and jeffrey tufts of kitchener, ontario, at their respective residences. Latchford was active on piracy forum web sites under the usernames “thebeav”, “jeremyl”, “melly”, and “dn5050”. Mcsevney was known online as “johnny7107” and tufts was known as “ruthie”.

The companies say that latchford operated the beavertv and yearlyiks services and that mcsevney and tufts were his primary resellers. The execution of the anton piller order resulted in the identification and dismantling of the beavertv north iks server, the suspension of the beavertv south iks server and the yearlyiks server, and the seizure of technology and substantial evidence concerning the unlawful activities of latchford, mcsevney, tufts and others. An injunction was obtained against latchford, mcsevney and tufts restraining them from engaging in satellite television piracy.



GS2

[1boxman]

c/p






GS2
Should have posted Ss picture of the beav ..lol

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Should have posted Ss picture of the beav ..lol


Someone else did in another thread in court documents forum here. I did not want to take their attempt at humor and be the one to spread it around but ya the pic was funny but on the other hand I do feel for the Defendants. You'll see I also left out their last propaganda statement in their release in my copy and paste.


However people ought to know by now they are gambling with legal exposure carrying on like that. Its good while there is no legal problems but when legal does happen if it does, all the good they received will probably be wiped out and much more if legally attacked.



GS2

[sodusme]

You know what I find humorous is that they are offering $50K for information leading to an IKS server--but yet they easily make 10X that in lawsuits and 100X that in lawsuits against the operators of the IKS servers--but yet they can only afford $50K? Come on D/N you tight a***s you can do better than that. I can see why people won't help you out with that information. I almost think they offer that small amount so they can go after more money in lawsuits.

[Nostradamus]

they would probably turn around and sue the rat as well to get some of their 50 grand back again :)

[sodusme]

they would probably turn around and sue the rat as well to get some of their 50 grand back again :)

Now THAT'S funny!!!!! :rotflmao:

[Condor]

Someone else did in another thread in court documents forum here. I did not want to take their attempt at humor and be the one to spread it around but ya the pic was funny but on the other hand I do feel for the Defendants. You'll see I also left out their last propaganda statement in their release in my copy and paste.


However people ought to know by now they are gambling with legal exposure carrying on like that. Its good while there is no legal problems but when legal does happen if it does, all the good they received will probably be wiped out and much more if legally attacked.



GS2

Me too...Feel it for the defendants..........

[jedi]

You know what I find humorous is that they are offering $50K for information leading to an IKS server--but yet they easily make 10X that in lawsuits and 100X that in lawsuits against the operators of the IKS servers--but yet they can only afford $50K? Come on D/N you tight a***s you can do better than that. I can see why people won't help you out with that information. I almost think they offer that small amount so they can go after more money in lawsuits.

They may have a judgment for large amounts of money - but I'm guessing they end up with squat in most cases. If these guys have half a brain they aren't going to have a lot of exposed assets to attack - in all likelihood most are going to be insolvent and have no assets to pay the judgment.

[Hannibalector]

You know what I find humorous is that they are offering $50K for information leading to an IKS server--but yet they easily make 10X that in lawsuits and 100X that in lawsuits against the operators of the IKS servers--but yet they can only afford $50K? Come on D/N you tight a***s you can do better than that. I can see why people won't help you out with that information. I almost think they offer that small amount so they can go after more money in lawsuits.

it started out at 25k sod, nagra made sure every large site around saw the reward program with the wanted poster and I'll bet it in fact gleamed plenty of info be it from members to site staff from various sites, A_Z_A had a pretty good write up and break down on it back when he/she was around