Busted

[#1tiny]

I found this on another site and thought I would put it here. I will put this here as the OFFiCAL records have not come out yet. I believe we all know beaver has been pinched, hence why beaver tv is down. But for all you folks that think not to worry because u did not have beavertv, think again!!! The re is many many ps. Connected to beaver. And with this bust. They have been visited. By the man as well.... Hope that the people involve were smart enough to loose the info, but I doubt it...

[jazzman]

And you are just now realizing this? If the rumor is true and beaver was busted let's be honest here...if you were connected it's too late for you, expect a letter if in the US but I'm still not sure where Beaver was located in canada or the US but if it comes from DN rather than BV then it may be only the resellers maybe will be targets as so far no Canada end users have been extorted by DN. JMO...

[alex70olds]

as far as I know you are correct about Canadian end users, so far. But let's be honest, they will eventually have to do something, because as long as the end user demand is there, somebody will always be willing to sell a service to them. It is against the RCA but not sure the penalties would even pay for the lawyers. If in the US, this is not good news. So far 105 end users in US sued, still a very small percentage, but posting you are down, or I just paid, anything like that only puts more ammo in their hands. IMHO.

[Condor]

your screwing with me Jazz... Sorry Alex I edited quote on your post...Lol.....

[alex70olds]

your screwing with me Jazz... Sorry Alex I edited quote on your post...Lol.....

Lmao, too funny! :)

[Condor]

Lmao, too funny! :)

Was gone then came back to life..hehehehehehe

[1boxman]

as far as I know you are correct about Canadian end users, so far. But let's be honest, they will eventually have to do something, because as long as the end user demand is there, somebody will always be willing to sell a service to them. It is against the RCA but not sure the penalties would even pay for the lawyers. If in the US, this is not good news. So far 105 end users in US sued, still a very small percentage, but posting you are down, or I just paid, anything like that only puts more ammo in their hands. IMHO.

But But ..YouTube would never have such a thing :tehe:

[Mr Hanky]

Canadian's have been busted at all levels,dont kid yourself from importing customs then the satellite store and their customers,resellers and end users.Their are people still operating shop with...

[fn59]

I don't think xbmc is completely legal. If you can watch a movie on your tv that is currently still playing in the theatre, kind of sounds illegal to me.

[Nostradamus]

xbmc is perfectly legal just like fta is perfectly legal, only when you start messing with things... ie. bin files on fta, certain repos on xbmc that it gets grey. IPTV is just as grey as well. If you have hulu, netflix they are good as they are licensed to do that thing. SOme guy streaming TBS or KTLA over the net is not and that is where the illegal comes into play , especially when many of them guys streaming that stuff are already pirating it to getthe signal initially

[fn59]

Yes, you're correct about comparing streaming boxes to fta receivers. It all depends on how one uses it.
I think fta receivers with third party bins appeared in North America around 2004, it took awhile before providers started legal action. So it could be awhile before we start hearing about legal issues with people who are using xbmchub or xfinity on their boxes.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

There are no end user Civil lawsuits in Canada as far as I know. That's not to say you could not be charged under the Canadian Radio Communication Act if caught but law enforcement does not pursue...

[sodusme]

xbmc is perfectly legal just like fta is perfectly legal, only when you start messing with things... ie. bin files on fta, certain repos on xbmc that it gets grey. IPTV is just as grey as well. If you have hulu, netflix they are good as they are licensed to do that thing. SOme guy streaming TBS or KTLA over the net is not and that is where the illegal comes into play , especially when many of them guys streaming that stuff are already pirating it to getthe signal initially

That all depends on what "extras" are included with said XBMC box. FTA receivers used to be considered legal but now with what they come with DN/Nagra has succeeded in making even the boxes considered illegal in that they come with "items" supposedly used for "no other purpose" than piracy. So I wouldn't be so quick to call XBMC totally legal at this juncture. If its coming with things that can potentially be used for piracy and are not actually needed for legitimate use they could quickly be ruled on as FTA boxes were.

Sonicview:
The Court found the receivers and dongles manufactured by Vicxon to violate the DMCA insofar as they included various hardware and software components designed primarily to facilitate circumvention.

Remember the key wording there is "primarily" which IMO is too broad but needless to say DN/Nagra got a ruling so it stands.

[bigbadbrother]

And now for something completely different

http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2006/04/12/monty-pythons-flying-circus-terry-jones-personal-best-20060412031845982-1466160.jpg

[alex70olds]

Im not condoning iks whatsoever but if beaver was caught wouldnt a site like satscams put it up that they busted him? Because as far as I know everytime something goes down its put on satscams to show and scare everyone from iks. Could it be just a ploy to say so and so got busted then come back with another name and make more money?

Just a FYI. Very little of Dish cases get posted on SS.

[dishuser]

Ok but if this did happen this is huge because a whole server was taken down and rumors are this server was connected to yearlyiks and i also heard from other sites maybe nfps? If thats the case how many users does nfps have? This is not a small bust at all beacuse im looking at SS they showing end users who got busted and this is about a server and nobody knows how many users this could effect just putting in my 2 cents thats all.

rumour is it was connected to yearly?
that's no rumour...it's fact
and until the paperwork is done on a case satscums don't post about it
the server was just recently shut down so I'm sure they're still going thru many personal hard drives

[filippo]

i guess the best thing is just to moove-on the sun comes up every morning(light):bump:

[dishuser]

i guess the best thing is just to moove-on the sun comes up every morning(light):bump:

it never came up today
maybe I should move..lol

[dishuser]

Ok dish user but say they got many ip's is that enough for a conviction? What if your wifi was hacked or something and someone in your neighborhood was using it then what? The only people I seen were convicted is when they pay using paypal

I'm not a judge

[Nostradamus]

that is what I said Sod, it is legal until you start enhancing it with certain repos :)

[sodusme]

Ok dish user but say they got many ip's is that enough for a conviction? What if your wifi was hacked or something and someone in your neighborhood was using it then what? The only people I seen were convicted is when they pay using paypal

I am also no judge but I can assure you in knowing networking the way I do....there is no way to pin an i.p. to you. It just simply cannot be done. There are too many variables and an i.p. is like a telephone number in that there is a "subscriber" but no way of telling who actually "used" it. Keep in mind that DN/Nagra will go after Paypal records, forum posts and anything else they can get their hands on that will link you to this server. If you have no Paypal record, and no forum posts to speak of then I would have to say YES the "my WI-FI was hacked" would be hard to dispute from their end.

Use the above information to your advantage. ;)

[bigbadbrother]

What other servers are connected with "BeaverTV" we know yearlyiks and maybe nfps but does anyone know about the others?

[Nostradamus]

most of them at one time or another it seems

[ftaforever]

What other servers are connected with "BeaverTV" we know yearlyiks and maybe nfps but does anyone know about the others?

I don't think NFPS is connected to beaver as NFPS was down way before beaver went down if I remember correctly.

[jvvh5897]

I am also no judge but I can assure you in knowing networking the way I do....there is no way to pin an i.p. to you. It just simply cannot be done. There are too many variables and an i.p. is like a telephone number in that there is a "subscriber" but no way of telling who actually "used" it. Keep in mind that DN/Nagra will go after Paypal records, forum posts and anything else they can get their hands on that will link you to this server. If you have no Paypal record, and no forum posts to speak of then I would have to say YES the "my WI-FI was hacked" would be hard to dispute from their end.

Use the above information to your advantage. ;)

That would not stop them sending you a letter demanding $. You can argue that it was not you, but then they can bring you in for a deposition to explain how your IP was used.

[dvp99ca]

If you to to tecksavvys website when they handed over all the ip's and the names behind them they told everyone if they get court letters asking for money to not comply at all. This again was because many people downloaded the hurt locker movie. But again only time will tell to see what actually will happen

[sodusme]

That would not stop them sending you a letter demanding $. You can argue that it was not you, but then they can bring you in for a deposition to explain how your IP was used.

Any number of reasons: My WI-FI was leeched, I was infected with a virus, I tried to set up a proxy server on my internet connection and I did it wrong leaving the port and i.p. open for abuse.

In fact I'd go one better and show them how its done. I would drag a laptop in to the court room and fire it up and run Backtrack and break some WI-FI encryption's in the court room to show them how its done. Pretty hard to refute that kind of defense. Of course they wouldn't allow that but you get the idea. If you show evidence of programs that are readily available to even break encrypted WI-FI i.e. WEP, WPA and WPA2 there is not much that can be done at that point to deny your claims that it was not you using the i.p.

A deposition is only questions. Ask away Mr. Attorney but you better know networking jargon or you'll look like a fool. ;)

[sneakymise]

WPA and WPA2 are easily hackable ?

[sodusme]

WPA and WPA2 are easily hackable ?

Yes using Reaver and Backtrack:


https://tune.pk/video/2457276/How-To-Crack-WPAWPA2-WPS-Using-Reaver-amp-Backtrack-5r3-NO-DICTIONARY

The funny thing is very few people know about this but the ISP's know and openly admit how "leechers" can gain access to your connection but yet they still want to hold you accountable for faulty security on devices that you could have secured and someone can STILL break into?!?! You could in fact be doing everything necessary to secure your wireless connection and if someone wants to break in---they will get in.

[sneakymise]

The video isnt there anymore but i found one on youtube. Interesting advances on Backtrack.. I hadnt played with that in a couple of years with WEP networks.

here's a link to a youtube similar video :


hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjBTPyCNWhw

PS: I dont know if the way I entered it is allowed, if it's not please remove the link mods.

[alex70olds]

The video isnt there anymore but i found one on youtube. Interesting advances on Backtrack.. I hadnt played with that in a couple of years with WEP networks.

here's a link to a youtube similar video :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjBTPyCNWhw"]hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjBTPyCNWhw

PS: I dont know if the way I entered it is allowed, if it's not please remove the link mods.

If you use the "code" tags it is better.

[Condor]

The video isnt there anymore but i found one on youtube. Interesting advances on Backtrack.. I hadnt played with that in a couple of years with WEP networks.

here's a link to a youtube similar video :


hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjBTPyCNWhw

PS: I dont know if the way I entered it is allowed, if it's not please remove the link mods.
gotcha............

[dvp99ca]

Another thing Id like to add is the the only tecksavvy situation in Canada and I believe the voltran wanted the ip's of the users downloading the movie hurt locker I believe the whole thing started in 2009 and the verdict was reached in what later 2013 or early 2014? And tecksavvy is still telling their users not to worry if they get civil suits and court orders saying pay this sum of money. dish is going to wait years if they think they going to prosecute end users for simply having an ip address. First there are probably different countries many end users are from and many different isp's as well. It took Voltron years to finally get a verdict of an isp to turn the names over.

[ImissDAVE]

It is important to remember the difference between criminal and civil court. I am assuming that if you are sued by a satellite provider they are alleging loss of revenue and want to be compensated and have the offender fined. That is (I believe) a matter for civil court. There is a huge difference when it comes to convicting someone civilly as opposed to criminally.
In criminal court the burden of proof is on the state or crown (if you're Canadian). They must show that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that sometimes even if the judge and jury thinks that you did it, if enough questions are raised about the prosecutions case, they must acquit.
in civil court the burden is much, much lower. The judge rules on the balance of probability.
In other words, you can raise all the doubt you want but if the judge figures you probably did it, you will be found guilty.

[dvp99ca]

I agree but what im saying is dave it took voltron 4-5 years to go war with an isp before finally handing out names in which they might or might not sent out civil suits because on teksavvy's website it says if a civil suit is sent out to ignore it. Is dish going to wait 4-5 years to go after people because they have someone's ip? What about people living in different countries? Dish usually gets people pretty fast if they get payment records from so and so. But again this is very interesting to say the least.

[1boxman]

Few topic :innocent::tehe:

[sodusme]

I've gotten two notices for "copyright infringement" from my ISP. One was for a game and the other was for a movie both downloaded via Torrents. In both instances I was presented with a letter from my ISP saying "yada, yada company establishes that you were sharing XYZ title on X date at X time with X i.p. address". Now these didn't demand any money and I'm assuming because it was a first time offense. I regularly change out my i.p. through my ISP so even though the account holder remains the same (me) the offending i.p. changes. One company BayTSP is particularly nasty in spying on torrents but there are also programs designed (while they cannot block EVERY i.p. they do a pretty good job) to block i.p.'s of those you do not want to be sharing with. Also in both cases I fired back an email to my ISP reminding them that there is no way in hell these companies can find me guilty of anything based on an i.p. alone.

I got a little off topic here but the end result of my post is that there is nothing anyone can do with a simple i.p. For every technology invented to secure a wireless router I know of a way to break it. MAC filtering: Spoof the MAC of a NIC on the router. WEP: Broken, WPA: Broken with Reaver and Backtrack, WPA2: Broken with Reaver and Backtrack, Hidden SSID's: Sniff them.

Now I know these companies DN/Nagra need to protect their "investment" but my answer to that is than get better security and quit trying to go after end users. Be proactive instead of REactive.

[dvp99ca]

DN is saying they losing millions off of piracy really? Most people that steal their signal woudlnt pay for their service anyways I mean what are they talking about? And about the end users in other countries say for instance Canada. Its illegal to even purchase a legal subscription in Canada of any american satellite service. So if anything piracy is spreading DN and DN is making money still. Because Canadians not allowed to purchase their product legally and the ones who do steal DN is still making moeny because even though it still through a server with iks someone is still purchasing the channels and all the ppvs ect. They still making money from Canadians through piracy. They are not losing any money in Canada its just reverse

[surfinisfun]

DN is saying they losing millions off of piracy really? Most people that steal their signal woudlnt pay for their service anyways I mean what are they talking about? And about the end users in other countries say for instance Canada. Its illegal to even purchase a legal subscription in Canada of any american satellite service. So if anything piracy is spreading DN and DN is making money still. Because Canadians not allowed to purchase their product legally and the ones who do steal DN is still making moeny because even though it still through a server with iks someone is still purchasing the channels and all the ppvs ect. They still making money from Canadians through piracy. They are not losing any money in Canada its just reverse

I absolutely agree.

DN is not concerned much with Canucks watching their programming, nag maybe but not DN.

[dvp99ca]

boxing ufc wwe ppvs every month plus all the premium channels and sports packages like nhl centre ice. Like I said nobody in Canada can legally purchase a dn account so the Canadians that do pirate someone still has to open up and buy all these channels and dn is making alot of money regardless

[Anubis]

This will never end will it? :innocent:

[alex70olds]

This will never end will it? :innocent:

Sounds like a Bill Murray film. Frocking ground hog!

[Ineedanewusersname]

Sounds like a Bill Murray film. Frocking ground hog!

And at least, let us not forget "BIG BROTHER". There is no hidingperiod

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

DN is saying they losing millions off of piracy really? Most people that steal their signal woudlnt pay for their service anyways I mean what are they talking about? And about the end users in other countries say for instance Canada. Its illegal to even purchase a legal subscription in Canada of any american satellite service. So if anything piracy is spreading DN and DN is making money still. Because Canadians not allowed to purchase their product legally and the ones who do steal DN is still making moeny because even though it still through a server with iks someone is still purchasing the channels and all the ppvs ect. They still making money from Canadians through piracy. They are not losing any money in Canada its just reverse


DN is exposed to possible lawsuits by Canadian providers if they don't do anything about grey market subscriptions or subscriptions used for IKS in Canada.


Bell was sued in Canada by another Canadian provider Videotron for not doing enough about piracy. Many years ago US broadcasters including DN were sued by Wic Premium Tv for Canadian grey market.



GS2

[rockhard]

Going back on the beav if you google search some people or someone is really after this guy. They just posted his pic up with his name Jermyl and giving the whole info on who he is where he lives, his cell phone number that he owns a dry wall company ect ect. Person is also saying they gave that info to the rcmp and satscams thats why he was busted. Further more when other servers were being hit with ddos attacks that he was the one doing it because he would get jealous if others didnt buy off him so he would try to take down other servers. This stuff is crazy!
where did you see this at on never mind found it , lol

[clarkBENT]

Going back on the beav if you google search some people or someone is really after this guy. They just posted his pic up with his name Jermyl and giving the whole info on who he is where he lives, his cell phone number that he owns a dry wall company ect ect. Person is also saying they gave that info to the rcmp and satscams thats why he was busted. Further more when other servers were being hit with ddos attacks that he was the one doing it because he would get jealous if others didnt buy off him so he would try to take down other servers. This stuff is crazy!



https://plus.google.com/113314476379226893814/posts

[walter]

What a greedy retard. He had it sooo good until he pissed off wrong folks I'm guessing....story of this "hobby"....sad.

[holly2012]

https://plus.google.com/113314476379226893814/posts

That was posted back in November 2013 it was probably posted by eeprom who was banned from this site for posting someones personal information and for being a RAT I guess it didn't bother thebeav to much because he never shut his servers down then

[jeldf]

What a greedy retard. He had it sooo good until he pissed off wrong folks I'm guessing....story of this "hobby"....sad.

Really walter? I can do everything to you exactly like that link clarkBENT posted. It means nothing. I have no stake in this game but I do know BS when I see it lol

[holly2012]

Really walter? I can do everything to you exactly like that link clarkBENT posted. It means nothing. I have no stake in this game but I do know BS when I see it lol

Your right jeldf its all hear say and speculations

[walter]

Really walter? I can do everything to you exactly like that link clarkBENT posted. It means nothing. I have no stake in this game but I do know BS when I see it lol

It's awesome for you dude that you would have the knowledge to do that...But what was wrong or incorrect with my statement?? Are you saying that he (thebeav) wasn't ddos attacking servers that weren't buying their cache from him? Cuz if he was than how surprising is it that one of them ratted him out? And if he was would that not be considered being greedy? And when all this personal info was exposed and he and his team didn't go running for the hills was that not a little "retarted"?

[holly2012]

It's awesome for you dude that you would have the knowledge to do that...But what was wrong or incorrect with my statement?? Are you saying that he (thebeav) wasn't ddos attacking servers that weren't buying their cache from him? Cuz if he was than how surprising is it that one of them ratted him out? And if he was would that not be considered being greedy? And when all this personal info was exposed and he and his team didn't go running for the hills was that not a little "retarted"?

That is speculation as that it was him ddosing anyone.So your saying if you had a server and got ddosed you would just rat on someone not knowing if it was the right person or not even though you have your own server I bet you wouldn't mention that its a good way to get rid of the competition

[jeldf]

It's awesome for you dude that you would have the knowledge to do that...But what was wrong or incorrect with my statement?? Are you saying that he (thebeav) wasn't ddos attacking servers that weren't buying their cache from him? Cuz if he was than how surprising is it that one of them ratted him out? And if he was would that not be considered being greedy? And when all this personal info was exposed and he and his team didn't go running for the hills was that not a little "retarted"?

I won't get into a pi**ing match with you. Yes, his minions did run for the hills. All the other info is pure speculation. The Google page is way too funny. Shall I make one saying you are the Jynx Master? I'm sure the truth will come out eventually, it always does in this world.

Peace

[Condor]

I won't get into a pi**ing match with you. Yes, his minions did run for the hills. All the other info is pure speculation. The Google page is way too funny. Shall I make one saying you are the Jynx Master? I'm sure the truth will come out eventually, it always does in this world.

Peace
Dont be so mean Jed...Lol.. I also have no vested interest but DDOsing the competition (Not saying he did it....But whoever...And not just the competition but forums) is just plain wrong... No honor amongst thieves anymore... Lol..

[walter]

That is speculation as that it was him ddosing anyone.So your saying if you had a server and got ddosed you would just rat on someone not knowing if it was the right person or not even though you have your own server I bet you wouldn't mention that its a good way to get rid of the competition

You're 100% right it is speculation on mine and most others end as I/we have no inside information. I'm no rat, but if for some reason I was put in the position of having to rat someone out I would be 100% sure it was them first, but that's just me. However if one had the ability and know how to track down who thebeav really was, and given the nature of the business he runs I would hope that was somewhat difficult to do, they would likely have the ability and knowledge to figure out who was ddos'n their server, no? I'm in no way condoning the posting of the information, I'm just not all that surprised it happened under the apparent circumstances.

[Anubis]

its funny everyone worrying about police or rcmp or the providers going after the servers but i think many people should be worried about people running the servers themselves going and ratting on others. This might be a bigger problem then anything else

If people would simply stop pirating tv, none of any of this would be taking place.;)

[walter]

I won't get into a pi**ing match with you. Yes, his minions did run for the hills. All the other info is pure speculation. The Google page is way too funny. Shall I make one saying you are the Jynx Master? I'm sure the truth will come out eventually, it always does in this world.

Peace

I'm pretty sure I don't want to get into a pi$$ing match with you...lol. Just trying to discuss and understand this situation a little better. I remember when we used to be able to do this without it turning into a pi$$ing match.

[Nostradamus]

well I know for a fact who posted that crap online. It was either the same person who posted the personal info in public or his butt buddy with the server that he is seeding. how do I know? I heard it all before ,almost word for word from the same person who posted the public info. maybe Charlie should l;ook into his source of information and shut down those pirates as well :D

as for the DDOS, well yep apparently the Beav was doing it for leverage but there were and still are others as well. It was like a daisy chain in an orgy. Yep one of the links fell off the chain but the rest of them are still happily humping away :)

[KIDWCKED]

the worst thing they did was RAT!!!! Hopefully the RAT gets poisened!!..

[abouttosnap]

Dont be so mean Jed...Lol.. I also have no vested interest but DDOsing the competition (Not saying he did it....But whoever...And not just the competition but forums) is just plain wrong... No honor amongst thieves anymore... Lol..

I will second that.

[KIDWCKED]

maybe peeps shud know wh0 the RAT iz..jmo...

[dvp99ca]

Being a rat is one thing but if the dude is ddosing everyones server then he deserved what he got. I dont think anyone would resort to those type of tactics for no reason whatsoever. And i posted this before but nobody said anything about it so ill say it again didnt Beav own Racertv and then he took off and took everyones money? Thats what I heard

[KIDWCKED]

Being a rat is one thing but if the dude is ddosing everyones server then he deserved what he got. I dont think anyone would resort to those type of tactics for no reason whatsoever. And i posted this before but nobody said anything about it so ill say it again didnt Beav own Racertv and then he took off and took everyones money? Thats what I heard

i guess thats what u heard...lol...

[Rokuguy]

eprom eprom

[ftv]

Being a rat is one thing but if the dude is ddosing everyones server then he deserved what he got. I dont think anyone would resort to those type of tactics for no reason whatsoever. And i posted this before but nobody said anything about it so ill say it again didnt Beav own Racertv and then he took off and took everyones money? Thats what I heardWrong.Racer/Dytona survived Just someone behind get fine for 350k

[sodusme]

He does look like "the beav" that is for sure.

"Aw gee Wally me and Larry was just pirating some Bev and Dish Network TV don't be sore".

:innocent:

[ImissDAVE]

If people would simply stop pirating tv, none of any of this would be taking place.;)

Or, conversely if people stopped paying via traceable methods and refuse to deal with P$ that refuse anonymous payment methods.....

[hondoharry]

I agree Imissdave and that ip address in itself wouldnt be enough evidence but what I think will happen is they will force the isp to give up the names so they can send the extortion letters

They don't need to deal with all the ISP's. They go after the person who paid with PayPal, not the person on the IP address from the server. As Sod may have mentioned once or twice, an IP addy proves nothing.

[dvp99ca]

Then why dont more of these guys who run the server use pre paid? Its simple and it can even be done with an app on ur phone.

[jeldf]

I'm pretty sure I don't want to get into a pi$$ing match with you...lol. Just trying to discuss and understand this situation a little better. I remember when we used to be able to do this without it turning into a pi$$ing match.

It's all good walter.......it is the rumor section lol. I was only trying to make the analogy that you could be the "beav' if I speculated you with some picture from the net and wrote a third person diatribe stating such.

[sodusme]

Then why dont more of these guys who run the server use pre paid? Its simple and it can even be done with an app on ur phone.

I've often wondered that too. Hell there are also payment processors that are not so likely to "roll" on you. Like hondoharry said an i.p. doesn't mean anything its like a telephone number in that anyone can use it.

[access_denied]

If/when something goes down they'll follow the money first by the easiest way possible of obtaining that information and then branch out as far as they see fit. It's not rocket science... but then again there are still plenty of pp users as everybody has already mentioned. That boggles my mind. There are plenty of excellent alternatives.

[dvp99ca]

XBMC with many 3rd party apps u get all movies ppvs tv shows live streams ect ect u really dont need anything else just bein honest. But sooner or later that will be the next target for people to complain about and want shut down

[MaFiA]

safest way is a pre paid credit card with a vpn service preferably offshore and one that doesnt maintain any time or date stamps to which users are using and doesnt log ips. If u look around there are some that have no data retention laws but there all over seas that is the safest way. But I could careless because im just happy with xbmc with all the apps u get everything on there anyways u dont need this satellite b.s.
Arent people traceable by their IP's regardless of pre paid cards?

[dishuser]

Arent people traceable by their IP's regardless of pre paid cards?

read what you quoted

[MaFiA]

read what you quoted
oops.. quoted the wrong one..meant to quote one of the posts talking about the pp cards

[sodusme]

Arent people traceable by their IP's regardless of pre paid cards?

Sure just about any i.p. is traceable but there is no way to tell "who" was sitting at the computer using that i.p. They are considered the same as a telephone number in that anyone can use it but unless you know the person you have no idea "who" was using it.

[hutch]

You're 100% right it is speculation on mine and most others end as I/we have no inside information. I'm no rat, but if for some reason I was put in the position of having to rat someone out I would be 100% sure it was them first, but that's just me. However if one had the ability and know how to track down who thebeav really was, and given the nature of the business he runs I would hope that was somewhat difficult to do, they would likely have the ability and knowledge to figure out who was ddos'n their server, no? I'm in no way condoning the posting of the information, I'm just not all that surprised it happened under the apparent circumstances.

'but if for some reason I was put in the position of having to rat someone out I would be 100% sure it was them first, but that's just me.'

xxxxxxx??? Really... so if your 100% sure... its OK to rat someone out??? It is my observation that the code remains for some... the others ... well lets just say they will probably rot in hell first...

[Grave Digger]

Sure just about any i.p. is traceable but there is no way to tell "who" was sitting at the computer using that i.p. They are considered the same as a telephone number in that anyone can use it but unless you know the person you have no idea "who" was using it.

i agree somewhat with what your saying.....BUT,

isn't the owner of the connection responsible for all activity that occurs?

i mean, what if i make a long distance call on my friends phone without them knowing?.....the phone provider doesn't care who made the call, the only thing they care about is it gets paid for, and that would be the responsibility of the person who owns the phone line/connection,

the owner of the phone line can sit there and say "but it was my friend" and that won't matter a damn,

so the same thing would apply to an internet IP connection, the owner of the service would be responsible for all activity that takes place over THEIR connection, which is also clearly stated in the small print and terms of service of your ISP contract (which most people do not bother reading),

so if there is ILLEGAL activity happening over a certain IP, then the owner of that IP is responsible for it, wether they know about the activity or not is irrelevant,

[dvp99ca]

So if there are programs on the internet that are able to hack your wifi and theres not much you can do about it nor the isps themselves that is your fault? If someone wants your wifi and they do their research and look hard enough theres not much one can do. Unless you have a good knowledge about how things work theres not much that can be done and most people out their who do have internet access just know the basics. Hell the avg Joe probably calls the internet provider up how to hook up their connection in the first place regardless if a manual comes with the modem he/she purchased. Most people dont have enough knowledge in the first place unless you have a decent background to protect yourself.

[dvp99ca]

70 year old grandma who lives down the street by herself or 40 year truck driver whos only home on the weekends who both have internet connections, I guess its their fault because they wifi was hacked lol

[access_denied]

i agree somewhat with what your saying.....BUT,

isn't the owner of the connection responsible for all activity that occurs?

i mean, what if i make a long distance call on my friends phone without them knowing?.....the phone provider doesn't care who made the call, the only thing they care about is it gets paid for, and that would be the responsibility of the person who owns the phone line/connection,

the owner of the phone line can sit there and say "but it was my friend" and that won't matter a damn,

so the same thing would apply to an internet IP connection, the owner of the service would be responsible for all activity that takes place over THEIR connection, which is also clearly stated in the small print and terms of service of your ISP contract (which most people do not bother reading),

so if there is ILLEGAL activity happening over a certain IP, then the owner of that IP is responsible for it, wether they know about the activity or not is irrelevant,

Enough people have been sued over the years in the states for downloading their mp3s.

[bigbadbrother]

Enough people have been sued over the years in the states for downloading their mp3s.

MP3 what MP3 I have no ideal what your talking about :innocent:

[bigbird]

MP3 what MP3 I have no ideal what your talking about :innocent:

RIAA has sued many for downloading music MP3's.

bigbird

[Mr Hanky]

Sure just about any i.p. is traceable but there is no way to tell "who" was sitting at the computer using that i.p. They are considered the same as a telephone number in that anyone can use it but unless you know the person you have no idea "who" was using it.Tell that to the guy who lost his house,credit and life to a hacker,he sure didn't know who did it,while he lives under a bridge.

[kenkell1]

Tell that to the guy who lost his house,credit and life to a hacker,he sure didn't know who did it,while he lives under a bridge.

Who would that be?? Ya sure thats true? Cmon man!

[walter]

'but if for some reason I was put in the position of having to rat someone out I would be 100% sure it was them first, but that's just me.'

xxxxxxx??? Really... so if your 100% sure... its OK to rat someone out??? It is my observation that the code remains for some... the others ... well lets just say they will probably rot in hell first...
Figured someone would focus on that...You're missing the point....
I'm not sure in this case ratting out at that level was justified. Again, I'm not surprised it happened with what was allegedly going on.
But are there times when "ratting" is necessary? Yup I believe there are. Mess with me and/or my family's well being and I will take whatever means necessary to protect us. If you're going to wrong me and not be smart enough to keep your identity hidden...you better watch your back. Especially if you just happen to be practicing illegal activity and an easy target.

[Nostradamus]

ok it looks like one guy ratted the other out! granted from what I have heard I would say that is a fact. As for whether the "ratting" is justified I would say in this case then No it is not! Nobody was messing with another person's family other than the fact they were hitting each other in the pocket book as they were both doing "illegal activities" and it was nothing more than a power struggle which got out of hand. So in my opinion the one that did the ratting is no better or worse than the other one. My only hope is that it blows up in his face and the guy that got busted rats out the two that set him up as well.

[Nostradamus]

Tell that to the guy who lost his house,credit and life to a hacker,he sure didn't know who did it,while he lives under a bridge.

really doesn't sound like that guy was too computer savvy and probably shouldn't have owned one anyway. A classic case of the ID TEN T error

[Mr Hanky]

Everyone in this thread slipped up at one point or another,to pretend you are untouchable is only leading the sheep to slaughter.

[henpecked]

Might as well throw the word "rat" out the window...both parties know what they are getting in to..Or at least they should
The one selling the code are out to make money...end user trying to save it
If the "code seller" gets nailed...there's no doubt, anyone or everyone associated with them are going down, if it helps them
get a reduced penalty and vice versa from end user..
No one in this game owes anybody anything...you plays the game...and if the game comes to an end..you better be ready for the consequences. I think the word "rat" went out with the early entry of the mafia..You rat..you die..
In the early days of hacking, I heard of some "paybacks"..but that was a whole different game..
Most on this site would sing like a canary to save themselves, family or assets...regardless of what you read here.

[dishuser]

Might as well throw the word "rat" out the window...both parties know what they are getting in to..Or at least they should
The one selling the code are out to make money...end user trying to save it
If the "code seller" gets nailed...there's no doubt, anyone or everyone associated with them are going down, if it helps them
get a reduced penalty and vice versa from end user..
No one in this game owes anybody anything...you plays the game...and if the game comes to an end..you better be ready for the consequences. I think the word "rat" went out with the early entry of the mafia..You rat..you die..
In the early days of hacking, I heard of some "paybacks"..but that was a whole different game..
Most on this site would sing like a canary to save themselves, family or assets...regardless of what you read here.
tomico didn't
too bad everyone wasn't like him

[sodusme]

Actually we used to have strange phone calls show up all the time on our landline phone when I was a child. My mother would call the phone company and simply deny that the call was made from our...

[kutter]

YES an ISP can "hold you responsible" but you're forgetting one minor thing: They are not the ones suing you. Its the MPAA and RIAA and they do NOT have the authority to do anything with your internet connection they can only "attempt" to sue you. The ISP on the other hand can disconnect or suspend your connection but they cannot sue you. So....with that said "hold me responsible" all you want. The ISP still can't demand that you cough up the money to the MPAA or the RIAA and the MPAA or RIAA cannot demand that your ISP disconnect your connection.


It seems you missed the point. Grave Digger did not say that your ISP was suing you, he said that you are responsible for any activity on your connection and he's correct. Read the TOS or AUP that you agreed to when you signed up with your ISP.

Good luck using "I was hacked" as a defense. Certainly, it's a possibility, but let's be realistic here, we're talking about probabilities not possibilities. Either way the onus would be on you to provide something to corroborate your story.

[sodusme]

It seems you missed the point. Grave Digger did not say that your ISP was suing you, he said that you are responsible for any activity on your connection and he's correct. Read the TOS or AUP that you agreed to when you signed up with your ISP.

Good luck using "I was hacked" as a defense. Certainly, it's a possibility, but let's be realistic here, we're talking about probabilities not possibilities. Either way the onus would be on you to provide something to corroborate your story.

I didn't miss the point on anything.

So my ISP comes to me and says "you are responsible for what occurs on your connection". What are they going to do? Can they sue you? Can they make you pay money? Can they hold you financially responsible for what occurred on that connection? NO they CANNOT. The most they can do is disable your account per the TOS. I would recommend reading your TOS again as it says in mine specifically they will NOT get involved in any lawsuits regarding your use of their service. They can and will suspend the service.

On the reverse of that coin you have the MPAA and RIAA saying "you are financially responsible for the downloading of these copyrighted works". OK what can they do? Can they temporarily suspend your ISP account? Can they dump you from your ISP account totally? Can they do anything at all regarding your ISP account? NO they CANNOT. The most they can do is send you a letter alleging copyright infringement. They can "try" to make you pay it based on an i.p. alone and as I've said before GOOD LUCK with that. So you would be without internet connection if the ISP found grounds to disconnect your service (which most won't based on the fact that they won't get involved in a lawsuit with you and a 3rd party) and there is no way anyone should ever be paying the extortion letters from the MPAA and RIAA based on an i.p.

What I'm saying in an nutshell is each of those organizations (your ISP and the MPAA and RIAA) has its own power in its own right but they cannot perform each others duties. The ISP cannot sue you and the MPAA and RIAA cannot disconnect your ISP account. Period the end.

I can guarantee you that if I was ever challenged on this in a court of law I would prevail. I know networking in and out its all I do all day, every day, 365 days a year.

[kutter]

I didn't miss the point on anything.

So my ISP comes to me and says "you are responsible for what occurs on your connection". What are they going to do? Can they sue you? Can they make you pay money? Can they hold you financially responsible for what occurred on that connection? NO they CANNOT. The most they can do is disable your account per the TOS. I would recommend reading your TOS again as it says in mine specifically they will NOT get involved in any lawsuits regarding your use of their service. They can and will suspend the service.

On the reverse of that coin you have the MPAA and RIAA saying "you are financially responsible for the downloading of these copyrighted works". OK what can they do? Can they temporarily suspend your ISP account? Can they dump you from your ISP account totally? Can they do anything at all regarding your ISP account? NO they CANNOT. The most they can do is send you a letter alleging copyright infringement. They can "try" to make you pay it based on an i.p. alone and as I've said before GOOD LUCK with that. So you would be without internet connection if the ISP found grounds to disconnect your service (which most won't based on the fact that they won't get involved in a lawsuit with you and a 3rd party) and there is no way anyone should ever be paying the extortion letters from the MPAA and RIAA based on an i.p.

What I'm saying in an nutshell is each of those organizations (your ISP and the MPAA and RIAA) has its own power in its own right but they cannot perform each others duties. The ISP cannot sue you and the MPAA and RIAA cannot disconnect your ISP account. Period the end.

I can guarantee you that if I was ever challenged on this in a court of law I would prevail. I know networking in and out its all I do all day, every day, 365 days a year.

Why would your ISP come to you and say you are responsible when that's already an established fact.

You can and will be held accountable for your activities unless you can prove that it wasn't you.

[kutter]

LOL ... sorry sodusme :) <br />
<br />
I know it's not that cut and dried ... my point is that while you can raise some doubts, we're not talking about criminal charges but rather civil ... so it boils down to...

[sodusme]

I know....what I'm saying is who has what &quot;responsibility&quot;? In other words the ISP's responsibility is that they can only suspend or disconnect your ISP connection and that is where their...

[kutter]

lol ... the point is what are you responsible for :)

[Recove52]

Would like to be the fly on the wall as Sod made his arquement as He has certainly some valid points,and the Knowledge to make them..alot has changed since the days of D.A.R.P.A. Facts are these folks build and put satellites in orbit to think they canot find you on Terra Firma is foolish..when you Operate a server your looking to get bit...an enduser receives a server transmits not much can be done about those who capture a signal but the man will allways be looking for those unauthorized transmissions

[sodusme]

lol ... the point is what are you responsible for :)

LOL easy answer. We're talking the "penalty phase" of what you would be responsible for. Responsibility is only relevant if there is a punishment attached with that responsibility. So your "penalty" from the ISP is---they will suspend or disconnect your internet connection. The "penalty" from the MPAA or RIAA is---they will send a letter to your ISP demanding that your activities cease or they will bring suit against you (the internet connection account holder).

I've gotten these letters and basically they are sent on "behalf" of the copyright holder. No where in the letter does it stipulate that the ISP is involved in this letter at all. In fact I believe they say "On behalf of copyright holder XYZ....". Therefore the ISP will not be involved in the litigation or subsequent collection of the litigation should it be decided in favor of the copyright holder if its taken to court.

The same holds true in the letter that the copyright holder sends you. It stipulates that they will litigate against you if your actions do not cease but again no where in the letter does it stipulate that they can take any action against your internet connection OR even your ISP. There is a clause written into every TOS that basically says your ISP is not responsible for what you do on your connection and your responsibility with the ISP is only to the point that they (the ISP) can suspend or disconnect your account.

I have never heard of an ISP taking anyone to court and I have never heard of the MPAA or RIAA suspending or disconnecting a subscribers internet account. They don't transcend their boundaries.

[1boxman]

Well I just looked up my agreement with my isp and reading this both are right ..here what mined play out as..yes you are 100% responsible for your account ,usage,software and equipment etc. (basic)

But your all so responsible on your account for being compromised or stolen equipment etc.If you feel are ,than you are responsible to report it .

So to the average person ..or other wise..If in deed it is compromised...how in fact would you know ,unless you received a letter ?

Seeing how the transmission of iks and very small .

So than you report ..and there is another fight .

But as I have said before ..they are not coming to the table with just one thing in question this time .

[Condor]

Well I just looked up my agreement with my isp and reading this both are right ..here what mined play out as..yes you are 100% responsible for your account ,usage,software and equipment etc. (basic)

But your all so responsible on your account for being compromised or stolen equipment etc.If you feel are ,than you are responsible to report it .

So to the average person ..or other wise..If in deed it is compromised...how in fact would you know ,unless you received a letter ?

Seeing how the transmission of iks and very small .

So than you report ..and there is another fight .

But as I have said before ..they are not coming to the table with just one thing in question this time .

Well you all sucked me into it...Heheheheeee... 100% correct "Boxdude"... No matter how you paint it "we" all are 100% responsible for the account... No matter what happens.. It has been proven over and over there is no defense for it... Unless maybe you are a millionaire and don't mind spending hundreds of thousands in a legal defense... But then again a millionaire would not need to do anything "illegal"...Lol..

[filippo]

Well I just looked up my agreement with my isp and reading this both are right ..here what mined play out as..yes you are 100% responsible for your account ,usage,software and equipment etc. (basic)

But your all so responsible on your account for being compromised or stolen equipment etc.If you feel are ,than you are responsible to report it .

So to the average person ..or other wise..If in deed it is compromised...how in fact would you know ,unless you received a letter ?

Seeing how the transmission of iks and very small .

So than you report ..and there is another fight .

But as I have said before ..they are not coming to the table with just one thing in question this time .

Com-on now is there no respect between thiefs (dish@peeps) haha:innocent:

[hedley]

well, we are all guilty, LOL, speaking for myself of course, if you get nailed then why worry about spilled milk?.....belly up to the bar and pay the bill.

[sodusme]

well, we are all guilty, LOL, speaking for myself of course, if you get nailed then why worry about spilled milk?.....belly up to the bar and pay the bill.

Or make a prayer request to "sweet baby Jesus". LOL

Couldn't resist after seeing the avatar one of the best movies ever.

[sodusme]

Well I just looked up my agreement with my isp and reading this both are right ..here what mined play out as..yes you are 100% responsible for your account ,usage,software and equipment etc. (basic)

But your all so responsible on your account for being compromised or stolen equipment etc.If you feel are ,than you are responsible to report it .

So to the average person ..or other wise..If in deed it is compromised...how in fact would you know ,unless you received a letter ?

Seeing how the transmission of iks and very small .

So than you report ..and there is another fight .

But as I have said before ..they are not coming to the table with just one thing in question this time .

That's exactly right but I bet if you read further what are the "consequences" of said "responsibility"? They will simply suspend or disconnect your service is what I'm willing to bet.

[1boxman]

That's exactly right but I bet if you read further what are the "consequences" of said "responsibility"? They will simply suspend or disconnect your service is what I'm willing to bet.

Yes...actually .. mine said suspend ,cancel and subjected to an laws . F$$%kers...lol

[tire]

anyone one know for sure 100% he got busted?or did he shut things down?

[chicot60]

JUDGE: IP-ADDRESS IS NOT A PERSON AND CAN’T IDENTIFY A BITTORRENT PIRATE
BY ERNESTO ON MARCH 24, 2014 C: 77
NEWS
An important ruling in Florida has made it more difficult for copyright holders to extract cash settlements from alleged BitTorrent pirates. District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro dismissed a lawsuit filed by Malibu Media, arguing that the IP-address evidence can't identify the person who actually downloaded the pirated file.

ip-addressOver the past several years hundreds of thousands of alleged BitTorrent pirates have been sued by so-called ‘copyright trolls’ in the United States.

The rightsholders bringing these cases generally rely on an IP address as evidence. They then ask the courts to grant a subpoena, forcing Internet providers to hand over the personal details of the associated account holder.

The problem, however, is that the person listed as the account holder is often not the person who downloaded the infringing material. Although not many judges address this crucial issue early on, there are exceptions, such as the one raised by Florida District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro.

Judge Ungaro was presented with a case brought by Malibu Media, who accused IP-address “174.61.81.171″ of sharing one of their films using BitTorrent without their permission. The Judge, however, was reluctant to issue a subpoena, and asked the company to explain how they could identify the actual infringer.

Responding to this order to show cause, Malibu Media gave an overview of their data gathering techniques. Among other things they explained that geo-location software was used to pinpoint the right location, and how they made sure that it was a residential address, and not a public hotspot.

Judge Ungaro welcomed the additional details, but saw nothing that actually proves that the account holder is the person who downloaded the file.

“Plaintiff has shown that the geolocation software can provide a location for an infringing IP address; however, Plaintiff has not shown how this geolocation software can establish the identity of the Defendant,” Ungaro wrote in an order last week.

“There is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district,” she adds.


http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-person-140324/

[sodusme]

JUDGE: IP-ADDRESS IS NOT A PERSON AND CAN’T IDENTIFY A BITTORRENT PIRATE
BY ERNESTO ON MARCH 24, 2014 C: 77
NEWS
An important ruling in Florida has made it more difficult for copyright holders to extract cash settlements from alleged BitTorrent pirates. District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro dismissed a lawsuit filed by Malibu Media, arguing that the IP-address evidence can't identify the person who actually downloaded the pirated file.

ip-addressOver the past several years hundreds of thousands of alleged BitTorrent pirates have been sued by so-called ‘copyright trolls’ in the United States.

The rightsholders bringing these cases generally rely on an IP address as evidence. They then ask the courts to grant a subpoena, forcing Internet providers to hand over the personal details of the associated account holder.

The problem, however, is that the person listed as the account holder is often not the person who downloaded the infringing material. Although not many judges address this crucial issue early on, there are exceptions, such as the one raised by Florida District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro.

Judge Ungaro was presented with a case brought by Malibu Media, who accused IP-address “174.61.81.171″ of sharing one of their films using BitTorrent without their permission. The Judge, however, was reluctant to issue a subpoena, and asked the company to explain how they could identify the actual infringer.

Responding to this order to show cause, Malibu Media gave an overview of their data gathering techniques. Among other things they explained that geo-location software was used to pinpoint the right location, and how they made sure that it was a residential address, and not a public hotspot.

Judge Ungaro welcomed the additional details, but saw nothing that actually proves that the account holder is the person who downloaded the file.

“Plaintiff has shown that the geolocation software can provide a location for an infringing IP address; however, Plaintiff has not shown how this geolocation software can establish the identity of the Defendant,” Ungaro wrote in an order last week.

“There is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district,” she adds.


http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-person-140324/

Thanks for posting this I was not aware that another more recent one had come to light. I knew of a few others but not this latest ruling.

[kutter]

LOL easy answer. We're talking the "penalty phase" of what you would be responsible for. Responsibility is only relevant if there is a punishment attached with that responsibility. So your "penalty" from the ISP is---they will suspend or disconnect your internet connection. The "penalty" from the MPAA or RIAA is---they will send a letter to your ISP demanding that your activities cease or they will bring suit against you (the internet connection account holder).

I've gotten these letters and basically they are sent on "behalf" of the copyright holder. No where in the letter does it stipulate that the ISP is involved in this letter at all. In fact I believe they say "On behalf of copyright holder XYZ....". Therefore the ISP will not be involved in the litigation or subsequent collection of the litigation should it be decided in favor of the copyright holder if its taken to court.

The same holds true in the letter that the copyright holder sends you. It stipulates that they will litigate against you if your actions do not cease but again no where in the letter does it stipulate that they can take any action against your internet connection OR even your ISP. There is a clause written into every TOS that basically says your ISP is not responsible for what you do on your connection and your responsibility with the ISP is only to the point that they (the ISP) can suspend or disconnect your account.

I have never heard of an ISP taking anyone to court and I have never heard of the MPAA or RIAA suspending or disconnecting a subscribers internet account. They don't transcend their boundaries.

The letters are sent to you by your ISP because someone has shown them proof that your account was being used for illegal purposes. It's not on behalf of the other company. It's because your ISP has a legal obligation to enforce it's own rules and to respect the law when it's brought to their attention.

[sodusme]

The letters are sent to you by your ISP because someone has shown them proof that your account was being used for illegal purposes. It's not on behalf of the other company. It's because your ISP has a legal obligation to enforce it's own rules and to respect the law when it's brought to their attention.

No someone has shown them an "i.p." and that is it. That is the whole reason we are having this discussion.


Dear Comcast High-Speed Internet Subscriber:

Comcast has received a notification by a copyright owner, or its authorized agent, reporting an alleged infringement of one or more copyrighted works made on or over Comcast's High-Speed Internet service (the "Service"). The copyright owner has identified the Internet Protocol ("IP") address associated with your Service account at the time as the source of the infringing works. The works identified by the copyright owner in its notification are listed below. Comcast reminds you that use of the Service (or any part of the Service) in any manner that constitutes an infringement of any copyrighted work is a violation of Comcast's Acceptable Use Policy and may result in the suspension or termination of your Service account.

This is word for word from the letter I received some 3 years ago. Notice the last sentence? That is really all that is relevant based on Comcast's contact with me. They cannot sue me. They cannot make sure that BayTSP sues me. They cannot collect any money or make any claims for any money. They cannot even say I am guilty of this. They will not get involved in any way, shape, or form EXCEPT to send out a letter on behalf of the copyright holder that they are required to do by law. But that is where the "law" draws the line on Comcast's authority.

You'll also notice they say "alleged" as its not their place to side with me OR BayTSP on this matter. They also clearly state that only an IP has been identified. They are very particular in their wording for a reason.

I've been down this road with Comcast a few times and nothing ever becomes of the letter. They send it out because they are required to do so by Federal law and that is where it ends.

[kutter]

No someone has shown them an "i.p." and that is it. That is the whole reason we are having this discussion.



This is word for word from the letter I received some 3 years ago. Notice the last sentence? That is really all that is relevant based on Comcast's contact with me. They cannot sue me. They cannot make sure that BayTSP sues me. They cannot collect any money or make any claims for any money. They cannot even say I am guilty of this. They will not get involved in any way, shape, or form EXCEPT to send out a letter on behalf of the copyright holder that they are required to do by law. But that is where the "law" draws the line on Comcast's authority.

You'll also notice they say "alleged" as its not their place to side with me OR BayTSP on this matter. They also clearly state that only an IP has been identified. They are very particular in their wording for a reason.

I've been down this road with Comcast a few times and nothing ever becomes of the letter. They send it out because they are required to do so by Federal law and that is where it ends.

Yes, you're correct, it is simply an allegation. However, Comcast could verify the legitimacy of the complaint easier than a third party could. :)

I'm surprised that these companies haven't pursued the ISPs aggressively. I'm willing to bet that the letter is sent to you because they could face legal action if they condoned illegal activity on their network. Proving it might be difficult and costly but to think that your ISP can't face legal action for condoning your illegal activity is naive.

[sodusme]

Yes, you're correct, it is simply an allegation. However, Comcast could verify the legitimacy of the complaint easier than a third party could. :)

I'm surprised that these companies haven't pursued the ISPs aggressively. I'm willing to bet that the letter is sent to you because they could face legal action if they condoned illegal activity on their network. Proving it might be difficult and costly but to think that your ISP can't face legal action for condoning your illegal activity is naive.

No actually they cannot. The most they can do is sniff packets and they can verify a MAC address and the i.p. since the MAC is present up to Layer 2 of the OSI model and then its replaced with i.p. address's at Layer 3 of the OSI model. The reason they can trace a MAC is Layer 2 devices are switches which would pass your traffic from your PC to the router that they use to get you on the WAN. That allows them then to "see" your MAC until it leaves their network and is passed onto the router and then its replaced by the MAC of every other router at every hop thereafter.

I know they can face legal action...but they cannot "bring" legal action against you. Proving it is not only "difficult" its impossible. In order to understand it fully you have to know how the OSI model in networking works.

[kutter]

No actually they cannot. The most they can do is sniff packets and they can verify a MAC address and the i.p. since the MAC is present up to Layer 2 of the OSI model and then its replaced with i.p. address's at Layer 3 of the OSI model. The reason they can trace a MAC is Layer 2 devices are switches which would pass your traffic from your PC to the router that they use to get you on the WAN. That allows them then to "see" your MAC until it leaves their network and is passed onto the router and then its replaced by the MAC of every other router at every hop thereafter.

I know they can face legal action...but they cannot "bring" legal action against you. Proving it is not only "difficult" its impossible. In order to understand it fully you have to know how the OSI model in networking works.

What need is there to understand the OSI model in networking. Either the data was transmitted to your IP from another IP or it wasn't.

I mean based on what you're suggesting nothing is traceable or verifiable. :)

[sodusme]

What need is there to understand the OSI model in networking. Either the data was transmitted to your IP from another IP or it wasn't.

I mean based on what you're suggesting nothing is traceable or verifiable. :)

That's exactly right....it was transmitted to your "i.p." but not necessarily to your PC. A trace from one i.p. to another i.p. doesn't prove that whoever is in control of that i.p. was sitting behind the keyboard at the PC where that i.p. is legitimately assigned or originated from. This is what I have been saying for the last couple pages.

If someone like say a neighbor leeches your i.p. the packets are seen across the network (LAN and WAN) as having your i.p. assigned to them. Which just because they have your i.p. doesn't necessarily mean the packets originated from your PC. The packets could have easily come from the neighbors house but could have your i.p. in the packet. As long as the packet stays on the "local" network (LAN) it will have a MAC of the computer that the packet originated from. Once the packet reaches a router or "gateway" to the WAN that MAC will be switched out with the MAC of the next "hop" or router in the path to the destination. The originating i.p. (your i.p.) will remain constant as will the destination i.p. from the time the packet leaves the PC (whether your PC or someone who is stealing your internet) until it reaches its destination.

So now you'll probably ask "Why can't the ISP trace the MAC back and identify the user that way?" and they could but people like me switch out their MAC's to any MAC they want which can be spoofed on a router. Now if you are running just a modem you are screwed in that there is no way to spoof the MAC on a modem. Well there is but that is another discussion all together. If you are running a router most likely your i.p. is assigned to that router MAC. Therefore that isn't really a determination either of where that packet originated from unless like I said you are running just a modem. Then a quick check of the MAC on the LAN will reveal where that packet originated from.

Now just as you are probably understanding all this any brain dead judge and/or prosecuting attorney should also be able to understand it. Which is why if I'm ever challenged in a court of law I can pretty much assure you I will prevail.

[kutter]

That's exactly right....it was transmitted to your "i.p." but not necessarily to your PC. A trace from one i.p. to another i.p. doesn't prove that whoever is in control of that i.p. was sitting behind the keyboard at the PC where that i.p. is legitimately assigned or originated from. This is what I have been saying for the last couple pages.

If someone like say a neighbor leeches your i.p. the packets are seen across the network (LAN and WAN) as having your i.p. assigned to them. Which just because they have your i.p. doesn't necessarily mean the packets originated from your PC. The packets could have easily come from the neighbors house but could have your i.p. in the packet. As long as the packet stays on the "local" network it will have a MAC of the computer that the packet originated from. Once the packet reaches a router or "gateway" to the WAN that MAC will be switched out with the MAC of the next "hop" or router in the path to the destination. The originating i.p. (your i.p.) will remain constant as will the destination i.p.

So now you'll probably ask "Why can't the ISP trace the MAC back and identify the user that way?" and they could but people like me switch out their MAC's to any MAC you want which can be spoofed on a router. Now if you are running just a modem you are screwed in that there is no way to spoof the MAC on a modem. Well there is but that is another discussion all together. If you are running a router most likely your i.p. is assigned to that router MAC. Therefore that isn't really a determination either of where that packet originated from unless like I said you are running just a modem. Then a quick check of the MAC on the LAN will reveal where that packet originated from.

Now just as you are probably understanding all this any brain dead judge and/or prosecuting attorney should also be able to understand it. Which is why if I'm ever challenged in a court of law I can pretty much assure you I will prevail.

No. I won't be asking anything about networking. The MAC address has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting.

The company that has contacted Comcast has proven to Comcast that an infringement of the TOS has occurred on a specific IP. Comcast has already made it clear in their TOS that they will not allow that type of activity. You might be able to mount a defense but Comcast has no defense.

[sodusme]

No. I won't be asking anything about networking. The MAC address has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting.

The company that has contacted Comcast has proven to Comcast that an infringement of the TOS has occurred on a specific IP. Comcast has already made it clear in their TOS that they will not allow that type of activity. You might be able to mount a defense but Comcast has no defense.

Well I can tell you this the MAC is the ONLY way to possibly identify a copyright infringer and like I said even that is not fool proof.

I agree Comcast must act per Federal law. But they will not get involved past notifying you with a letter on behalf of the copyright holder. That is all Federal law says they must do. Also true I can mount a damn good defense but Comcast has no defense and if too many infractions are racked up on your i.p. Comcast will simply suspend the account and be done with you. That is a given. :)

[kutter]

I see this as akin to me phoning Visa and telling them that someone is using my number to make unauthorized purchases, and have them say well if we find out who it is we will send them a letter :)

[sodusme]

I see this as akin to me phoning Visa and telling them that someone is using my number to make unauthorized purchases, and have them say well if we find out who it is we will send them a letter :)

I hate to tell you this but that is basically exactly how it works. The banking industry in the U.S. is not interested in actually tracking down criminals that engage in identity theft. All they care about is recovery of the funds. When my wife and I had our account at Chase breached by someone using my wife's debit card on Amazon U.K. we notified Chase immediately. They recovered the funds from Amazon U.K. and that is as far as it went. I knew from the limited amount of use of the debit card on my wife's part that the breach originated from a garbage company website where she paid our bill OR from a "skimmer" on a gas station fuel pump. They didn't bother investigating the i.p. from where the purchases originated, the address where the goods were to be shipped or anything else. They also refused to release any of that information to me so I could investigate it. The bank and the Feds were totally useless. The local sheriffs dept. was of the most help but he said as soon as the i.p. traced back to the Netherlands he was done and had to turn it over to the Feds since it was outside U.S. jurisdiction.

[kutter]

I hate to tell you this but that is basically exactly how it works. The banking industry in the U.S. is not interested in actually tracking down criminals that engage in identity theft. All they care about is recovery of the funds. When my wife and I had our account at Chase breached by someone using my wife's debit card on Amazon U.K. we notified Chase immediately. They recovered the funds from Amazon U.K. and that is as far as it went. I knew from the limited amount of use of the debit card on my wife's part that the breach originated from a garbage company website where she paid our bill OR from a "skimmer" on a gas station fuel pump. They didn't bother investigating the i.p. from where the purchases originated, the address where the goods were to be shipped or anything else. They also refused to release any of that information to me so I could investigate it. The bank and the Feds were totally useless. The local sheriffs dept. was of the most help but he said as soon as the i.p. traced back to the Netherlands he was done and had to turn it over to the Feds since it was outside U.S. jurisdiction.

my experiences have been a little different ... banks are useless and will not go to bat for you ... Visa has been pretty good to deal with whenever I've had problems ... so I stick with Visa when it's an online transaction or a business I've never dealt with :)

[Mr Hanky]

JUDGE: IP-ADDRESS IS NOT A PERSON AND CAN’T IDENTIFY A BITTORRENT PIRATEThats downloading a goofy movie hold out your hand and take the beating.We are talking about being connected to a server everyday for seven years and not knowing that you are connected lmao.

[sodusme]

Thats downloading a goofy movie hold out your hand and take the beating.We are talking about being connected to a server everyday for seven years and not knowing that you are connected lmao.

Doesn't matter what activity your i.p. is engaged in. They still cannot determine an individuals identity from a simple i.p. It just can't be done.

Plus how do they know you are "connected to a server everyday for seven years"? They don't have that information. The only way they would have that is if they seized a server and they have not. They throw in your i.p. as part of the "case" against you but they also include more than that in forum posts and logins and Paypal records. Very hard to refute ALL that information when combined. I'm good and I wouldn't even know where to begin with denying all that when combined. Best bet is as I have said for years ask yourself a simple question: "Can this be linked back to me?" if you cannot answer NO to that question than you need to think before doing it.

[kutter]

Doesn't matter what activity your i.p. is engaged in. They still cannot determine an individuals identity from a simple i.p. It just can't be done.

Plus how do they know you are "connected to a server everyday for seven years"? They don't have that information. The only way they would have that is if they seized a server and they have not. They throw in your i.p. as part of the "case" against you but they also include more than that in forum posts and logins and Paypal records. Very hard to refute ALL that information when combined. I'm good and I wouldn't even know where to begin with denying all that when combined. Best bet is as I have said for years ask yourself a simple question: "Can this be linked back to me?" if you cannot answer NO to that question than you need to think before doing it.

not sure how you can make that statement either ... you don't know what kind of connection is behind that IP ... I know a judge would probably not allow a fishing expedition, but I can show you more than a few people that don't have a router and are connected directly to a cable modem :)

[sodusme]

not sure how you can make that statement either ... you don't know what kind of connection is behind that IP ... I know a judge would probably not allow a fishing expedition, but I can show you more than a few people that don't have a router and are connected directly to a cable modem :)

Doesn't matter if you're directly connected look up Trojan Horse virus's. You could be infected and still have your i.p. being used from somewhere else around the world. Not to mention maybe you had a house guest stay with you and they used your internet connection to surf and download something with. Also maybe you installed some type of software or set up a proxy or a server on your home connection and did it incorrectly leaving your i.p. and port vulnerable.

We can debate this all day but....and this is not to brag....but I know my stuff when it comes to networking. For every reason you can tell me why an i.p. is sufficient to pin something on an individual I can name at least one reason on why its not and probably two and maybe three. :)

[sodusme]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse_%28computing%29


Some Trojans take advantage of a security flaw in older versions of Internet Explorer and Google Chrome to use the host computer as an anonymizer proxy to effectively hide Internet usage,[9] enabling the controller to use the Internet for illegal purposes while all potentially incriminating evidence indicates the infected computer or its IP address.

[kutter]

Doesn't matter if you're directly connected look up Trojan Horse virus's. You could be infected and still have your i.p. being used from somewhere else around the world. Not to mention maybe you had a house guest stay with you and they used your internet connection to surf and download something with. Also maybe you installed some type of software or set up a proxy or a server on your home connection and did it incorrectly leaving your i.p. and port vulnerable.

We can debate this all day but....and this is not to brag....but I know my stuff when it comes to networking. For every reason you can tell me why an i.p. is sufficient to pin something on an individual I can name at least one reason on why its not and probably two and maybe three. :)

all easily verifiable ... and a judge has no reason to suspect that everyone is infected by a trojan ... or make an assumption that the IP has been compromised or that you are connected wireless ... he has no right to make any assumptions on what's behind that connection ... that would be determined through actual evidence only :)

if a guest used your phone to make harassing phone calls they would still be allowed to come and question you and you would be allowed to defend yourself :) ... it's a ridiculous double standard and I'm amazed that it wasn't appealed :)

[Condor]

all easily verifiable ... and a judge has no reason to suspect that everyone is infected by a trojan ... or make an assumption that the IP has been compromised or that you are connected wireless ... he has no right to make any assumptions on what's behind that connection ... that would be determined through actual evidence only :)

if a guest used your phone to make harassing phone calls they would still be allowed to come and question you and you would be allowed to defend yourself :) ... it's a ridiculous double standard and I'm amazed that it wasn't appealed :)
I would love to see Sod, or anyone for that matter...(has anyone ever won I ask???.) Try and fight this little theme in a court of law either criminal or civil law.....There is just no excuse that I have seen good enough...Lol.......http://i875.photobucket.com/albums/ab313/Burzuk2/Emoticons/Black%20smilies/bbs5.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Burzuk2/media/Emoticons/Black%20smilies/bbs5.gif.html)

[sodusme]

all easily verifiable ... and a judge has no reason to suspect that everyone is infected by a trojan ... or make an assumption that the IP has been compromised or that you are connected wireless ... he has no right to make any assumptions on what's behind that connection ... that would be determined through actual evidence only :)

if a guest used your phone to make harassing phone calls they would still be allowed to come and question you and you would be allowed to defend yourself :) ... it's a ridiculous double standard and I'm amazed that it wasn't appealed :)

Actually NO its not easily verifiable. That is why people are not having to pay these "extortionists" the MPAA/RIAA. A judge has the right to make a ruling based on the fact that an i.p. is not "unique" like a fingerprint and that it is possible that more than one person could be using that i.p. Remember in civil court it only takes 51% vs. 49% to get a win. You only need a "preponderance" of the evidence which is basically a shadow of a doubt. The preponderance of the evidence rests with the plaintiff to prove through testimony and exhibits their claim. The rule of thumb is "more likely than not" that the defendant is guilty.

With all we know about i.p. address's and how they are used and how they can be hijacked I don't see any possible way a plaintiff can make a valid claim against a defendant with an i.p. alone.

Take for example the letters I received from copyright holders. What do they have? They have an i.p. alone and nothing more. That means if I was called into court they would show how they obtained my i.p. from a P2P swarm. They would show how they used GEO I.P tracking software to narrow down where I lived and who my ISP was. They would then show how they contacted my ISP with a subpoena for the records of who the account holder was that had that i.p. assigned to them.

Once in court I would take on the task of proving to the judge through testimony and exhibits that its not possible to determine who was actually using that i.p. on that date and time. I would do that through showing how easily WI-FI can be hacked, or by showing how an infected PC can give up its i.p. for a hacker to use for malicious reasons, or how my wife, my children, or my friend visiting could have been sitting at that PC on the date and time in question.

That would as recent judges have ruled be enough to show that the plaintiff has not met their burden of proof.

[sodusme]

I would love to see Sod, or anyone for that matter...(has anyone ever won I ask???.) Try and fight this little theme in a court of law either criminal or civil law.....There is just no excuse that I have seen good enough...Lol.......http://i875.photobucket.com/albums/ab313/Burzuk2/Emoticons/Black%20smilies/bbs5.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Burzuk2/media/Emoticons/Black%20smilies/bbs5.gif.html)

Well you have to realize with these court cases they have a LOT more than just an i.p. They have forum posts, and forum login names, and PM's, and emails, and Paypal records.

Like I said I'm good but I don't know that I'm THAT good. LOL. It would really take some brainstorming and thinking to come up with a good reason to refute all that evidence. You would need one good valid reason as you couldn't keep switching back and forth from one reason to another why all this occurred to you.

What I would be curious to know is what is the ratio of lawsuits to people who's i.p. and maybe Paypal records are the ONLY evidence they have? In other words once they get those I'm assuming they then go after the forum posts and PM's and so forth. So if you didn't have any of those do they leave you alone? That is what I would be interested in knowing.

[kutter]

I would love to see Sod, or anyone for that matter...(has anyone ever won I ask???.) Try and fight this little theme in a court of law either criminal or civil law.....There is just no excuse that I have seen good enough...Lol.......http://i875.photobucket.com/albums/ab313/Burzuk2/Emoticons/Black%20smilies/bbs5.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Burzuk2/media/Emoticons/Black%20smilies/bbs5.gif.html)

lol ... my posts just seem to go against the grain most of the time :)

I'm a firm believer in privacy and freedom of speech, but I'm also a firm believer that if someone has been wronged they should have the right to seek their pound of flesh.

[kutter]

Actually NO its not easily verifiable. That is why people are not having to pay these "extortionists" the MPAA/RIAA. A judge has the right to make a ruling based on the fact that an i.p. is not "unique" like a fingerprint and that it is possible that more than one person could be using that i.p. Remember in civil court it only takes 51% vs. 49% to get a win. You only need a "preponderance" of the evidence which is basically a shadow of a doubt. The preponderance of the evidence rests with the plaintiff to prove through testimony and exhibits their claim. The rule of thumb is "more likely than not" that the defendant is guilty.

With all we know about i.p. address's and how they are used and how they can be hijacked I don't see any possible way a plaintiff can make a valid claim against a defendant with an i.p. alone.

Take for example the letters I received from copyright holders. What do they have? They have an i.p. alone and nothing more. That means if I was called into court they would show how they obtained my i.p. from a P2P swarm. They would show how they used GEO I.P tracking software to narrow down where I lived and who my ISP was. They would then show how they contacted my ISP with a subpoena for the records of who the account holder was that had that i.p. assigned to them.

Once in court I would take on the task of proving to the judge through testimony and exhibits that its not possible to determine who was actually using that i.p. on that date and time. I would do that through showing how easily WI-FI can be hacked, or by showing how an infected PC can give up its i.p. for a hacker to use for malicious reasons, or how my wife, my children, or my friend visiting could have been sitting at that PC on the date and time in question.

That would as recent judges have ruled be enough to show that the plaintiff has not met their burden of proof.

No that's not what happened ... the judge denied the plaintiff the opportunity to prove their case.

The same principles would not apply if it was a criminal investigation. A warrant would be issued and the ISP would hand over the evidence and then things would get sorted out. You claim it's not possible to tie someone to an IP yet it's done by law enforcement all the time.

[Condor]

lol ... my posts just seem to go against the grain most of the time :)

I'm a firm believer in privacy and freedom of speech, but I'm also a firm believer that if someone has been wronged they should have the right to seek their pound of flesh.
I hear you.. Same here... But at the same time I am a realist.. And the reality of things is as Sod has stated over and over if you are gonna do something that is in a "grey area" you better protect yourself and know how to protect yourself.. I personally am an open book.... But have many personalities..depending on what I am up to.. Lol......

Edit...lol.. ........And even if you protect yourself it will just make it a little bit harder but eventually everyone can be found..

[sodusme]

No that's not what happened ... the judge denied the plaintiff the opportunity to prove their case.

The same principles would not apply if it was a criminal investigation. A warrant would be issued and the ISP would hand over the evidence and then things would get sorted out. You claim it's not possible to tie someone to an IP yet it's done by law enforcement all the time.

True I was thinking the subpoena would come out before they set foot in court but it does not. The judge actually dismissed it saying it might not be in the proper venue. Which means there was no proof that the copyright infringer lived in that courts district based on the i.p. alone.

The reason its done by law enforcement all the time is because of the very reason you mentioned a "criminal investigation". In those they can actually seize your PC and run forensics on it. They can't do that in a civil suit. A civil proceeding is vastly different and you won't have police knocking on your door at 5 AM to "investigate" anything. In fact police aren't involved at all in a civil proceeding. Once they get your PC in a criminal investigation unless you have taken great and I mean GREAT care as in wiping the PC over 7 times there will be evidence of your activities on the PC. Mostly that involves underage content of some kind which is what they would normally be looking for.

[sodusme]

You know after reading your post again and re-reading my response even though LEA does it in a "criminal investigation" there still is no way to tell who was sitting at that PC downloading what ever incriminating evidence they are looking for. I think that is what you are getting at wasn't it? LOL

I just thought about that and thought "Wait a minute even if they seize the PC and forensics it they still can't tell who was sitting at it". So why do we allow this type of thing to go on with a criminal investigation I wonder? I mean if you are the only one in the home then I guess you'd be hit but what if you lived in a house with some other people and you ALL had access to a PC? It could be any of them sitting at that PC. How would they determine without a doubt that is was user X and not user Y?

[kutter]

True I was thinking the subpoena would come out before they set foot in court but it does not. The judge actually dismissed it saying it might not be in the proper venue. Which means there was no proof that the copyright infringer lived in that courts district based on the i.p. alone.

The reason its done by law enforcement all the time is because of the very reason you mentioned a "criminal investigation". In those they can actually seize your PC and run forensics on it. They can't do that in a civil suit. A civil proceeding is vastly different and you won't have police knocking on your door at 5 AM to "investigate" anything. In fact police aren't involved at all in a civil proceeding. Once they get your PC in a criminal investigation unless you have taken great and I mean GREAT care as in wiping the PC over 7 times there will be evidence of your activities on the PC. Mostly that involves underage content of some kind which is what they would normally be looking for.

but the same principles still apply ... a judge has to allow it or it simply doesn't happen in a criminal case either :)

law enforcement can't just walk in and examine your PC or get any info from your ISP without a warrant ... and all they have is an IP to start with yet the judge doesn't make any assumptions about what's behind the connection :)

that gets sorted out after the warrant is issued, not before ...

[hondoharry]

You know after reading your post again and re-reading my response even though LEA does it in a "criminal investigation" there still is no way to tell who was sitting at that PC downloading what ever incriminating evidence they are looking for. I think that is what you are getting at wasn't it? LOL

I just thought about that and thought "Wait a minute even if they seize the PC and forensics it they still can't tell who was sitting at it". So why do we allow this type of thing to go on with a criminal investigation I wonder? I mean if you are the only one in the home then I guess you'd be hit but what if you lived in a house with some other people and you ALL had access to a PC? It could be any of them sitting at that PC. How would they determine without a doubt that is was user X and not user Y?

Do they really need to know who was at the PC? Don't they really need to know who was watching the TV connected to the IRD connected to the IP address that connected to a server? Those viewers are the real guilty ones. Yeah, I bought it. But I never watched it. I found out my 10 yr. old daughter was posting to a forum. Sue her.

[Condor]

No that's not what happened ... the judge denied the plaintiff the opportunity to prove their case.

The same principles would not apply if it was a criminal investigation. A warrant would be issued and the ISP would hand over the evidence and then things would get sorted out. You claim it's not possible to tie someone to an IP yet it's done by law enforcement all the time.

Exactly!!


You know after reading your post again and re-reading my response even though LEA does it in a "criminal investigation" there still is no way to tell who was sitting at that PC downloading what ever incriminating evidence they are looking for. I think that is what you are getting at wasn't it? LOL

I just thought about that and thought "Wait a minute even if they seize the PC and forensics it they still can't tell who was sitting at it". So why do we allow this type of thing to go on with a criminal investigation I wonder? I mean if you are the only one in the home then I guess you'd be hit but what if you lived in a house with some other people and you ALL had access to a PC? It could be any of them sitting at that PC. How would they determine without a doubt that is was user X and not user Y?
Remember "you" (the account holder) is responsible no matter what.. What if X and Y were your family??..So many variables those lawyers can come up with.. That them thar lawyers are hawks Specially on the prosecution side..Been there done that.. Just playing devil's advocate.... Lol..

[sodusme]

but the same principles still apply ... a judge has to allow it or it simply doesn't happen in a criminal case either :)

law enforcement can't just walk in and examine your PC or get any info from your ISP without a warrant ... and all they have is an IP to start with yet the judge doesn't make any assumptions about what's behind the connection :)

that gets sorted out after the warrant is issued, not before ...

True enough they wouldn't have anything else to go on. Very interesting angle and I had not thought about that. Now of course there are a couple different scenarios that play out there. The one where the guy "trades" incriminating evidence with LEA and then they get a warrant to seize his computer. But you raise a valid point why is it so easy apparently to get a subpoena issued based on an i.p. alone in a criminal matter vs. a civil matter? They wouldn't have anything else other than the i.p. to go on.


Do they really need to know who was at the PC? Don't they really need to know who was watching the TV connected to the IRD connected to the IP address that connected to a server? Those viewers are the real guilty ones.

You would think so. LOL I think though they have made the mere possession of control words illegal. But are they actually "control" words when they pass through your PC? Aren't they actually not "control words" until they descramble the signal? I mean when they come through your PC there going to be 0's and 1's which are not assembled into control words at that point. Now of course if they come UDP you could actually argue that since UDP unlike TCP transmission doesn't send packets in order and does not do error correction and does not care if some of the packets are missing or lost. TCP transmission on the other hand does do all of those checks. So if the information comes through in UDP (and I'm almost 100% certain it does) one could argue that even those 0's and 1's are NOT valid control words and/or not actually copyright content based on the fact that information may be missing in the packet to reassemble it properly back into the original copyrighted content format.

[RIPducks]

I would hope if some rotten fella got busted he wouldn't let the (account holder) take the rap like dean kutter love.

In the end theft is theft and all you miserable crooks will have to face a moment of reflection as their carting off you wife (the account holder)

[kutter]

I would hope if some rotten fella got busted he wouldn't let the (account holder) take the rap like dean kutter love.

In the end theft is theft and all you miserable crooks will have to face a moment of reflection as their carting off you wife (the account holder)

lol ... now you're going to send Hanni off on another wild goose chase :)

[RIPducks]

lol ... now you're going to send Hanni off on another wild goose chase :)

bag balm would be good for his sore nipples

[kutter]

bag balm would be good for his sore nipples

is that what you use? :)

[goosemanx]

[QUOTE=RIPducks;1058696]I would hope if some rotten fella got busted he wouldn't let the (account holder) take the rap like dean kutter love.

In the end theft is theft and all you miserable crooks will have to face a moment of reflection as their carting off you wife (the account holder)
Me and my gf will sure gonna miss her

[sodusme]

I would love to see Sod, or anyone for that matter...(has anyone ever won I ask???.) Try and fight this little theme in a court of law either criminal or civil law.....There is just no excuse that I have seen good enough...Lol.......http://i875.photobucket.com/albums/ab313/Burzuk2/Emoticons/Black%20smilies/bbs5.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Burzuk2/media/Emoticons/Black%20smilies/bbs5.gif.html)

I think I may have inadvertently hit on your "excuse"....

Lets talk control words for a second? Does D/N claim these control words are the actual "copyrighted" content that is being pirated? If they do I don't see how they can make that claim. I'll share a little with you on why: When a packet is received by your PC its typically either a TCP or UDP packet. TCP packets are normally used with HTTP, FTP, SMTP (email in other words) and other things where "errors" in the packet or "missing" packets might disrupt things. IKS works on UDP as does anything like streaming music, VOIP and anything else where the resending of a packet would cause chaos. So instead there is no resending of lost or damaged packets with UDP.

TCP is a connection oriented packet where there is error checking, resending of packets and everything is sent in order.

UDP is connectionless and there is no error checking, no resending of packets and they are not necessarily sent in order, in fact some times they don't arrive at all.

So as the control word passes to your PC its gonna be in 0's and 1's (standard binary for your PC to understand), now we know that a certain arrangement of 0's and 1's can and does produce software, webpages, music, videos and anything else that can be transmitted to a PC. Now lets say that a control word is made up of a number of "packets" and lets say those "packets" are mixed up OR they are not received at all? How can D/N lay claim to ALL control words being received by a typical IKS user as being copyrighted then? I mean if the 0's and 1's are rearranged or missing entirely then when reassembled they don't quit add up to the exact software that D/N claims they do.

I believe this is why you experience "freezing" on channels is because there are parts of a packet missing (or damaged) and because there is no retransmission or error checking or packets sent in order you will of course notice it in freezing.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Throughout many years people have posted different defenses they would use in court to out smart the opponent. However not to be negative most have not been unsuccessful. What they forget is that the opponent is probably aware of the reported defenses that will be tried.


Someone saying well if they come after me this is what I am going to do can be used against you if that were to happen if they link the nick to the name. Just the opponent coming to court saying well the defendant stated he would make up these defenses for court can work against you.


If you have absolutely no chance that it could happen to you because you never did anything well fine throw it out there but if you actually did do something and could end up with a letter than perhaps saying less is better.



GS2

[Mr Hanky]

The only way they would have that is if they seized a server and they have notThis whole thread is about the beaver server getting busted,what on earth are you talking about.

[sodusme]

Throughout many years people have posted different defenses they would use in court to out smart the opponent. However not to be negative most have not been unsuccessful. What they forget is that the opponent is probably aware of the reported defenses that will be tried.


Someone saying well if they come after me this is what I am going to do can be used against you if that were to happen if they link the nick to the name. Just the opponent coming to court saying well the defendant stated he would make up these defenses for court can work against you.


If you have absolutely no chance that it could happen to you because you never did anything well fine throw it out there but if you actually did do something and could end up with a letter than perhaps saying less is better.



GS2

Well actually my scenario of how the control words are received at your PC is fact its not a "made up" defense. Its really how packets travel and are transmitted via UDP protocol. I just don't understand why someone's attorney hasn't called in an expert to testify about the networking portion of how this lawsuit makes no sense--that is if D/N is claiming the "control words" are what is being pirated. I looked through some past cases but can't find solid evidence if that is their claim or not? If it is YES you can lay claim to a piece of software that would be made up of 0's and 1's but if that "software" is corrupt or some how reassembled and is missing all the elements that you say should be there you cannot IMO lay claim to it being copyrighted.

[sodusme]

This whole thread is about the beaver server getting busted,what on earth are you talking about.

Then if they "busted" it (and shut it down) why are all the other IKS providers that were using the same server still in operation?

[jb26]

Well actually my scenario of how the control words are received at your PC is fact its not a "made up" defense. Its really how packets travel and are transmitted via UDP protocol. I just don't understand why someone's attorney hasn't called in an expert to testify about the networking portion of how this lawsuit makes no sense--that is if D/N is claiming the "control words" are what is being pirated. I looked through some past cases but can't find solid evidence if that is their claim or not? If it is YES you can lay claim to a piece of software that would be made up of 0's and 1's but if that "software" is corrupt or some how reassembled and is missing all the elements that you say should be there you cannot IMO lay claim to it being copyrighted.

All communication between IKS client and IKS server is TCP, not UDP.

I also feel like your argument of not being able to prove if you successfully received control words is not going to fly with anyone. Take a good look at a jury of your "peers" (next jury duty summons actually go and stop trying to skip out on your civic duty!!!)....they will find you guilty if they believe it is more likely than not. They won't understand the underpinning technology, but they do understand people pirate stuff all the time.

[sodusme]

All communication between IKS client and IKS server is TCP, not UDP.

I also feel like your argument of not being able to prove if you successfully received control words is not going to fly with anyone. Take a good look at a jury of your "peers" (next jury duty summons actually go and stop trying to skip out on your civic duty!!!)....they will find you guilty if they believe it is more likely than not. They won't understand the underpinning technology, but they do understand people pirate stuff all the time.

Are you 100% certain of that? I'd double check that comment unless you are involved in the transmission of an IKS stream and know from first hand experience. From what I know about the content of it you would be sending the transmission by way of UDP not TCP. Anything streaming is always sent by way of UDP. An IKS transmission is considered a "stream".

I haven't been called to jury duty since my early 20's. I'm not really jury durty material. Its up to the plaintiff for the burden of proof. But its also up to you the defendant to convince the jury that your evidence and testimony outweighs that of the plaintiffs.

[jb26]

Are you 100% certain of that? I'd double check that comment unless you are involved in the transmission of an IKS stream and know from first hand experience. From what I know about the content of it you would be sending the transmission by way of UDP not TCP. Anything streaming is always sent by way of UDP. An IKS transmission is considered a "stream".

I haven't been called to jury duty since my early 20's. I'm not really jury durty material. Its up to the plaintiff for the burden of proof. But its also up to you the defendant to convince the jury that your evidence and testimony outweighs that of the plaintiffs.

100% certain. The satellite signal is a stream (although also not UDP, it's not IP). IKS is TCP only. The client initiates a TCP connection with the server. The server does not "stream" control words to the client, it simply responds to a request from the client to calc/provide the control word. The control word is used to decrypt the satellite stream.

[surfinisfun]

100% certain. The satellite signal is a stream (although also not UDP, it's not IP). IKS is TCP only. The client initiates a TCP connection with the server. The server does not "stream" control words to the client, it simply responds to a request from the client to calc/provide the control word. The control word is used to decrypt the satellite stream.

Interesting info, thank you.

I'm to understand thru work servers and this hobby there are 2 distinctive functions thru servers, please correct me if i'm wrong or somewhat on the right track.

There is a push or a pull.....UDP would be more of a push from server side, like a stream.

TCP would be more like pull from the other end requesting.

[surfinisfun]

Sod. i didn't quote you above but very interested on your take on the above as well bro.

[jb26]

Interesting info, thank you.

I'm to understand thru work servers and this hobby there are 2 distinctive functions thru servers, please correct me if i'm wrong or somewhat on the right track.

There is a push or a pull.....UDP would be more of a push from server side, like a stream.

TCP would be more like pull from the other end requesting.

Sorta yes; in a general sense that is typically how they are used, although it doesn't have to be necessarily. UDP packets could be used to request data, and UDP used to respond, and TCP can be used for streaming data as well if you wanted to (it just isn't as efficient for that use). It all depends on the upper layer protocol.

IKS traffic generally uses the newcamd protocol (or ccam, mgcamd, but most usually here in NA newcamd). Below is a grossly oversimplified explanation for the uninitiated.

1. client connects to server
2. client sends a request for control word based on ecm hash (hey, i'm on so and so channel and need to know how to decrypt it!)
3. server sends control word that it calculated by sending ecm hash through a subbed card (or from cache it gets from someone else who uses ecm feeders to run through cards for all chnls)
4. repeat 2 & 3 every 15 seconds or less

i think this thread has way deviated from the original intent though...so that's my last comment

[surfinisfun]

Sorta yes; in a general sense that is typically how they are used, although it doesn't have to be necessarily. UDP packets could be used to request data, and UDP used to respond, and TCP can be used for streaming data as well if you wanted to (it just isn't as efficient for that use). It all depends on the upper layer protocol.

IKS traffic generally uses the newcamd protocol (or ccam, mgcamd, but most usually here in NA newcamd). Below is a grossly oversimplified explanation for the uninitiated.

1. client connects to server
2. client sends a request for control word based on ecm hash (hey, i'm on so and so channel and need to know how to decrypt it!)
3. server sends control word that it calculated by sending ecm hash through a subbed card (or from cache it gets from someone else who uses ecm feeders to run through cards for all chnls)
4. repeat 2 & 3 every 15 seconds or less

i think this thread has way deviated from the original intent though...so that's my last comment

Thanks for a clear explanation.

I wouldn't worry to much on the hi jack though.......that most likely happened before page two.lol

[sodusme]

100% certain. The satellite signal is a stream (although also not UDP, it's not IP). IKS is TCP only. The client initiates a TCP connection with the server. The server does not "stream" control words to the client, it simply responds to a request from the client to calc/provide the control word. The control word is used to decrypt the satellite stream.

Huh? UDP operates at Layer 4 or the Transmission Layer of the OSI model (as does TCP) and i.p. operates at Layer 3 or the Network Layer of the OSI model.

So you have a 3-way handshake then? Which would be a "syn, syn-ack, and syn"? With TCP you have a handshake and error checksums in the packet and retransmission if a packet doesn't arrive.

I don't think that IKS could stand the latency of that which is why I'm still contending its UDP. There are also plenty of write ups on Google when you type in "is iks udp". These are not written by me but are written by others.

21262

[sodusme]

Sorta yes; in a general sense that is typically how they are used, although it doesn't have to be necessarily. UDP packets could be used to request data, and UDP used to respond, and TCP can be used for streaming data as well if you wanted to (it just isn't as efficient for that use). It all depends on the upper layer protocol.

IKS traffic generally uses the newcamd protocol (or ccam, mgcamd, but most usually here in NA newcamd). Below is a grossly oversimplified explanation for the uninitiated.

1. client connects to server
2. client sends a request for control word based on ecm hash (hey, i'm on so and so channel and need to know how to decrypt it!)
3. server sends control word that it calculated by sending ecm hash through a subbed card (or from cache it gets from someone else who uses ecm feeders to run through cards for all chnls)
4. repeat 2 & 3 every 15 seconds or less

i think this thread has way deviated from the original intent though...so that's my last comment

Huh? That makes no sense at all. TCP and UDP both send and request. They work at Layer 4 of the OSI model. If the transmission starts in TCP it will end in TCP if it starts in UDP it will end in UDP. TCP is used in transmissions where the communication needs to be reliable: HTTP requests, FTP requests, SMTP (email) servers, and DNS to name a few. UDP is used because its faster and it not connection oriented meaning there are no handshakes, no checksums for errors and no retransmissions. UDP is used in transmissions where errors do not matter: VOIP, streaming music, video transmission, and gaming to name a few.

[jb26]

Huh? UDP operates at Layer 4 or the Transmission Layer of the OSI model (as does TCP) and i.p. operates at Layer 3 or the Network Layer of the OSI model.

So you have a 3-way handshake then? Which would be a "syn, syn-ack, and syn"? With TCP you have a handshake and error checksums in the packet and retransmission if a packet doesn't arrive.

I don't think that IKS could stand the latency of that which is why I'm still contending its UDP. There are also plenty of write ups on Google when you type in "is iks udp". These are not written by me but are written by others.

21262

Despite what you think, you are completely wrong here. Yes, there is most certainly a three way handshake upon initial connection of an iks client with an iks server. And yes, if a packet is lost there are retransmissions.

It's not a matter of latency at all. First of all, CW aren't needed but every 15 seconds (that's seconds, 15,000 milliseconds; average round-trip times from US to Europe where most servers are located is ~120ms at worst). Even if a request/response was lost multiple times, a retransmit would still get there in time before it is needed.

I don't believe you have a firm grasp of the OSI model yet, but keep reading. There are layers 5 - 7 where protocols can also operate, hence my reference to upper layer protocols. e.g. HTTP is an upper layer protocol utilizing TCP/IP. Newcamd is an upper layer protocol utilizing TCP/IP.

[surfinisfun]

Huh? That makes no sense at all. TCP and UDP both send and request. They work at Layer 4 of the OSI model. If the transmission starts in TCP it will end in TCP if it starts in UDP it will end in UDP. TCP is used in transmissions where the communication needs to be reliable: HTTP requests, FTP requests, SMTP (email) servers, and DNS to name a few. UDP is used because its faster and it not connection oriented meaning there are no handshakes, no checksums for errors and no retransmissions. UDP is used in transmissions where errors do not matter: VOIP, streaming music, video transmission, and gaming to name a few.

Only trying to learn here bro but i thought he says UDP and TCP could be used for both types of transmissions but typically not.

[jb26]

Huh? That makes no sense at all. TCP and UDP both send and request. They work at Layer 4 of the OSI model. If the transmission starts in TCP it will end in TCP if it starts in UDP it will end in UDP. TCP is used in transmissions where the communication needs to be reliable: HTTP requests, FTP requests, SMTP (email) servers, and DNS to name a few. UDP is used because its faster and it not connection oriented meaning there are no handshakes, no checksums for errors and no retransmissions. UDP is used in transmissions where errors do not matter: VOIP, streaming music, video transmission, and gaming to name a few.



Yes, of course...which is exactly what I said. However, you are incorrect in assuming that a "transmission" must be either TCP or UDP. by transmission I mean a complete transaction, not a "session" (since UDP is connectionless/sessionless anyway).
e.g. You want to watch a movie on netflix. You open netflix, connect, and browse video selection (all TCP), you select which movie you want to watch (still TCP), netflix begins a stream to your box (UDP).

UDP is not used because it is "faster". It would be more fair to say it is more efficient for the types of transmissions you mentioned mainly because there are no ACKs/retrans. Handshake makes no difference, it is done when a tcp session is established, and never again until teardown. Checksum calculation is also basically zero latency, it's almost always handled in hardware on the NICs themselves now rather than CPU.

*edit: also, DNS is UDP. fact.
*2nd edit: I did google, and I found lots of posts from uninformed stupid people. Setup a network tap, look at the data yourself. My "neighbor" did.

[sodusme]

Despite what you think, you are completely wrong here. Yes, there is most certainly a three way handshake upon initial connection of an iks client with an iks server. And yes, if a packet is lost there are retransmissions.

It's not a matter of latency at all. First of all, CW aren't needed but every 15 seconds (that's seconds, 15,000 milliseconds; average round-trip times from US to Europe where most servers are located is ~120ms at worst.) Even if a request/response was lost multiple times, a retransmit would still get there in time before it is needed.

I don't believe you have a firm grasp of the OSI model yet, but keep reading. There are layers 5 - 7 where protocols can also operate, hence my reference to upper layer protocols. e.g. HTTP is an upper layer protocol utilizing TCP/IP. Newcamd is an upper layer protocol utilizing TCP/IP.

LOL yeah OK.

There is no possible way you can say
~120ms at worst You have no concept of networking at all. You could have a router down or a switch down along the way and have a packet rerouted. So to say that its XYZ latency at worst is ridiculous.

HTTP operates at the higher layer because its a web browser. LOL Where did you get this stuff at? Are you just making this up or what? While HTTP utilizes TCP and i.p. protocols they DO NOT all operate at the same layers. Put on your glasses and pay attention and actually LOOK at the pic I posted. Hell a third grader can read it.


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


The model groups communication functions into seven logical layers. A layer serves the layer above it and is served by the layer below it.

So explain how if TCP operates at Layer 4 (which we know at least you would know if you looked at the pic I posted) how in the hell does it transcend all the way up to Layer 7 where HTTP is at based on how the OSI model works?

On second thought Mr. Networking Wizard don't bother. LOL I'm out.....

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

All communication between IKS client and IKS server is TCP, not UDP.

I also feel like your argument of not being able to prove if you successfully received control words is not going to fly with anyone. Take a good look at a jury of your "peers" (next jury duty summons actually go and stop trying to skip out on your civic duty!!!)....they will find you guilty if they believe it is more likely than not. They won't understand the underpinning technology, but they do understand people pirate stuff all the time.


I would agree. I don't think a case would ever get into such technical detail nor would it have to. There is really only one purpose of an IKS server and that is to circumvent the plaintiff's encryption. The idea that you bought a subscription for the server but never used it or go prove I received the control words I don't think would come into play, my opinion only though.



GS2

[jb26]

LOL yeah OK.

There is no possible way you can say You have no concept of networking at all. You could have a router down or a switch down along the way and have a packet rerouted. So to say that its XYZ latency at worst is ridiculous.

HTTP operates at the higher layer because its a web browser. LOL Where did you get this stuff at? Are you just making this up or what? While HTTP utilizes TCP and i.p. protocols they DO NOT all operate at the same layers. Put on your glasses and pay attention and actually LOOK at the pic I posted. Hell a third grader can read it.


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



So explain how if TCP operates at Layer 4 (which we know at least you would know if you looked at the pic I posted) how in the hell does it transcend all the way up to Layer 7 where HTTP is at based on how the OSI model works?

On second thought Mr. Networking Wizard don't bother. LOL I'm out.....

Go get your CCIE certification and then come try to tell me something about networking. You are completely and utterly wrong. The whole point of the god damn OSI model is that DATA moves through it, top to bottom, bottom to top. Where in any of my posts did I say they operate at the same layer? Nowhere.

Would you like to know the latencies on the most popular transatlantic fiber cables? Because I know them off the top of my head for both AC1 and AC2. So rather than tell you what the "worst" would be, let me tell you, the best you could possibly achieve is 60ms (NY to UK). An estimate of ~120ms would be assuming people are using third rate ISPs where the traffic bounces all over the place, or VPNs, or downright crappy hardware.

Anyway, you have indeed shown you either can't read & comprehend other peoples' posts, know nothing about networking (other than what you Wikipedia and try to interpret), or both.

*edit: and before you post anything else which you know nothing about, Why don't you see for yourself? Setup your own test FSLB, or free OSCAM or CSP server, connect with ANY newcamd client, tcpdump the traffic, wireshark it, whatever you like to use. TCP 100%

[sodusme]

Go get your CCIE certification and then come try to tell me something about networking. You are completely and utterly wrong. The whole point of the god damn OSI model is that DATA moves through it, top to bottom, bottom to top. Where in any of my posts did I say they operate at the same layer? Nowhere.

Would you like to know the latencies on the most popular transatlantic fiber cables? Because I know them off the top of my head for both AC1 and AC2. So rather than tell you what the "worst" would be, let me tell you, the best you could possibly achieve is 60ms (NY to UK). An estimate of ~120ms would be assuming people are using third rate ISPs where the traffic bounces all over the place, or VPNs, or downright crappy hardware.

Anyway, you have indeed shown you either can't read & comprehend other peoples' posts, know nothing about networking (other than what you Wikipedia and try to interpret), or both.

*edit: and before you post anything else which you know nothing about, Why don't you see for yourself? Setup your own test FSLB, or free OSCAM or CSP server, connect with ANY newcamd client, tcpdump the traffic, wireshark it, whatever you like to use. TCP 100%

LMFAO Oh you mean your Cisco certification? I've forgotten more than you'll ever know concerning networking.

So these guys couldn't POSSIBLY be wrong then RIGHT?


http://www.cisco.com/cpress/cc/td/cpress/fund/ith/ith01gb.htm#xtocid166845


The seven layers of the OSI reference model can be divided into two categories: upper layers and lower layers.

The upper layers of the OSI model deal with application issues and generally are implemented only in software. The highest layer, application, is closest to the end user. Both users and application-layer processes interact with software applications that contain a communications component. The term upper layer is sometimes used to refer to any layer above another layer in the OSI model.

The lower layers of the OSI model handle data transport issues. The physical layer and data-link layer are implemented in hardware and software. The other lower layers generally are implemented only in software. The lowest layer, the physical layer, is closest to the physical network medium (the network cabling, for example, and is responsible for actually placing information on the medium.


A given layer in the OSI layers generally communicates with three other OSI layers: the layer directly above it, the layer directly below it, and its peer layer in other networked computer systems

I think you got a bogus CCIE certification if you actually have one. I'd get a refund on it. Because I'm pretty damn sure Cisco is NOT INCORRECT in what they have put out and what they have taught me.

Have a good evening.

[jb26]

LMFAO Oh you mean your Cisco certification? I've forgotten more than you'll ever know concerning networking.

So these guys couldn't POSSIBLY be wrong then RIGHT?


http://www.cisco.com/cpress/cc/td/cpress/fund/ith/ith01gb.htm#xtocid166845




I think you got a bogus CCIE certification if you actually have one. I'd get a refund on it. Because I'm pretty damn sure Cisco is NOT INCORRECT in what they have put out and what they have taught me.

Have a good evening.


Where do any of my posts contradict what is mentioned in those links and c/p snippets? Where? Are you simply going to c/p more irrelevant stuff so your ego doesn't feel as bruised in public? And yes, I have a CCIE. Go back home with your Net+ cert plz.

[sodusme]

Where do any of my posts contradict what is mentioned in those links and c/p snippets? Where? Are you simply going to c/p more irrelevant stuff so your ego doesn't feel as bruised in public? And yes, I have a CCIE. Go back home with your Net+ cert plz.

LOL you have no idea what kind of "certs" I have and they ain't class taught either. ;)

I'll leave it at that and again you have a good evening.

[jb26]

LOL you have no idea what kind of "certs" I have and they ain't class taught either. ;)

I'll leave it at that and again you have a good evening.

You keep avoiding my questions, why is that? Where in any of my posts do I contradict the OSI model/Cisco/Wikipedia, etc? Again, as I said a few posts up, try it out yourself, the proof is in the pudding as they say. IKS is based on TCP.

[sodusme]

You keep avoiding my questions, why is that? Where in any of my posts do I contradict the OSI model/Cisco/Wikipedia, etc? Again, as I said a few posts up, try it out yourself, the proof is in the pudding as they say. IKS is based on TCP.

I'm not avoiding your questions but I think after reading some of your posts that you are just really poor at getting your point across. You have included some omissions however in your posts. Yes data flows UP and DOWN depending on whether its received or transmitted. If its transmitting it flows up the OSI model and if its received it starts at the top of the OSI model and flows down. You didn't make that clear and to me when people don't make things clear that they argue they "know"---then it makes me wonder if they in fact "know" it or are reciting something they read or heard from someone.

As far as "certs" go I don't have anything to prove to you. I know what I know and those that "know" me will agree. ;)

If IKS transmits in TCP then great. That's a stupid way to transmit it but hey I don't run the servers. You'd be better off running UDP without the overheard of lag and latency with the retransmission of packets that are damaged or missing. No wonder everyone complains all the time about "freezing". UDP would give you a far superior delivery. UDP is generally chosen because its a faster transmission and lacks the overhead needed to run a TCP protocol and has a continuous stream of packets.

[jb26]

I'm not avoiding your questions but I think after reading some of your posts that you are just really poor at getting your point across. You have included some omissions however in your posts. Yes data flows UP and DOWN depending on whether its received or transmitted. If its transmitting it flows up the OSI model and if its received it starts at the top of the OSI model and flows down. You didn't make that clear and to me when people don't make things clear that they argue they "know"---then it makes me wonder if they in fact "know" it or are reciting something they read or heard from someone.

As far as "certs" go I don't have anything to prove to you. I know what I know and those that "know" me will agree. ;)

If IKS transmits in TCP then great. That's a stupid way to transmit it but hey I don't run the servers. You'd be better off running UDP without the overheard of lag and latency with the retransmission of packets that are damaged or missing. No wonder everyone complains all the time about "freezing". UDP would give you a far superior delivery. UDP is generally chosen because its a faster transmission and lacks the overhead needed to run a TCP protocol and has a continuous stream of packets.

My omissions were an attempt to keep things as simple as possible for the layman here, I get your point though.

Server ops have no choice, can't use UDP for IKS unless you created your own competing application on both the server and client side (or wrote some type of wrapper around them). It's not really a continuous stream of packets though, just 1 request and 1 response every 15 seconds, maybe a keepalive here and there if the client supports that. With UDP there would probably be more freezing since there is no possibility to retransmit a lost CW if that occurs, or lost CW request. Heck, people run IKS successfully on dial-up modems.

Anyway, I've read a lot of your posts, I know you know stuff as well. We should end arguing and combine powers to do cool ****, which nobody seems to do anymore, just free tv free tv.

[kutter]

Well actually my scenario of how the control words are received at your PC is fact its not a "made up" defense. Its really how packets travel and are transmitted via UDP protocol. I just don't understand why someone's attorney hasn't called in an expert to testify about the networking portion of how this lawsuit makes no sense--that is if D/N is claiming the "control words" are what is being pirated. I looked through some past cases but can't find solid evidence if that is their claim or not? If it is YES you can lay claim to a piece of software that would be made up of 0's and 1's but if that "software" is corrupt or some how reassembled and is missing all the elements that you say should be there you cannot IMO lay claim to it being copyrighted.

just because it's possible that it's corrupt does not mean that it was :)

UDP is quite dependable ... so the onus would be on you to prove that it isn't ....

[Hannibalector]

I would agree. I don't think a case would ever get into such technical detail nor would it have to. There is really only one purpose of an IKS server and that is to circumvent the plaintiff's encryption. The idea that you bought a subscription for the server but never used it or go prove I received the control words I don't think would come into play, my opinion only though.



GS2

that's right turn a blind eye to facts that are being presented and disregard the truth

[Hannibalector]

lol ... now you're going to send Hanni off on another wild goose chase :)

watch it dishplex....lol

excellent discussion between sod and jb, thanks to both of you

[sodusme]

My omissions were an attempt to keep things as simple as possible for the layman here, I get your point though.

Server ops have no choice, can't use UDP for IKS unless you created your own competing application on both the server and client side (or wrote some type of wrapper around them). It's not really a continuous stream of packets though, just 1 request and 1 response every 15 seconds, maybe a keepalive here and there if the client supports that. With UDP there would probably be more freezing since there is no possibility to retransmit a lost CW if that occurs, or lost CW request. Heck, people run IKS successfully on dial-up modems.

Anyway, I've read a lot of your posts, I know you know stuff as well. We should end arguing and combine powers to do cool ****, which nobody seems to do anymore, just free tv free tv.

See I don't know enough about IKS transmission to speak on the application that handles it. I have never nor will I ever run IKS. I know too much about how unsafe it is.

Well the reason I say UDP would be better is based on a VOIP standpoint. VOIP uses UDP and the reason is because you have maybe milliseconds of silence when a dropped packet is experienced (with UDP) whether than actual seconds of lag dealing with the retransmission of a packet (under TCP).


just because it's possible that it's corrupt does not mean that it was :)

UDP is quite dependable ... so the onus would be on you to prove that it isn't ....

Yeah but remember the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove their case. If you can show "doubt" to the fact that those packets are more than likely (key term there more than likely) damaged and/or missing than you have shifted the preponderance of evidence in your favor. All it would take is some exhibits of packets being sent via VOIP and maybe some testimony from someone who knows that stuff. Doubt is all you need you have a transmission protocol with error checking, orderly flow and retransmission. Then you have a protocol without those. The natural assumption would be to come to the conclusion if it cannot be "guaranteed" of delivery it probably doesn't arrive 100%. ;)

[sodusme]

I remember you posting that NEWCAMD is used and I wanted to read a little more on that and found this:


http://www.streamboard.tv/wiki/OSCam/en/Config/oscam.conf#Newcamd_.28TCP.29


Newcamd (TCP)

Section required only if newcamd will be used as client protocol!


[newcamd]
key =
port =
serverip =
allowed =
keepalive =
mgclient =

So you are correct there is a keep alive as well. Like I said I have never played with these applications so the working of them is all knew to me. But I found this site pretty much explained it very well on how it "works".

[kutter]

Yeah but remember the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove their case. If you can show "doubt" to the fact that those packets are more than likely (key term there more than likely) damaged and/or missing than you have shifted the preponderance of evidence in your favor. All it would take is some exhibits of packets being sent via VOIP and maybe some testimony from someone who knows that stuff. Doubt is all you need you have a transmission protocol with error checking, orderly flow and retransmission. Then you have a protocol without those. The natural assumption would be to come to the conclusion if it cannot be "guaranteed" of delivery it probably doesn't arrive 100%. ;)

Yeah, but your argument actually suggests you're guilty.

why argue that the protocol used, has a small percentage of loss ?

might as well be saying but I didn't receive all those control words, only some of them :)

I would think your argument would be more appropriate when trying to establish the settlement.

[1boxman]

Yeah, but your argument actually suggests you're guilty.

why argue that the protocol used, has a small percentage of loss ?

might as well be saying but I didn't receive all those control words, only some of them :)

I would think your argument would be more appropriate when trying to establish the settlement.

Well availed question.

Than the judge or prosecutor would have to ask ..Why where you receiving this packets in the first place ? This is assuming they never served an order to isp for logs ..which I might doubt they would go that far in a civil .This would be the end user.

Might want to rethink that sod .

Another story for the server .

[Hannibalector]

Yeah, but your argument actually suggests you're guilty.

why argue that the protocol used, has a small percentage of loss ?

might as well be saying but I didn't receive all those control words, only some of them :)

I would think your argument would be more appropriate when trying to establish the settlement.

or none of them :)

don't you have to prove at least copyright infringement ? and who the hell is being infringed upon anyways

[sodusme]

Yeah, but your argument actually suggests you're guilty.

why argue that the protocol used, has a small percentage of loss ?

might as well be saying but I didn't receive all those control words, only some of them :)

I would think your argument would be more appropriate when trying to establish the settlement.

Well this is only after you have received the demand letter. At that point its a given that they are "alleging" that you have engaged in some type of copyright infringement and are thus "guilty". To admit only receiving some doesn't help your case. They aren't alleging that you received "some" they are going "all in" and alleging that you received all that are available.

So why not deny that any of the packets were complete which you could do if they were sent via UDP. Because if the protocol used loses packets then all those 0's and 1's when reassembled cannot equate to the software that they are alleging that you infringed upon.


Well availed question.

Than the judge or prosecutor would have to ask ..Why where you receiving this packets in the first place ? This is assuming they never served an order to isp for logs ..which I might doubt they would go that far in a civil .This would be the end user.

Might want to rethink that sod .

Another story for the server .

Doesn't matter why you were receiving them. That is not in question whats in question is whether those packets when "reassembled" equate to a software that is copyrighted by D/N and whether you were receiving those packets at all (in their entirety). The answer is no they cannot assert 100%. If there are parts missing then its not going to be exact.


or none of them :)

don't you have to prove at least copyright infringement ? and who the hell is being infringed upon anyways

Exactly....

Without proving "copyright infringement" they don't really have a case. To prove that they must assert that you received control words and that those control words are copyrighted material.

[1boxman]

Doesn't matter why you were receiving them. That is not in question whats in question is whether those packets when "reassembled" equate to a software that is copyrighted by D/N and whether you were receiving those packets at all (in their entirety). The answer is no they cannot assert 100%. If there are parts missing then its not going to be exact.


I see your point ..but it would still stand ..in order to receive such packets that may or may not assemble at the end to complete a whole ,that when assembled in such equipment(that you have in order to receive them )to view encrypted copyright signal . There for what you receive is in fact not a whole but a piece of the puzzle for the whole .

It not like having a few numbers to a combination lock ,(which could be very random). It something very unique , that would only be for one propose. That is my point.

[Hannibalector]

I see your point ..but it would still stand ..in order to receive such packets that may or may not assemble at the end to complete a whole ,that when assembled in such equipment(that you have in order to receive them )to view encrypted copyright signal . There for what you receive is in fact not a whole but a piece of the puzzle for the whole .

It not like having a few numbers to a combination lock ,(which could be very random). It something very unique , that would only be for one propose. That is my point.

what ?...lol I mean all these years they were called keys for no reason ? off by just 1 number and no go true for any key, well except a bump key

[kutter]

or none of them :)

don't you have to prove at least copyright infringement ? and who the hell is being infringed upon anyways

nice try Hanni ... it's a crime to circumvent any security system that is put in place to protect copyrighted material :)

[1boxman]

Maybe you can get this easier. I give 2 examples to admitting you are receiving them (packets from the iks server )

If you are spinning the lock on a safe in a bank or any where else that does not belong to you and you get most of the numbers right ..are still committing a crime .

If someone hacks the DB of a site or any other companies servers (ex. FBI Db) Than says ..hey I have a back door to ...bha bha ..what it / you yes so you can have a peek. Are still committing a crime ?

[kutter]

Maybe you can get this easier. I give 2 examples to omitting you are receiving them (packets from the iks server )

If you are spinning the lock on a safe in a bank or any where else that does not belong to you and you get most of the numbers right ..are still committing a crime .

If someone hacks the DB of a site or any other companies servers (ex. FBI Db) Than says ..hey I have a back door to ...bha bha ..what it / you yes so you can have a peek. Are still committing a crime ?

LOL ... I'm sure we can come up with a defense for both examples, but I doubt they will hold water. :)

[1boxman]

what ?...lol I mean all these years they were called keys for no reason ? off by just 1 number and no go true for any key, well except a bump key

Who said they are keys ?

[kutter]

Well this is only after you have received the demand letter. At that point its a given that they are "alleging" that you have engaged in some type of copyright infringement and are thus "guilty". To admit only receiving some doesn't help your case. They aren't alleging that you received "some" they are going "all in" and alleging that you received all that are available.

So why not deny that any of the packets were complete which you could do if they were sent via UDP. Because if the protocol used loses packets then all those 0's and 1's when reassembled cannot equate to the software that they are alleging that you infringed upon.



Doesn't matter why you were receiving them. That is not in question whats in question is whether those packets when "reassembled" equate to a software that is copyrighted by D/N and whether you were receiving those packets at all (in their entirety). The answer is no they cannot assert 100%. If there are parts missing then its not going to be exact.



Exactly....

Without proving "copyright infringement" they don't really have a case. To prove that they must assert that you received control words and that those control words are copyrighted material.

That's where you're wrong. It does matter "why" you were receiving them. If you received them for a totally unrelated reason and were using them for something entirely different then you would have a good defense for receiving them. So far I haven't seen anything that would seem like a legit reason to be receiving them though.

[Condor]

nice try Hanni ... it's a crime to circumvent any security system that is put in place to protect copyrighted material :)


Maybe you can get this easier. I give 2 examples to admitting you are receiving them (packets from the iks server )

If you are spinning the lock on a safe in a bank or any where else that does not belong to you and you get most of the numbers right ..are still committing a crime .

If someone hacks the DB of a site or any other companies servers (ex. FBI Db) Than says ..hey I have a back door to ...bha bha ..what it / you yes so you can have a peek. Are still committing a crime ?


LOL ... I'm sure we can come up with a defense for both examples, but I doubt they will hold water. :)
Hehehehehee!!!... They won't hold water... As I said before it has been proven over and over... Downloading music, movies, programs or whatever.. All these "defense" theories have not convinced me yet... Imagine convincing a panel plus the lawyers from the "darkside".. until there is a precedence then maybe I will be convinced....Lol......

[sodusme]

Depends if you broke into the bank or not. If you didn't get the combination right then they cannot say you cracked the safe. Therefore you have not committed any crime IMO. Now of course I guess you...

[1boxman]

I think you missed the point ..if db was hacked...more or less same of the iks... and someone give you a login that they hacked and you use it (like the cw's )...but you never hacked it ..wouldn't...

[Condor]

I think you missed the point ..if db was hacked...more or less same of the iks... and someone give you a login that they hacked and you use it (like the cw's )...but you never hacked it ..wouldn't you still be accountable . Like admitting you received the cw's from the iks server(and you would say the packets were broken or not complete) ,Now on the other hand they should have to prove you used them . But..there again ..in order to receive them you need the equipment ...unless you are sniffing them before receiver .

You mean.. Like the............... "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) law".. Heheheheeeee

[1boxman]

You mean.. Like the............... "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) law".. Heheheheeeee

Ya ya thats it...where is the buger king ?? lol

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

that's right turn a blind eye to facts that are being presented and disregard the truth


What is the truth as you know it. ? What facts are you speaking of ? Please state them and than if you do explain why it would matter to a court looking at you being the person who bought a subscription service to an IKS server that has one purpose only that being to provide signals unlawfully. What is the relevance. ?




GS2

[dishuser]

Ya ya thats it...where is the buger king ?? lol:tape::tape:21266

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

or none of them :)

don't you have to prove at least copyright infringement ? and who the hell is being infringed upon anyways


Dn is being infringed on because they are an injured party by violation under section 1201 of the DMCA because DN controls access to the protected material.



GS2

[dishuser]

Dn is being infringed on because they are an injured party by violation under section 1201 of the DMCA because DN controls access to the protected material.



GS2you're trying to explain bubble wrap to plastic..lol

[Condor]

http://i829.photobucket.com/albums/zz217/Bolivia_03/funny%20gifs%20II/473-bk-king-guy-bed-scared-1.gif (http://s829.photobucket.com/user/Bolivia_03/media/funny%20gifs%20II/473-bk-king-guy-bed-scared-1.gif.html)

[Hannibalector]

What is the truth as you know it. ? What facts are you speaking of ? Please state them and than if you do explain why it would matter to a court looking at you being the person who bought a subscription service to an IKS server that has one purpose only that being to provide signals unlawfully. What is the relevance. ?




GS2
if I purchase plans to a bomb and one goes off near me does that make me guilty of blowing something up when a couple hundred others bought the same plans near me

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

But if the control words are not in their "entirety" did you really receive D/N's controls words? You see where I'm going here YES you may have received control words but they are alleging you received "their" control words which are covered under copyright law. Which you probably didn't if UDP was (we know now that TCP is the protocol) used and part of the control word was missing. I mean if you copy part of another software but its changed slightly then the copyright owner has no claim to "copyright infringement". The same would apply here you have "part" of a control word but you do not have it in its entirety as its put out from D/N and consequently copyrighted. So how can they say you are receiving their control words?


DN has standing under section 1201 because they employ measures to control access to the copyright materials so it doesn't really matter if they are the actual copyright holder because you can not circumvent their encryption to it.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

you're trying to explain bubble wrap to plastic..lol


So your saying the effort is in vain lol



GS2

[Hannibalector]

you're trying to explain bubble wrap to plastic..lol


So your saying the effort is in vain lol



GS2
even between the two of you you aren't funny

[dishuser]

even between the two of you you aren't funny
but at least honest and coherent..lol

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

if I purchase plans to a bomb and one goes off near me does that make me guilty of blowing something up when a couple hundred others bought the same plans near me


Seriously are those your facts related to the purchase of an IKS subscription that allows you as the end user to access the signal unlawfully. ?


Some end user is going to go to court and argue that he paid for the subscription, never received the controls words but continued to pay for the subscription anyway.


When this end user never received these controls words that he signed up to receive did he/she ask for a refund ?


All I can say is good luck with that defense but its very likely we are not going to see it and not because its a good one.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

DN has standing under section 1201 because they employ measures to control access to the copyright materials so it doesn't really matter if they are the actual copyright holder because you can not circumvent their encryption to it.



GS2

there you go putting the cart before the horse again

[Hannibalector]

Seriously are those your facts related to the purchase of an IKS subscription that allows you as the end user to access the signal unlawfully. ?


Some end user is going to go to court and argue that he paid for the subscription, never received the controls words but continued to pay for the subscription anyway.


When this end user never received these controls words that he signed up to receive did he/she ask for a refund ?


All I can say is good luck with that defense but its very likely we are not going to see it and not because its a good one.



GS2

I asked you a question that requires a simple yes or no

[Hannibalector]

but at least honest and coherent..lol

oly **** coherent enough for you to answer back though eh ? eh ? you seem to understand quite nicely or you wouldn't be your usual dimwit self interjecting

[bigbadbrother]

oly **** coherent enough for you to answer back though eh ? eh ? you seem to understand quite nicely or you wouldn't be your usual dimwit self interjecting

This guy gets really old really fast, all he offers are insults and incoherent dribble.

[Hannibalector]

This guy gets really old really fast, all he offers are insults and incoherent dribble.

excuse me I was asking GS2 a question do you mind ?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Viewsat raised the point that DN was not the copyright holder in their case and therefore had no standing under the DMCA.


The court ruled on it and said DN does have standing because section 1201 is not limited to the owner of the copyright.


Here is that decision.



GS2

[bigbadbrother]

excuse me I was asking GS2 a question do you mind ?

Yes I do mind.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

there you go putting the cart before the horse again


How is that.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

DN has standing under section 1201 because they employ measures to control access to the copyright materials so it doesn't really matter if they are the actual copyright holder because you can not circumvent their encryption to it.



GS2


How is that.



GS2

where and who circumvented what ?

[Hannibalector]

Yes I do mind.

take it up with staff then

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

if I purchase plans to a bomb and one goes off near me does that make me guilty of blowing something up when a couple hundred others bought the same plans near me


Sure I'll answer that. No. There is nothing illegal about purchasing plans to a bomb.


An IKS server is an illegal operating service. Purchasing a subscription to it in my opinion probably would result in your being guilty.


What's your defense to it ? That you paid for it but it did not work ? like you bought drugs but you did not get high ?



GS2

[bigbadbrother]

take it up with staff then

What kind of drugs is this guy on or is it he forgot to take them again.

[dishuser]

take it up with staff thenI will when she gets back
just remember you asked for it to be taken up
enjoy yourself until monday twit

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

where and who circumvented what ?


You the end user bought an illegal service that has one purpose and that is to circumvent the encryption.


Again good luck in saying you just bought it, continued to pay for it but never did anything with it in a Civil litigation that requires a decision on what is more likely than not only.



GS2

[bigbadbrother]

I will when she gets back
just remember you asked for it to be taken up
enjoy yourself until monday twit

Yes please please do, for the love of god please do. lol

[kutter]

But if the control words are not in their "entirety" did you really receive D/N's controls words? You see where I'm going here YES you may have received control words but they are alleging you received "their" control words which are covered under copyright law. Which you probably didn't if UDP was (we know now that TCP is the protocol) used and part of the control word was missing. I mean if you copy part of another software but its changed slightly then the copyright owner has no claim to "copyright infringement". The same would apply here you have "part" of a control word but you do not have it in its entirety as its put out from D/N and consequently copyrighted. So how can they say you are receiving their control words?

How are you going to prove they weren't intact is how that will be answered. You are the one making that claim. Like I told you, just because it's possible does mean that it was. At best you could hope to show that a small percentage didn't get through.

You can also bet your last dollar that if you use part of someone's copyrighted work in your software, and it is discovered, you can and in most cases, will be held accountable :)

[kutter]

if I purchase plans to a bomb and one goes off near me does that make me guilty of blowing something up when a couple hundred others bought the same plans near me

it does if you were the one that set it off :)

[Hannibalector]

I will when she gets back
just remember you asked for it to be taken up
enjoy yourself until monday twit

far be it for you to hide behind a skirt, there's other staff here after all

OMG

[Hannibalector]

it does if you were the one that set it off :)

and the opposite to that kutter is ? come on you can say it

[Hannibalector]

You the end user bought an illegal service that has one purpose and that is to circumvent the encryption.


Again good luck in saying you just bought it, continued to pay for it but never did anything with it in a Civil litigation that requires a decision on what is more likely than not only.



GS2

you're skating again

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

you're skating again


Where ? I answered your question. I said no to your first question about purchasing a plan for a bomb and than answered your second question. It would be the person, the end user. Do you want me to name one ? I can take anyone from any of the lawsuits.


You ask questions people answer them than you come out with a remark that someone is skating. :noidea:


Now let me ask you a question now. You bought a subscription to an IKS server and paid for it for six months. Your served with a lawsuit with the evidence of your payment for it.


What is your defense to it ?



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

and the opposite to that kutter is ? come on you can say it


The opposite would be that you purchase the plans and did not blow it up. What is your point with all this ?


Are you trying to say well I bought and paid for the illegal service for months but never use it ? That is your defense ?


Your going to use this example in court on your answer to the complaint filled against you ?


Again good luck with that. And with that no one needs a lawyer just go to court and say yes its true I bought the service that allows myself to pirate the service but I never use it. Stands to reason its more likely than not you did not use it. I am sure that happens a lot.


I wonder why no one has thought of that. All the people who downloaded copyright music if they only knew all they had to say was well I never listen to it. lol



GS2

[Anubis]

far be it for you to hide behind a skirt, there's other staff here after all

OMG

I don't wear a skirt and you are very close to a holiday Hannibalector.
Do you want to try my patience as you are with others here?

Let's keep it civil folks.

[kutter]

and the opposite to that kutter is ? come on you can say it

it doesn't if you weren't the one that set it off :)

[dishuser]

it doesn't if you weren't the one that set it off :)
it wouldn't matter then
he's the the type that wears a vest..lol

[Hannibalector]

I don't wear a skirt and you are very close to a holiday Hannibalector.
Do you want to try my patience as you are with others here?

Let's keep it civil folks.

as always you do what you wish to do sunshine I don't care

[Anubis]

as always you do what you wish to do sunshine I don't care

As staff I side on both however you have pushed the boundaries in my opinion hence the warning.

[sodusme]

How are you going to prove they weren't intact is how that will be answered. You are the one making that claim. Like I told you, just because it's possible does mean that it was. At best you could hope to show that a small percentage didn't get through.

You can also bet your last dollar that if you use part of someone's copyrighted work in your software, and it is discovered, you can and in most cases, will be held accountable :)

How are they going to prove they were intact? Its a two way street. If you cannot prove that they were not intact there is no way for them to prove they were intact. Remember we are dealing with "preponderance" of the evidence which means "more than likely" as defined by a court. If the packet doesn't have error checks, doesn't have orderly flow, and retransmission than the natural assumption would be that its "more likely than not" that it probably didn't arrive intact. They are alleging that ALL control words arrived intact. If you can prove even a "few" arrived damaged or not at all that is enough to cast doubt.

Remember civil deals with "probability" and not "certainty".

[kutter]

How are they going to prove they were intact? Its a two way street. If you cannot prove that they were not intact there is no way for them to prove they were intact. Remember we are dealing with "preponderance" of the evidence which means "more than likely" as defined by a court. If the packet doesn't have error checks, doesn't have orderly flow, and retransmission than the natural assumption would be that its "more likely than not" that it probably didn't arrive intact. They are alleging that ALL control words arrived intact. If you can prove even a "few" arrived damaged or not at all that is enough to cast doubt.

Remember civil deals with "probability" and not "certainty".

they don't have to prove that all the control words arrived intact ... they were sent to you intact and the system used by IKS actually works ... so good luck with that as a defense because in reality, it's more likely that they arrived intact, than not :)

[Hannibalector]

The opposite would be that you purchase the plans and did not blow it up. What is your point with all this ?


Are you trying to say well I bought and paid for the illegal service for months but never use it ? That is your defense ?


Your going to use this example in court on your answer to the complaint filled against you ?


Again good luck with that. And with that no one needs a lawyer just go to court and say yes its true I bought the service that allows myself to pirate the service but I never use it. Stands to reason its more likely than not you did not use it. I am sure that happens a lot.


I wonder why no one has thought of that. All the people who downloaded copyright music if they only knew all they had to say was well I never listen to it. lol



GS2

just because someone made a purchase for example a one year subscription does not make it so that they actually watched anything let alone a years worth, there you go making sh*t up again

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

just because someone made a purchase for example a one year subscription does not make it so that they actually watched anything let alone a years worth, there you go making sh*t up again


So that is your defense ? You bought a one year subscription to an illegal service the server that provides you with unlawful signals but you actually did not watch anything. Its like you just decided to donate your money to this illegal cause ?


Sounds like someone saying they bought cocaine but never use it. Or I robbed the bank but never used the money I stole. Look I did not make up anything said just commenting on what you are saying not me.


You say you have said in the past that you emailed lawyers. Have you told them but this defense to just say I bought the one year sub but never watch anything. Why don't you do that and let me know their response.



GS2

[beowolfe]

the thing is it will cost you more to try to prove you are innocent then it would just to pay the thirty five hundred. unless you go pro se.

[bigbadbrother]

just because someone made a purchase for example a one year subscription does not make it so that they actually watched anything let alone a years worth, there you go making sh*t up again

I only gave money to al-Qaeda, it's not like I killed anyone. your defense is weak and moronic.

http://humboldtherald.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/inbred.jpg

[kenkell1]

just because someone made a purchase for example a one year subscription does not make it so that they actually watched anything let alone a years worth, there you go making sh*t up again

You seriously can not be that friggen naive~~~

[Condor]

take it up with staff then


I will when she gets back
just remember you asked for it to be taken up
enjoy yourself until monday twit
I am not a she but HL you are walking a very thin line.... FYI..........

[kutter]

the thing is it will cost you more to try to prove you are innocent then it would just to pay the thirty five hundred. unless you go pro se.

even Pro Se could end up costing you way more than the $3500, don't forget that once you've forced them to take legal action they are gunning for $10,000 now ... the only way it won't cost more, is if you win :)

and so far, I haven't seen any arguments that have a chance in hell of winning ...

[kutter]

just because someone made a purchase for example a one year subscription does not make it so that they actually watched anything let alone a years worth, there you go making sh*t up again

Yes, you are correct. It would be very tough, if not impossible, to prove that you actually viewed their programming. At best they can only show that you received the control words.

Now if you purchased a subscription and could prove that you never used it, then I say go for it :)

[surfinisfun]

even Pro Se could end up costing you way more than the $3500, don't forget that once you've forced them to take legal action they are gunning for $10,000 now ... the only way it won't cost more, is if you win :)

and so far, I haven't seen any arguments that have a chance in hell of winning ...

Man, you sound more more like the DN go getim club but regardless, more and more because of similar posts like yours you have people thinking these guys walk on water. I assume thats the idea.

Fact is in most cases i would assume you're correct, you get a letter then they most likely have enough to prove their case if need be in court.

It just bugs me a little that so many here are ready to roll over and dismiss anyone that may have something to stand up to this poor poor providers profits and money grab.

What the hell, i guess we should all just bend over when asked, right?

You do the crime, be ready to pay but there is a larger issue here, a much larger issue.

[kutter]

Man, you sound more more like the DN go getim club but regardless, more and more because of similar posts like yours you have people thinking these guys walk on water. I assume thats the idea.

Fact is in most cases i would assume you're correct, you get a letter then they most likely have enough to prove their case if need be in court.

It just bugs me a little that so many here are ready to roll over and dismiss anyone that may have something to stand up to this poor poor providers profits and money grab.

What the hell, i guess we should all just bend over when asked, right?

You do the crime, be ready to pay but there is a larger issue here, a much larger issue.

No ... just being realistic ... if you think it's worth fighting then shed some light on the issue instead of slinging crap :)

[surfinisfun]

No ... just being realistic ... if you think it's worth fighting then shed some light on the issue instead of slinging crap :)

lol. No, not fighting at all....in fact just being realistic myself.

So many here and on other sites are playing the role (now) of those damn free tv'ers ruined this hobby yet i guarantee 90% of them came on board when they saw the opportunity to test free t.v. So then along comes word of mouth and publicly promoting fta receivers to load a go......gee, what happened.lol

The fact is its human nature to try to get something for free so lets not just say, oh those free t.v'ers because everyone in this hobby started off wanting the same thing, just some were willing to work a little harder at getting there.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Man, you sound more more like the DN go getim club but regardless, more and more because of similar posts like yours you have people thinking these guys walk on water. I assume thats the idea.

Fact is in most cases i would assume you're correct, you get a letter then they most likely have enough to prove their case if need be in court.

It just bugs me a little that so many here are ready to roll over and dismiss anyone that may have something to stand up to this poor poor providers profits and money grab.

What the hell, i guess we should all just bend over when asked, right?

You do the crime, be ready to pay but there is a larger issue here, a much larger issue.


The IKS end user lawsuits are in my opinion very hard to defend against. In the previous Dave lawsuits you could come up with a possible legitimate use of the product you purchased depending on what it was, not here.


So is it wrong to be realistic about your chances. I think its best to call it the way it is so at lest when people are considering purchasing a subscription to an IKS server they know the high risk they are taking if the person(s) behind the server fall into legal problems. They should also know records are kept even if the supplier says otherwise.


I looked at the wulfman declaration again last night and it is so damaging when he says the sole purpose and use of the passcodes he sold was to steal DN's programming. This isn't really a case of the provider walking on water in court, this is really a case where defendants are drowning in the water unfortunately.


Maybe someone will come up with a defense but would think it would be more like you got the wrong person type that is not practical for general use.



GS2

[1boxman]

holy crap...got suck into ncn's LBM :innocent:

http://cdni.wired.co.uk/620x413/s_v/tractorbeam.jpg

[kutter]

lol. No, not fighting at all....in fact just being realistic myself.

So many here and on other sites are playing the role (now) of those damn free tv'ers ruined this hobby yet i guarantee 90% of them came on board when they saw the opportunity to test free t.v. So then along comes word of mouth and publicly promoting fta receivers to load a go......gee, what happened.lol

The fact is its human nature to try to get something for free so lets not just say, oh those free t.v'ers because everyone in this hobby started off wanting the same thing, just some were willing to work a little harder at getting there.

You'd have to long and hard to find even one instance where I have condemned Free tv'ers. So I have no idea where that's coming from. Now IKS is a totally different kettle of fish.

What would you rather I do ? Maybe it would be better if I just encouraged these guys to go ahead with their foolish arguments. I would think that would be less help to them than someone telling them what's wrong with their argument.

[sodusme]

Yes, you are correct. It would be very tough, if not impossible, to prove that you actually viewed their programming. At best they can only show that you received the control words.

Now if you purchased a subscription and could prove that you never used it, then I say go for it :)

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.

[kutter]

lol. No, not fighting at all....in fact just being realistic myself.

So many here and on other sites are playing the role (now) of those damn free tv'ers ruined this hobby yet i guarantee 90% of them came on board when they saw the opportunity to test free t.v. So then along comes word of mouth and publicly promoting fta receivers to load a go......gee, what happened.lol

The fact is its human nature to try to get something for free so lets not just say, oh those free t.v'ers because everyone in this hobby started off wanting the same thing, just some were willing to work a little harder at getting there.

by the way, when I said "if you think it's worth fighting then shed some light on the issue"... I was referring to the ongoing debate ... whether or not it's worth fighting the demand letter :) ....

[lomchivok]

Never actually used the IKS service but have done lots of reading on it. Say someone did purchase a subscription to a server... is that enough alone to prosecute or would they also need to match code words being delivered to an Ip addy with the same name or address as the subscription purchaser to prove receipt of service???

[sodusme]

Never actually used the IKS service but have done lots of reading on it. Say someone did purchase a subscription to a server... is that enough alone to prosecute or would they also need to match code words being delivered to an Ip addy with the same name or address as the subscription purchaser to prove receipt of service???

Its enough unfortunately. Read some of the court cases and you'll see very easily.

In these cases typically they have a Paypal address with a transaction to someone that got "popped", they'll throw in your i.p. to really scare you, they'll throw in your email address which obviously they have from the Paypal records, if you have made any forum posts or PM's to the individual who got "popped" they will also include those.

When you pick all that part what do they really have? Nothing that I couldn't get if I was investigating this in all honesty. They have not shown (to my knowledge) that anyone has received control words. The whole premise with a civil trial is "more likely than not" that you committed the copyright infringement.

They're not concerned with proving anything on a technical level where it COULD actually be proven they are concentrating more on the you "probably" did level since you purchased this subscription.