E-mail & letter from satscams!!! WTF

[dslchome]

“Hey people. I just got a letter and email from NagraStar via Satscams. But this has me really worried. They have my current 95epay transactions!!! WTF?”

This is crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The letter came then the email came later.... Never seen anything like this.
I dunno whom to trust now.
any info would be nice.


How did they get email???? How did they get all this?

They even had proof in the letter and email.

PURCHASE INTL AUTHORIZED ON XX/XX CHANG KUN XIAMEN CN SXXXXXXXXXX CARD XXXX $XX.XX







August XXth, 2015

VIA CMRRR and EMAIL

XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX

Email: XXXXXXXXXX

ID#: EU XXXXXXXXXX



Re: DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v XXXXXXXXXX, U.S. District Court, Case No. TBD



Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXX



This correspondence is sent on behalf DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., and NagraStar LLC (collectively “NagraStar”) to individuals who receive DISH Network pay-television programming without authorization. The illegal reception of DISH Network pay-television programming occurs through the use of signal theft devices and pirate Internet Key Sharing (“IKS”) servers accessible via the internet.



NagraStar has obtained business records from an individual who sold IKS passcodes to the Nfusion Private Server (“NFPS”) and IKS Rocket pirate television services. These business records establish that you purchased multiple IKS passcodes, which provided you with unauthorized access to DISH Network television programming and decryption codes needed to descramble that programming without payment of a subscription fee to DISH Network. Enclosed for your reference is a small portion of the evidence that has been gathered, including the third party payment transaction information for your NFPS purchase and some of the IKS passcodes you received.

PayEase Order #


XXXXXXXXXX

Merchant Order #


XXXXXXXXXX

Transaction Date


2015

Transaction Status


Successful

Amount


XXXXXXXXXX

IKS Donation Codes


XXXXXXXXXX

The circumvention of NagraStar’s security system and unauthorized interception of DISH Network’s programming violated several federal statutes including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(a), 2520. Statutory damages provided under these laws extend to $110,000 for each violation and provide for additional recovery of attorney’s fees and costs Furthermore, the number of codes purchased indicate your involvement in the sale and distribution of IKS passcodes to third-parties. The provision of IKS passcodes to others in order to facilitate the illicit acquisition of DISH Network programming violates a variety of federal statutes including 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) and 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4). Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37, you must preserve all documents, electronically stored information including emails, and equipment concerning this matter.



NagraStar is making an effort to resolve its legal claims against individuals who illegally obtained access to its pay-television programming via the NFPS and IKS Rocket pirate television services. NagraStar is prepared to release its claims against you arising from your unlawful accessing of DISH Network programming through the NFPS or IKS Rocket service in return for your agreement to: (1) pay the sum of $7,500 to NagraStar for your past wrongful conduct; and (2) enter into a formal settlement agreement that includes an agreed permanent injunction.



To accept this offer, you must contact NagraStar at 1-844-728-7226,
[email protected], or the following address within 14 days of the date of this letter:



NagraStar LLC

Attn: Bert Eichhorn

90 Inverness Circle East

Englewood, CO, 80112



If you fail to contact NagraStar LLC within 14 days from receipt of this letter, your file will be sent to outside legal counsel for further action. We look forward to your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,



NAGRASTAR LLC





See 47 U.S.C. §§ 605(e)(3)(C)(i)-(ii) and 605(e)(3)(B)(iii); 17 U.S.C. §§ 1203(c)(2), 1203(c)(3)(A), 1203(b)(4)-(5); 18 U.S.C. §§ 2520(c)(2) and 2520(b)(3); see also DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Khachik Bagdasaryan, Case No. CV09-03351RMB (C.D. Cal. 2010), Dkt. No. 62 (Order granting summary judgment and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $151,767,600 related to piracy software that facilitated the theft of DISH Network programming); DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Jeffrey Hardison, Case No. 4:11-CV-178-D, Dkt. No. 26 (E.D.N.C. 2012) (Order granting summary judgment against a user of the Dark Angel pirate television service and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $10,000 plus DISH Network’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $17,608.50 and costs in the amount of $2,706.78); DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Elvis Perry, Case No. 3:11-CV-0427-M (N.D. Tex. 2011), Dkt. No. 19 (Order granting summary judgment against a user of the Dark Angel pirate television service and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $10,000 plus DISH Network’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,471 and costs in the amount of $2,118.24); DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Bill Williamson, Case No. 3:13-cv-50-TAV-CCS (E.D. Tenn. 2013), Dkt. No. 14 (Order granting summary judgment against a user of the IKS Rocket pirate television service and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $10,000 plus DISH Network’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,312.50 and costs in the amount of $815.00); and DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Clayton Hoggard, Case No. 1:14-cv-331-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. 2014), Dkt. Nos. 10-11 (Orders granting default judgment against a user of the NFPS and IKS Rocket pirate television services and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $10,000).


See DISH Network L.L.C., et al. v. Troy McIntyre, Case No. 8:13-cv-02327-MSS-MAP (M.D. Fla. 2014), Dkt. No. 31 (Order granting judgment against a user and reseller of passcodes to the NFPS pirate television service and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $20,000 plus DISH Network’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $16,268 and costs in the amount of $1,402); DISH Network L.L.C., et al. v. Joshua Lamaack, Case No. 0:12-cv-02416-DWF-FLN (D. Minn. 2013), Dkt. 51 (Order granting default judgment against Defendant in the amount of $350,000 for distributing or otherwise trafficking in IKS server passcodes primarily designed and used for stealing DISH Network’s programming.

[1boxman]

I woulds say..contact a lawyer... read .. and you do know ..who you are buying this stuff from ??

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Furthermore, the number of codes purchased indicate your involvement in the sale and distribution of IKS passcodes to third-parties. (1) pay the sum of $7,500 to NagraStar for your past wrongful conduct; and (2) enter into a formal settlement agreement that includes an agreed permanent injunction.


This seems like a new version of demand seeking now $7,500.


GS2

[nobodyspecial]

it started a couple of months ago

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

They have my current 95epay transactions!!! WTF?”


Guessing they either co-operated or DN went to court somewhere seeking a court order for them to co-operate or the seller of the service/product co-operated.



GS2

[Peanuts Dad]

Did you purchase directly from NFPS? Or a reseller? If reseller can you post up the nick, so we know whom to stay away from. Thanks and good luck with this. PD

[dslchome]

Did you purchase directly from NFPS? Or a reseller? If reseller can you post up the nick, so we know whom to stay away from. Thanks and good luck with this. PD

It was from the site via Epay95

DIRECTLY

NO RESELLER

[punkiey1]

I guess I don't understand? why people would by from nfps if I recall it was posted that dik was looking at them, for selling services ,I would stay away from rockets also. just thinking out loud .sorry

[dishuser]

I guess I don't understand? why people would by from nfps if I recall it was posted that dik was looking at them, for selling services ,I would stay away from rockets also. just thinking out loud .sorry
cause some people aren't very bright

[hondoharry]

I guess I don't understand? why people would by from nfps

Simple. Because they have the best value in plug and play IPTV at the moment. Better channels and much cheaper than Voodoo or IPguys.

[haggis]

Do your selves all a big favour, no, I am not anything to do with these FN people, ok, STAY AWAY///this rocket, nfps, think about it, they take down sites, all the time, rename them ,, stscams, etc., think, carefully/// how come they can NOT take down SUCH, publically, sites on the internet, mmm///why?/ think VERY CAREFULLY/// I was into this shett way back, before the stand alones. just my opinion, ok, I got my ass out of t a while ago, took some advice, got myself an android box, a g box, NO, NOT advertising, ok any box with KODI, Got myself, a basic, TV subscription, mind you still about 40 a month, for garbage, but , GEEZ, need a movie, need a tv series, no proble, on here, ok, I know, and they know me, we stay in touch, hi, we will, no matter what, too many years, ok, but, I KNOW LONG WINDED// I read, these letters, 7 grand, etc., FN ridiculous, but, do you pay your lawyer, more than these a sles GGOD LUCK/, all money//

[nobodyspecial]

why would you use your own credit card????

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

How did they get email????



Unfortunately you had to have use it in some records they obtained.


People refer to the paper trail.


These sellers can not provide safe methods of purchase although they may claim to.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

why would you use your own credit card????


To be fair we can all second guess as we probably all made mistakes that we did not forsee at one time or another.


Somebody is probably using a credit card as we speak. That's why these threads are important for awareness.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Went and saw this posted.



Paypal is dangerous for IPTV users:

All our payment gateways are located offshore and will never disclose any of your information to no one including us, so we want to advise you to NEVER PURCHASE IPTV SERVICE USING PAYPAL because they will disclose all your information to Charlie or any other provider on the first request.


That is the typical BS statement that you are safe and your information will never be disclosed. The information was probably disclosed through this payment processor Epay95 who appear to be off shore.


Off shore does not guarantee safety. Payment processors including offshore other than PayPal will co-operate probably if they get hassled with a court order. They don't need the headache so badly.


Now if I was to start something on that site about this I probably would get booted with time.



GS2

[Midnight Rider]

you could not of purchased from them directly ...ahemm as no one has heard of a raid @ IKSprivateserver and as you show in an earlier post in this thread


NagraStar has obtained business records from an individual who sold IKS passcodes to the Nfusion Private Server (“NFPS”) and IKS Rocket pirate television services. These business records establish that you purchased multiple IKS passcodes

individual being the key here ,

[bluejay682]

I read online that several months ago NFPS and Rocket had been served papers and taken to court and to be leary of using them.

[Midnight Rider]

by no means am I suggesting the use of either or any private server , NFPS was served and shut down in the US a couple of years ago.. @ which time they moved there operation

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I think people should be aware that DN can go to countries off shore to petition courts to make parties turn over records. Many people are not aware that DN and Bev went to court in Hong Kong in the...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Continued.



(1) The 1st and 2nd defendants do within 7 days of the date of the order herein disclose to the solicitors for the plaintiffs (in documentary form) the full names, postal addresses, e-mail addresses, and proof of identity documents (if available) of the owners and/or operators of the websites www.tomico-satellites.com, www.tomico-satellites.net, www.nagra2-software.com, www.nagra2elite.com and www.nagra3.com which have been hosted by the 1st defendant’s computer servers in Hong Kong (hereinafter called “the Infringing Websites”);


(2) The 1st and 2nd defendants do within 7 days of the date of the order herein disclose to the solicitors for the plaintiffs (in documentary form) the registration information, billing and payment information and other communications between the 1st and/or 2nd defendants and the owners and/or operators of the Infringing Websites;


(3) The 1st and 2nd defendants do within 7 days of the date of the order herein disclose to the solicitors for the plaintiffs (in documentary or computer readable form) the records of the names, usernames, nicknames, pseudonyms, postal addresses, e-mail addresses and internet protocol addresses of the members and subscribers of the Infringing Websites and the dates and times such internet protocol addresses were used to access the Infringing Websites;


(4) The 1st and 2nd defendants do within 7 days of the date of the order herein disclose to the solicitors for the plaintiffs (in documentary or computer readable form) the electronic data of messages and “posts” or private messages that contain information of the identities of the members and subscribers of the Infringing Websites preserved in the servers in which the Infringing Websites reside;


(5) The members and subscribers of the Infringing Websites as referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this order are limited to those who have offered or accepted pirate hardware or software for a price or otherwise or those who have given instructions for the use of pirate hardware or software.


(6) The plaintiffs be at liberty to use the documents and information disclosed pursuant to this order for the purpose of enforcing their broadcasting and related rights against any and all persons so disclosed;


(7) The 1st and 2nd defendants do within 7 days of their compliance of this order make and file an affidavit or affirmation verifying that they have duly complied with this order and serve a copy of the same on the solicitors for the plaintiffs;

Pursuant to an agreement of the parties, I also order:


(8) The costs of these proceedings be to the 1st and 2nd defendants; and


(9) The plaintiffs do pay the 1st and 2nd defendants reasonable costs for their compliance with this order.





(L. Chan)
Deputy High Court Judge




GS2

[dishuser]

and most know what happened after that
unless they're stupid or new
that was before n3 and why most of us said iks was foolish

[dslchome]

Simple. Because they have the best value in plug and play IPTV at the moment. Better channels and much cheaper than Voodoo or IPguys.

Not cheaper when they come to your door with a letter....

[dslchome]

I read online that several months ago NFPS and Rocket had been served papers and taken to court and to be leary of using them.

I thought PayEase or them offshore payment methods were safe....

I guess nothing is safe anymore unless its

word to mouth......

and thats probably not safe anymore.

[dslchome]

Went and saw this posted.





That is the typical BS statement that you are safe and your information will never be disclosed. The information was probably disclosed through this payment processor Epay95 who appear to be off shore.


Off shore does not guarantee safety. Payment processors including offshore other than PayPal will co-operate probably if they get hassled with a court order. They don't need the headache so badly.


Now if I was to start something on that site about this I probably would get booted with time.



GS2

None of them payment places are safe!!!

NONE.....

This is no game anymore.....

Its not safe to use NFPS or ROCKET or any online place.


I can tell you this is no game anymore.

[rogitts]

Let me put all this to rest...Dish never contacted 95Epay....It was the guy who owned NFPS way back in 2012....He is no longer affiliated with NFPS......They gave him money and he ratted out a ton of people....If you notice all the letters that people are getting now are people who purchased from 95epay ack in 2012....That was the gateway that he used...And he saw all the CC transactions....Thats how they know what codes you purchased at that time.. ur address and name...Because he had all that info...95epay does not have that info....They are also sending some of the codes you purchased included in the letter....

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

First sorry about your situation. Second it was never safe. This type of thing has been happening for so many years where people claim they are safe because they are off shore. Being off shore might...

[rogitts]

Nowhere is safe anymore because that SOB does not reside in the US and still ratted on a ton of people...All for the US dollar...And anyone would do the same once the price is right...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Let me put all this to rest...Dish never contacted 95Epay....It was the guy who owned NFPS way back in 2012....He is no longer affiliated with NFPS......They gave him money and he ratted out a ton of people....If you notice all the letters that people are getting now are people who purchased from 95epay ack in 2012....That was the gateway that he used...And he saw all the CC transactions....Thats how they know what codes you purchased at that time.. ur address and name...Because he had all that info...95epay does not have that info....They are also sending some of the codes you purchased included in the letter....


I don't know myself but if the previous owner of NFPS lived in North America he probably faced a court order compelling him to turn over records.


In the case I posted from Hong Kong the defendant was facing court orders to turn over records. He did not and was sentenced to jail for contempt of court but than the providers went to Hong Kong to try to get the information that the defendant refused to turn over.


People need to know that if push came to shove the provider can attempt to go to court in some other country where 95Epay is from to try to get a court to compel 95Epay to co-operate.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Nowhere is safe anymore because that SOB does not reside in the US and still ratted on a ton of people...All for the US dollar...And anyone would do the same once the price is right...


I think there is more to it speculation on my part. This person from NFPS would have been making good money so why accept money to turn over info when your making money.


GS2

[rogitts]

He no longer is affiliated with NFPS
Alot off things changed since 2012
Thats when all those 95epay transactions were done

[1boxman]

Really..?? because they got busted ..caught ,,charged ..etc .. and just maybe asked for info for a stay out of jail card for free . But that is just a assumption .

[jvvh5897]

There is a 3 year statute of limitations on this type of pirate activity so check the date closely--it could be past that limit if 2012.

1. File complaint w/ BBB.
2 Sue the company for invasion of privacy--this is to let you take out a restraint order against them and to put the ball in your court by filing first. Do step 1 first or you can't complain to BBB.
3. Report the letter to state attorney general as fraud. You have never done business with the provider.
4. Take the letter to local News--TV or otherwise--any you can get interested.
5. Do get an attorney. You can do the prev steps without, but you should have one on retainer.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

But I agree when I say I think there was more to it than just accepting money to turn over information. I personally don't see that. I think there was legal pressure and no payment made for exchange...

[rogitts]

There is a 3 year statute of limitations on this type of pirate activity so check the date closely--it could be past that limit if 2012.

1. File complaint w/ BBB.
2 Sue the company for invasion of privacy--this is to let you take out a restraint order against them and to put the ball in your court by filing first. Do step 1 first or you can't complain to BBB.
3. Report the letter to state attorney general as fraud. You have never done business with the provider.
4. Take the letter to local News--TV or otherwise--any you can get interested.
5. Do get an attorney. You can do the prev steps without, but you should have one on retainer.

How sure are you of this ?

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

From 95Epay.com translated from Chinese to English so its not that accurate. I gather they are saying that your information could be provided to third parties in certain circumstances. They don't say your information will never be shared.




Restrictions


We value your privacy. However, due to the existing regulatory and security environment, we can not fully ensure that your private communications and other personally identifiable information will not be disclosed to third parties. In addition, when we need to investigate or resolve possible problems or questions (but this is unlikely to occur), such as our own it deems necessary or appropriate, we can (and you authorize us to) to private entities, law enforcement personnel or other government employees to disclose any of your information.



GS2

[rogitts]

Guy lives in DR......Ain't no American legal pressure in DR....All done for the US dollar

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

In the email posted by the author of this thread it says this.



Transaction Date


2015



Looks like it is more current than 2012 if I am reading that right ?



GS2

[rogitts]

In the email posted by the author of this thread it says this.






Looks like it is more current than 2012 if I am reading that right ?



GS2

All the letters that I have seen have 2012 transactions...And 95epay was used then..... Was not used in 2015....So I believe the author edited the letter before he posted it here....They have been using Trustpay and PayEase for years now...So I believe the author changed the year of the transaction for some reason....95epay has not been used for years now

[1boxman]

Who is to say .. they person didn't work for them .

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

All the letters that I have seen have 2012 transactions...And 95epay was used then..... Was not used in 2015....So I believe the author edited the letter before he posted it here....They have been using Trustpay and PayEase for years now...So I believe the author changed the year of the transaction for some reason....95epay has not been used for years now


Its my belief those payment processors could co-operate with a court order to provide records if push really came to shove. People are leaving a paper trial with leaving their personal information. It likely would not happen or surely not as easy as PayPal but it could and can't be ruled as 100% safe. Payment processors don't need to be processing payments that could be deem for illegal activities.



When you submit personal information to PayEase on this site, you understand and agree that this information may be transferred across national boundaries and may be stored and processed in any of the countries in which PayEase and its affiliates and subsidiaries maintain offices, including without limitation, the United States. You also acknowledge that in certain countries or with respect to certain activities, the collection, transferring, storage and processing of your information may be undertaken by trusted vendors of PayEase.



Trust Pay, a.s. (p.l.c.) (TP) is fully aware of the risks arising from the possible misuse of its services for the legalization of profits from criminal activities.

The Client acknowledges that information on individual Payers, if
requested by state authorities, may be provided to such authorities in
accordance with the applicable legal regulations, in particular Act No.
297/2008 Coll. on money laundering prevention or other laws, under the
statutory information disclosure requirement or other obligation of TrustPay
towards state authorities.
activities and for terrorist financing by means of business activities of certain clients.



GS2

[alex70olds]

Guy lives in DR......Ain't no American legal pressure in DR....All done for the US dollar

I wonder if he still has his facebook page? Tinie, class act lol.

[rogitts]

I wonder if he still has his facebook page? Tinie, class act lol.

The guy you are referring to is not him....That guy never owned NFPS back in 2012

Think again

Oh yeah....And he does have a facebook page

[alex70olds]

There is a 3 year statute of limitations on this type of pirate activity so check the date closely--it could be past that limit if 2012.

1. File complaint w/ BBB.
2 Sue the company for invasion of privacy--this is to let you take out a restraint order against them and to put the ball in your court by filing first. Do step 1 first or you can't complain to BBB.
3. Report the letter to state attorney general as fraud. You have never done business with the provider.
4. Take the letter to local News--TV or otherwise--any you can get interested.
5. Do get an attorney. You can do the prev steps without, but you should have one on retainer.

The courts have consistently found that the statute of limitations is from the time the plaintiff becomes aware of the alleged violation.

[alex70olds]

The guy you are referring to is not him....That guy never owned NFPS back in 2012

Think again

Oh yeah....And he does have a facebook page

lol thanks, and not surprising.

[rogitts]

lol thanks, and not surprising.

Looks like you know who the rat is now..
Most people who purchased codes back in 2012 im sure are going to be getting letters
All resellers had to buy from this guy using 95epay in 2012...He has all the fuxxing CC info
The only people who might get away are the ones who used prepay or gift card with fake names or addresses
That SOB should be shot
His facebook profile pic is smiling from ear to ear

[dslchome]

Looks like you know who the rat is now..
Most people who purchased codes back in 2012 im sure are going to be getting letters
All resellers had to buy from this guy using 95epay in 2012...He has all the fuxxing CC info
The only people who might get away are the ones who used prepay or gift card with fake names or addresses
That SOB should be shot
His facebook profile pic is smiling from ear to ear

Who you talking about?

[dslchome]

Who is to say .. they person didn't work for them .

And who are you talking about?

[dslchome]

All the letters that I have seen have 2012 transactions...And 95epay was used then..... Was not used in 2015....So I believe the author edited the letter before he posted it here....They have been using Trustpay and PayEase for years now...So I believe the author changed the year of the transaction for some reason....95epay has not been used for years now


It was PayEase.
I just made a mistake in posting is all.

[dslchome]

In the email posted by the author of this thread it says this.









Looks like it is more current than 2012 if I am reading that right ?



GS2

It was PayEase.

that had to be typed out by hand as you can see with the XXXXXX stuff I didnt want any address to be posted

however if you look at the person who got paid, you will see that matches


PURCHASE INTL AUTHORIZED ON XX/XX CHANG KUN XIAMEN CN SXXXXXXXXXX CARD XXXX $XX.XX

Thats the PayEase payee....

Thats the name that is shown in your debit card online activity.

Trust me... it was PayEase.

If you want I can post a picture from the bank card online activity.

[redemption]

Yes, the guy that own NFPS now is different than before infact the owner of all the IKS servers is one person now compared to the multi owners before; hence the reason why IKS is so easily targeted now and does go down for days not hours as before.

It has nothing to do with the merchant company for the merchant company never sees the donation numbers which used to be sent to you from NFPS in an email. Now it seems they have a different process where the transaction has an ID but is not the same as the donation number.

yes, the statue of limitations does not start until they find out about the even or should of know about it

If you remember years ago there was an incident with NFPS where some of the owners had codes and there was this big thing about not buying donations for they could be stolen this could be related. Yes someone that access to the NFPS emails could have sold the transactions to Charlie.

Now the big question is would the information be accepted in a court of law? Meaning the way they got the information is it legal?

The higher demand amount of $7500 could be due to the multiple donations these people bought or is it because Charlie feels they are guaranteed a nice return on their time and effort

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Yes, the guy that own NFPS now is different than before infact the owner of all the IKS servers is one person now compared to the multi owners before; hence the reason why IKS is so easily targeted now and does go down for days not hours as before.

It has nothing to do with the merchant company for the merchant company never sees the donation numbers which used to be sent to you from NFPS in an email. Now it seems they have a different process where the transaction has an ID but is not the same as the donation number.

yes, the statue of limitations does not start until they find out about the even or should of know about it

If you remember years ago there was an incident with NFPS where some of the owners had codes and there was this big thing about not buying donations for they could be stolen this could be related. Yes someone that access to the NFPS emails could have sold the transactions to Charlie.

Now the big question is would the information be accepted in a court of law? Meaning the way they got the information is it legal?

The higher demand amount of $7500 could be due to the multiple donations these people bought or is it because Charlie feels they are guaranteed a nice return on their time and effort


How did they get the information that would lead to a question the way they got it was maybe illegal ?




NagraStar has obtained business records from an individual who sold IKS passcodes to the Nfusion Private Server (“NFPS”) and IKS Rocket pirate television services




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

It was PayEase.

that had to be typed out by hand as you can see with the XXXXXX stuff I didnt want any address to be posted

however if you look at the person who got paid, you will see that matches


PURCHASE INTL AUTHORIZED ON XX/XX CHANG KUN XIAMEN CN SXXXXXXXXXX CARD XXXX $XX.XX

Thats the PayEase payee....

Thats the name that is shown in your debit card online activity.

Trust me... it was PayEase.

If you want I can post a picture from the bank card online activity.


I am a bit confused. Do they than have transactions records from both 95epay & Payease ? And are they from 2012 or 2015 ?



They have my current 95epay transactions!!! WTF?”



GS2

[ChillyWilly]

Interesting thread..... Is this issue pertaining to 1 person? or is it wide spread?

[Benney]

Interesting thread..... Is this issue pertaining to 1 person? or is it wide spread?

I see you have not recovered well from last nights party!

[ChillyWilly]

Interesting thread..... Is this issue pertaining to 1 person? or is it wide spread?


I see you have not recovered well from last nights party!

So obviously my ? wasn't clear...... is the pay-ease 2015 case a single case, or are there more cases? And this is NOT in regard to any old wuffman, nokia and other paypal reseller cases

[willydilly]

“Hey people. I just got a letter and email from NagraStar via Satscams. But this has me really worried. They have my current 95epay transactions!!! WTF?”

This is crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The letter came then the email came later.... Never seen anything like this.
I dunno whom to trust now.
any info would be nice.


How did they get email???? How did they get all this?

They even had proof in the letter and email.

PURCHASE INTL AUTHORIZED ON XX/XX CHANG KUN XIAMEN CN SXXXXXXXXXX CARD XXXX $XX.XX







August XXth, 2015

VIA CMRRR and EMAIL

XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX

Email: XXXXXXXXXX

ID#: EU XXXXXXXXXX



Re: DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v XXXXXXXXXX, U.S. District Court, Case No. TBD



Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXX



This correspondence is sent on behalf DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., and NagraStar LLC (collectively “NagraStar”) to individuals who receive DISH Network pay-television programming without authorization. The illegal reception of DISH Network pay-television programming occurs through the use of signal theft devices and pirate Internet Key Sharing (“IKS”) servers accessible via the internet.



NagraStar has obtained business records from an individual who sold IKS passcodes to the Nfusion Private Server (“NFPS”) and IKS Rocket pirate television services. These business records establish that you purchased multiple IKS passcodes, which provided you with unauthorized access to DISH Network television programming and decryption codes needed to descramble that programming without payment of a subscription fee to DISH Network. Enclosed for your reference is a small portion of the evidence that has been gathered, including the third party payment transaction information for your NFPS purchase and some of the IKS passcodes you received.

PayEase Order #


XXXXXXXXXX

Merchant Order #


XXXXXXXXXX

Transaction Date


2015

Transaction Status


Successful

Amount


XXXXXXXXXX

IKS Donation Codes


XXXXXXXXXX

The circumvention of NagraStar’s security system and unauthorized interception of DISH Network’s programming violated several federal statutes including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(a), 2520. Statutory damages provided under these laws extend to $110,000 for each violation and provide for additional recovery of attorney’s fees and costs Furthermore, the number of codes purchased indicate your involvement in the sale and distribution of IKS passcodes to third-parties. The provision of IKS passcodes to others in order to facilitate the illicit acquisition of DISH Network programming violates a variety of federal statutes including 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) and 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4). Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37, you must preserve all documents, electronically stored information including emails, and equipment concerning this matter.



NagraStar is making an effort to resolve its legal claims against individuals who illegally obtained access to its pay-television programming via the NFPS and IKS Rocket pirate television services. NagraStar is prepared to release its claims against you arising from your unlawful accessing of DISH Network programming through the NFPS or IKS Rocket service in return for your agreement to: (1) pay the sum of $7,500 to NagraStar for your past wrongful conduct; and (2) enter into a formal settlement agreement that includes an agreed permanent injunction.



To accept this offer, you must contact NagraStar at 1-844-728-7226,
[email protected], or the following address within 14 days of the date of this letter:



NagraStar LLC

Attn: Bert Eichhorn

90 Inverness Circle East

Englewood, CO, 80112



If you fail to contact NagraStar LLC within 14 days from receipt of this letter, your file will be sent to outside legal counsel for further action. We look forward to your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,



NAGRASTAR LLC





See 47 U.S.C. §§ 605(e)(3)(C)(i)-(ii) and 605(e)(3)(B)(iii); 17 U.S.C. §§ 1203(c)(2), 1203(c)(3)(A), 1203(b)(4)-(5); 18 U.S.C. §§ 2520(c)(2) and 2520(b)(3); see also DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Khachik Bagdasaryan, Case No. CV09-03351RMB (C.D. Cal. 2010), Dkt. No. 62 (Order granting summary judgment and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $151,767,600 related to piracy software that facilitated the theft of DISH Network programming); DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Jeffrey Hardison, Case No. 4:11-CV-178-D, Dkt. No. 26 (E.D.N.C. 2012) (Order granting summary judgment against a user of the Dark Angel pirate television service and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $10,000 plus DISH Network’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $17,608.50 and costs in the amount of $2,706.78); DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Elvis Perry, Case No. 3:11-CV-0427-M (N.D. Tex. 2011), Dkt. No. 19 (Order granting summary judgment against a user of the Dark Angel pirate television service and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $10,000 plus DISH Network’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,471 and costs in the amount of $2,118.24); DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Bill Williamson, Case No. 3:13-cv-50-TAV-CCS (E.D. Tenn. 2013), Dkt. No. 14 (Order granting summary judgment against a user of the IKS Rocket pirate television service and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $10,000 plus DISH Network’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,312.50 and costs in the amount of $815.00); and DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Clayton Hoggard, Case No. 1:14-cv-331-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. 2014), Dkt. Nos. 10-11 (Orders granting default judgment against a user of the NFPS and IKS Rocket pirate television services and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $10,000).


See DISH Network L.L.C., et al. v. Troy McIntyre, Case No. 8:13-cv-02327-MSS-MAP (M.D. Fla. 2014), Dkt. No. 31 (Order granting judgment against a user and reseller of passcodes to the NFPS pirate television service and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $20,000 plus DISH Network’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $16,268 and costs in the amount of $1,402); DISH Network L.L.C., et al. v. Joshua Lamaack, Case No. 0:12-cv-02416-DWF-FLN (D. Minn. 2013), Dkt. 51 (Order granting default judgment against Defendant in the amount of $350,000 for distributing or otherwise trafficking in IKS server passcodes primarily designed and used for stealing DISH Network’s programming.

Regardless of how old this post is, the fact of the matter remains that ANYONE that purchases a code, either directly from the NFPS website or via a reseller, IS INNOCENT UNTIL DISH OR NAGRASTAR CAN PROVE THAT YOU USED THAT CODE.

Anyone can buy a code and NOT use it. What if you bought one and gave it away as a gift? Are you guilty of circumnavigating the security of DISH? Not at all.

They have to PROVE that you actually used this code to watch "illegally obtained signal". That, frankly, is impossible to do.

wd

[tubbs]

Hey WillyDilly,

I totally agree with you,
But the constitution is broke.

You are guilty before proven so in the USA.
I'm trying to fight a red light camera ticket..
Yes Judge, that my car, but am I driving it???
Prove to the court that it WAS me behind the wheel... they can't do that, but fine me anyway..
Who is running that court of Law, the red light camera people...that donated $$$ to the judges and congressmen.
GOOD LUCK TUBBS!

But its the principle of the thing..
thats why I am fighting it..


the USA is going to hell...SO...
Don't be a chump, you vote for TRUMP!

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Regardless of how old this post is, the fact of the matter remains that ANYONE that purchases a code, either directly from the NFPS website or via a reseller, IS INNOCENT UNTIL DISH OR NAGRASTAR CAN PROVE THAT YOU USED THAT CODE.

Anyone can buy a code and NOT use it. What if you bought one and gave it away as a gift? Are you guilty of circumnavigating the security of DISH? Not at all.

They have to PROVE that you actually used this code to watch "illegally obtained signal". That, frankly, is impossible to do.

wd



Because its a Civil matter it comes down to what is more likely with the evidence. I don't see that the plaintiff has to necessarily prove you used the code in this Civil action. The circumstantial evidence might be enough to weigh in favor of the plaintiff as the plaintiff needs only to be slightly more convincing.



GS2

[jedi]

Regardless of how old this post is, the fact of the matter remains that ANYONE that purchases a code, either directly from the NFPS website or via a reseller, IS INNOCENT UNTIL DISH OR NAGRASTAR CAN PROVE THAT YOU USED THAT CODE.

Anyone can buy a code and NOT use it. What if you bought one and gave it away as a gift? Are you guilty of circumnavigating the security of DISH? Not at all.

They have to PROVE that you actually used this code to watch "illegally obtained signal". That, frankly, is impossible to do.

wd

Most of us here probabably aren't lawyers and are only guessing if it is legal or illegal.
In Canada I think most of the claims are filed through the Superior Court of Justince (Commercial List) because ordinary courts and judges don't fully understand these types of cases.

Back in the old days when everyone was buying illegal programmers - I think DirecTV and/or Dishnet used to sue people just for purchasing, selling, operating or possessing and device, or components thereof, without lawful excuse which are or were intended to be used for ...... illegal TV reception.

So they weren't necessarily suing you for "using" it to obtaining illegal TV - they were suing you for merely purchasing these devices or for owning one of these devices.
I don't know how successful they were in these proceedings - but proably a lot of people settled out of Court to avoid the hefty legal fees of defending a claim through the Superior Court of Justice.

Perhaps they are suing for just purchasing a code???

[ChillyWilly]

All the letters that I have seen have 2012 transactions...And 95epay was used then..... Was not used in 2015....So I believe the author edited the letter before he posted it here....They have been using Trustpay and PayEase for years now...So I believe the author changed the year of the transaction for some reason....95epay has not been used for years now

I think the author is working for dish? and using scare tactics.... He was on the zeta site posting pics of people getting their cars and motorcycle taken to settle a dish judgment.... supposedly.....

[ChillyWilly]

I wonder if he still has his facebook page? Tinie, class act lol.
Didn't he steal from nfps? got fired? has a grudge? maybe the records he turned over are the accounts he stole from???

[Nostradamus]

Regardless of how old this post is, the fact of the matter remains that ANYONE that purchases a code, either directly from the NFPS website or via a reseller, IS INNOCENT UNTIL DISH OR NAGRASTAR CAN PROVE THAT YOU USED THAT CODE.

Anyone can buy a code and NOT use it. What if you bought one and gave it away as a gift? Are you guilty of circumnavigating the security of DISH? Not at all.

They have to PROVE that you actually used this code to watch "illegally obtained signal". That, frankly, is impossible to do.

wd


actually you would still be guilty because you know what the code is for and if you gave it away then you are helping somebody else steal tv... same thing

[ChillyWilly]

Let me put all this to rest...Dish never contacted 95Epay....It was the guy who owned NFPS way back in 2012....He is no longer affiliated with NFPS......They gave him money and he ratted out a ton of people....If you notice all the letters that people are getting now are people who purchased from 95epay ack in 2012....That was the gateway that he used...And he saw all the CC transactions....Thats how they know what codes you purchased at that time.. ur address and name...Because he had all that info...95epay does not have that info....They are also sending some of the codes you purchased included in the letter....

Really, I am of the belief that no names or addys are included in these transactions... only the CC number
However it may be possible for dish to get your info from the card issuer.....

[willydilly]

WRONG. Let's say Billy Bob wanted to borrow your CC for a purchase because he doesn't have one. You let him purchase online the code, then he promptly gives you the cash for the purchase. Dish...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Again your forgetting what is required to be successful in Civil court. The requirement is not that high. There is strong circumstantial evidence as it is without having to prove you actually used...

[Nostradamus]

also if you read the fine print on your credit card you are not supposed to loan it out and if you do you are liable. Now you can grasp at straws all day and maybe in a criminal court with a $5000 an hour lawyer you might get away with it. In civil court you are going to be hung out to dry and twisting in the breeze.

[willydilly]

also if you read the fine print on your credit card you are not supposed to loan it out and if you do you are liable. Now you can grasp at straws all day and maybe in a criminal court with a $5000 an hour lawyer you might get away with it. In civil court you are going to be hung out to dry and twisting in the breeze.

Let 'em come at me.................don't care. North of the border...........didn't pay for any code.............still enjoying TV.

wd

[Anubis]

Let 'em come at me.................don't care. North of the border...........didn't pay for any code.............still enjoying TV.

wd
Be careful what you wish for. Does not matter if you paid or not, you are still pirating the signal.

[kenkell1]

Let 'em come at me.................don't care. North of the border...........didn't pay for any code.............still enjoying TV.

wd

still enjoying tv you LEGALLY paid for? lol.......I wouldn't be so smug....really.

[Nostradamus]

I think somebody needs to read up on how the Cdn law is written. In Canada, it is not what you are watching but how you are watching it that determines signal theft. Any time you decrypt a signal without proper authorization you are in violation of CRTC regulations. In fact, you don't have to really be doing anything at all but if you have the capabilities to do so then you are considered in vilation under the law. That means if they can link your IP to a server streaming keys or a payment to a seller then they could nail you criminally. Fortunately for you, police have more important things to do than worry about what you are watching on tv but at the same time if someone was to file a complaint they are obligated to investigate.

So really the only thing saving you at the moment is the fact you are low priority criminal activity as far as the police are concerned and DN can not file a suit against you for lost revenue due to stolen programming. At the same time, there is nothing preventing BEV from filing a suit even if you didn't have a dish pointed in their direction because under the current Cdn law you would have the capabilities to do so and that is all the judge could base his decision in the case of a Cdn civil suit.

Now i don't write those laws but I have read enough of it to know how it works and yes it is convoluted but at the same time you have to take into consideration of who wrote that law.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Actually you would be in violation of the Canadian Radio Communication Act that says the following. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
You can be in possession of equipment, device, or any component thereof under...

[Benney]

I believe somewhere in those pages it also says fines up to $5000.00 max. That's for a criminal charge. <br />
Civil suits are another thing altogether.

[arms]

DN is sending out emails and demanding cash. It is real.

[nobodyspecial]

DN is sending out emails and demanding cash. It is real.

Why don't you read this thread and then say something?

[jazzman]

If it an e-mail how can they prove you received it. Only way this works is if you get a certified letter in the mail and even then if you don't sign for it they can't prove a thing, so I've been told...no worries.

[nob0dy]

If it an e-mail how can they prove you received it. Only way this works is if you get a certified letter in the mail and even then if you don't sign for it they can't prove a thing, so I've been told...no worries.

outlook my friend ;x

eg: below


https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Secure-email-messages-by-using-a-digital-signature-65dd1ea9-7741-4afd-b44d-9243ce107c50


:innocent:

[jedi]

If it an e-mail how can they prove you received it. Only way this works is if you get a certified letter in the mail and even then if you don't sign for it they can't prove a thing, so I've been told...no worries.

It may not matter if you signed for a certified/registered letter or not - or even if you did not accept it.
In most cases the Courts mandate that you serve the notice at the last known address of the defendant - so even if you do not accept the letter the plaintiff can show the court that they tried to deliver it to the last known registered address and the Court could consider it delivered and the Plaintiff could move for default judgment if you do not file to defend against the action.
If they can not serve the defendant personally or by registered/certified mail the Courts could allow other means of service such as posting the claim in a local paper or a national paper - so if they are trying to serve you do NOT think you are safe because you did not accept their papers - they could end up getting default judgment agains you.

[jvvh5897]

I think somebody needs to read up on how the Cdn law is written. In Canada, it is not what you are watching but how you are watching it that determines signal theft. Any time you decrypt a signal without proper authorization you are in violation of CRTC regulations. In fact, you don't have to really be doing anything at all but if you have the capabilities to do so then you are considered in vilation under the law. That means if they can link your IP to a server streaming keys or a payment to a seller then they could nail you criminally. Fortunately for you, police have more important things to do than worry about what you are watching on tv but at the same time if someone was to file a complaint they are obligated to investigate.

So really the only thing saving you at the moment is the fact you are low priority criminal activity as far as the police are concerned and DN can not file a suit against you for lost revenue due to stolen programming. At the same time, there is nothing preventing BEV from filing a suit even if you didn't have a dish pointed in their direction because under the current Cdn law you would have the capabilities to do so and that is all the judge could base his decision in the case of a Cdn civil suit.

Now i don't write those laws but I have read enough of it to know how it works and yes it is convoluted but at the same time you have to take into consideration of who wrote that law.

Interesting. So, if I have a computer, I don't have to download anything that is copyrighted material, the fact that I have a computer means that I can do so, and so I am guilty of a crime.

[Nostradamus]

I guess so, LOL if your computer falls under the CRTC act, which it doesn't other than the fact it might generate harmonics that interfere with other transmissions.

If you are downloading software or other copyright material then that would fall under the copyright act and not CRTC regulations regarding satellite reception and encryption.

or if you are downloading encrypted material and then unencrypting it without proper authorization it might.

you are as bad as my ex-wife reading too much into things LOL!

in Canada as far as satellite reception goes it is the act of decryption that is in violation of the law and not the reception itself

[Benney]

In Canada the criminal conviction of illegal regarding satellite reception and encryption carries a fine up to $5000.
DN, BV and Nagra team up when up here.

Not sure if they have ever gone after end users but the have gone after resellers and services.

In a civil suit anything over $50,000 has to be treated almost like a criminal case with evidence etc. but under $50,000. if it even looks like you might have and have the means to do it you just might lose out.

I know this was fact a year or so ago. Totals might have changed since then but I don't think so.

[thunder bird]

Beam me up.

[kutter]

It may not matter if you signed for a certified/registered letter or not - or even if you did not accept it.
In most cases the Courts mandate that you serve the notice at the last known address of the defendant - so even if you do not accept the letter the plaintiff can show the court that they tried to deliver it to the last known registered address and the Court could consider it delivered and the Plaintiff could move for default judgment if you do not file to defend against the action.
If they can not serve the defendant personally or by registered/certified mail the Courts could allow other means of service such as posting the claim in a local paper or a national paper - so if they are trying to serve you do NOT think you are safe because you did not accept their papers - they could end up getting default judgment agains you.

you're right ... your Post Office has an obligation to deliver that letter to you ... that's why they put the little card in your box ...

if you bring the card in, and refuse to sign for it, the fact that you refused to sign for it is recorded and the letter is returned to the sender with an explanation as to why it was returned ... so they know you refused to accept it ...

[TLG]

All the examples included here are attempted answers for those who seem to want to deny "use" of the "purchased" code ...

What about "agreeing" to the purchase but "denying" it was ever used ....

The defense would sound something like this,,

I was surfing the net for satellite services to compare providers, services, packages and costs
I typed sattelite in Google which brought me to multiple pages, I navigated to a page where I noticed free tv.....
After reading through multiple free tv announcements including kodi and other such free streaming ads I came
Across an nfps offer,,,, after a few more clicks I unwittingly purchased an offer mistaking thinking it came with
A player or an app which would allow me to watch TV or movies on my computer or tablet "legally" because in
Fact I did "purchase" the service

Upon receiving the "code" I realized it was nothing as I perceived and realized the site was another internet scam
which sold me nothing and I got taken. I have never used this "code" and I don't even know the meaning of "circumvent"

I am a victim of Internet fraud and it's the website that mislead me that is in fact the person's you need to be chasing ...........

(for those who have a legal subscription) and to prove my innocence and to further add credibilty in the matter, here is
proof of my tv subscription. .......



Let's keep an opened mind about this ,,,, all the wanna be lawyers and debaters here ,, yes I am aware that ignorance is not
a defence ,,,,, however at the very least, admitting to the "purchase" but denying the "use" puts the ball in the court of the prosecuter
to prove "use" ............... as it has been stated many times , one need only "sway the preponderance of evidence" and "sound a bit
more convincing"

I believe, taking this defence avenue,,,,, win or lose ,, the fine would be considerably weekend

Comments ??

[Benney]

So did the OP ever end up paying out?

Or did I miss the end results of this somewhere in all these posts?

[arms]

I guess the question remains. Does anyone know of a court that has ruled against an end user using DN and IKS? Not Direct.

[kutter]

All the examples included here are attempted answers for those who seem to want to deny "use" of the "purchased" code ...

What about "agreeing" to the purchase but "denying" it was ever used ....

The defense would sound something like this,,

I was surfing the net for satellite services to compare providers, services, packages and costs
I typed sattelite in Google which brought me to multiple pages, I navigated to a page where I noticed free tv.....
After reading through multiple free tv announcements including kodi and other such free streaming ads I came
Across an nfps offer,,,, after a few more clicks I unwittingly purchased an offer mistaking thinking it came with
A player or an app which would allow me to watch TV or movies on my computer or tablet "legally" because in
Fact I did "purchase" the service

Upon receiving the "code" I realized it was nothing as I perceived and realized the site was another internet scam
which sold me nothing and I got taken. I have never used this "code" and I don't even know the meaning of "circumvent"

I am a victim of Internet fraud and it's the website that mislead me that is in fact the person's you need to be chasing ...........

(for those who have a legal subscription) and to prove my innocence and to further add credibilty in the matter, here is
proof of my tv subscription. .......



Let's keep an opened mind about this ,,,, all the wanna be lawyers and debaters here ,, yes I am aware that ignorance is not
a defence ,,,,, however at the very least, admitting to the "purchase" but denying the "use" puts the ball in the court of the prosecuter
to prove "use" ............... as it has been stated many times , one need only "sway the preponderance of evidence" and "sound a bit
more convincing"

I believe, taking this defence avenue,,,,, win or lose ,, the fine would be considerably weekend

Comments ??

I believe a couple of end users attempted to use similar arguments in their defense and it ended up costing them in the end.

The original demand is pretty much off the table when you force them to take you to court. At that point it`s highly unlikely that it will cost you less than simply paying the original demand. I mean let`s face it, you are now costing them money.

Granted there have been a few cases that yielded unusual outcomes, confidential settlements or voluntary dismissals, but the reasons for those results are usually confidential.

[kutter]

I guess the question remains. Does anyone know of a court that has ruled against an end user using DN and IKS? Not Direct.

of course ... there are hundreds of cases against end users by DN.

[abouttosnap]

So did the OP ever end up paying out?

Or did I miss the end results of this somewhere in all these posts?

Always wondered if what the op posted was authentic on this one or was it just bs to stir the pot. By what was said through this thread in regards to the op it does call it into question. At any rate seems someone felt the need to stir it up again. Here any more a lot of what I read and see makes me go hmmm.

[jedi]

All the examples included here are attempted answers for those who seem to want to deny "use" of the "purchased" code ...

What about "agreeing" to the purchase but "denying" it was ever used ....

The defense would sound something like this,,

I was surfing the net for satellite services to compare providers, services, packages and costs
I typed sattelite in Google which brought me to multiple pages, I navigated to a page where I noticed free tv.....
After reading through multiple free tv announcements including kodi and other such free streaming ads I came
Across an nfps offer,,,, after a few more clicks I unwittingly purchased an offer mistaking thinking it came with
A player or an app which would allow me to watch TV or movies on my computer or tablet "legally" because in
Fact I did "purchase" the service

Upon receiving the "code" I realized it was nothing as I perceived and realized the site was another internet scam
which sold me nothing and I got taken. I have never used this "code" and I don't even know the meaning of "circumvent"

I am a victim of Internet fraud and it's the website that mislead me that is in fact the person's you need to be chasing ...........

(for those who have a legal subscription) and to prove my innocence and to further add credibilty in the matter, here is
proof of my tv subscription. .......



Let's keep an opened mind about this ,,,, all the wanna be lawyers and debaters here ,, yes I am aware that ignorance is not
a defence ,,,,, however at the very least, admitting to the "purchase" but denying the "use" puts the ball in the court of the prosecuter
to prove "use" ............... as it has been stated many times , one need only "sway the preponderance of evidence" and "sound a bit
more convincing"

I believe, taking this defence avenue,,,,, win or lose ,, the fine would be considerably weekend

Comments ??

Sounds like it may have a chance of winning if you only purchased one time and never again.

[jeldf]

Sounds like it may have a chance of winning if you only purchased one time and never again.

My two cents.....wouldn't they have to put that in the letter? That you purchased multiple times? A simple pay up, cease and desist might make the above doable. And I would say I was a victim of a satscam. :innocent:

[jvvh5897]

One of the points of my last post was to show reduction ad absurdum. A similar argument might be: I own many sharp and blunt instruments, so it seems I am guilty of murder since they might be used to kill a person.

I wonder if this idea might have some defense possibilities: Set up your IKS server to ping local and national political figures and judges--then you could show in court that there was internet traffic with those folks---since you were communicating with them, they are guilty of a violation as much as you. I know the judge will say: "They are not on trial, you are", but still, they might get the case tossed. On the user side, I suppose they too could ping (or do something more interesting--say UDP CW packets) a similar list--but the idea might need a little tweak for users.

[hondoharry]

Yes you can take it all the way to court and maybe win if they have no incriminating FTA pirate forum posts or PM's but your lawyer and other fees will definitely cost more unless you could get DN to pay them.

[jvvh5897]

Oh, please! If you have a good lawyer then you counter sue them and win.

[Nostradamus]

Oh, please! If you have a good lawyer then you counter sue them and win.

just curious as to where you got your law degree or if you are speaking from experience and have fought them and won? Otherwise your opinion is nothing more than conjecture either and last time I looked this whole thread is based on conjecture and personal opinion so your idea is no better or worse than anybody else's but when was the last time you seen anybody turn the tables on them that way and win a countersuit?

now it just seems to be the general consensus that anybody getting caught doing that just pay the initial demand and make it go away. If you decide to fight it in some manner, odds are the outcome will be the same and the penalty will be much higher if you lose as you are also paying for court time and their legal team as well. Oh and don't forget your own lawyer bill as well and you still have to be able to persuade the judge that you bought a code for stealing TV and never used it and had no intention of doing so. LOL

The paper trail outlined in the demand letter basically states the paper trail and what the code was for. I suppose if the code had any other use you might have a valid point but as things are you do not. So if you want to rack up $20 grand in legal costs for the same outcome then go for it but I haven't seen any end users that stupid yet. Granted stupid enough to use IKS and a leave a paper trail but not that stupid that they dont know the difference between $20000 and $3500.

What I don't think is fair is these resellers maintaining records and then tossing their clients under the bus so they get out of jail free card. Want to counter sue somebody because you got a demand letter for your illegal actions, start a class action suit against the guy who sold it you

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

What grounds would there be for a counter lawsuit. ?



GS2

[dishuser]

haven't seen a post anywhere that an end user has won

[hondoharry]

What grounds would there be for a counter lawsuit. ?



GS2

Assuming DN loses the case and the defendant wasn't awarded his legal costs, he might consider a counter lawsuit.

[jvvh5897]

You know the FTA world has to have the poorest criminals around! Real Darwin Award level. You don't bother to cover your tracks in the first place, then when things go bad post about it and have no idea of an exit strategy. Any real legal advice never gets posted and if any suggest an option, then they are ignored. I've suggested group of folks that get letters join together to get good legal help in the past--no sign that that happened. I've suggested ways to counter posts getting viewed--no sign of that happening. I've suggested ways to get folks with money to block suits coming to trial. Really, what are any of you doing that is positive? Seems the position here is lay back and take it.

[jazzman]

You're right jvvh but my "friend" just went ahead and paid "his" $3,500 and has posted this way ever since to CYA. If everyone posted this way there would be a better legal defense because there would be no incriminating posts to show proof these codes were ever used and nothing was gained by it. Just a word to the wise, NEVER post that "I'm" up on so and so's service or down either because then they've got you by the balls lol. At least my "friend" has delayed further action this way and BTW...never pay with paypal or something that can be easily traced. Take the word of someone who knows (but is not me) PLEASE! BE SAFE my friends.

EDIT: I'm not saying this will save your ass because many of you are already guilty of posting the other way but at least for newbies keep this in mind as they will come after you! I feel for all of zoogers clients that it may already be too late for. JMO

[kutter]

Assuming DN loses the case and the defendant wasn't awarded his legal costs, he might consider a counter lawsuit.

is that even possible ...

in the US ... win or lose, everyone pays their own legal costs unless there is a specific contract between the parties or the statute allows the judge some discretion ... neither of which appears to be the case ...

[TLG]

Oh brother !?!? :thud:

[TLG]

If there were any winners to the letter, they were settled; and on condition of banned publication.
By winners I don't mean court winners, I mean winners who made a case with the lawyers by showing
and creating doubt thus weakening the case against themselves.

No one wants to risk going through a whole court procedure only to lose,,, and neither does the other side.

The advice being given (if anyone is even reading this thread for advice) to just pay up,, isn't solid advice
cause there are so many variables,, it doesn't apply to everyone’s case.

Of coarse there were winner,, none of them will ever come to this thread and say a word because the
the general concensus on the idea is.....****em !!

[kutter]

If there were any winners to the letter, they were settled; and on condition of banned publication.
By winners I don't mean court winners, I mean winners who made a case with the lawyers by showing
and creating doubt thus weakening the case against themselves.

No one wants to risk going through a whole court procedure only to lose,,, and neither does the other side.

The advice being given (if anyone is even reading this thread for advice) to just pay up,, isn't solid advice
cause there are so many variables,, it doesn't apply to everyone’s case.

Of coarse there were winner,, none of them will ever come to this thread and say a word because the
the general concensus on the idea is.....****em !!

you can't show one case where an end user was successful in their attempts to reduce the award to less than the original demand ...

but there are numerous cases (public documents) that show exactly the opposite :)

while I will admit there have been some unusual results you'd be a fool to think that those were in the end users favor ... I'm willing to bet that the cases that were "Confidential Settlements" were a result of the end user and their lawyer agreeing to pay the $7500 instead of continuing with the case and ending up with a judgement of $10,000.

the cases that I would be more interested in are the ones that DN Voluntarily Dismissed ... and there were a number of those ... IMO those might hold something of value ...

but to suggest that the advice to pay up isn't solid, and show nothing but speculation as your proof doesn't seem all logical to me

[jedi]

There have been people that have entered a defence against their Claim (without the assistnace of a lawyer) and they have stopped their proceedings - but it takes a lot of effort and time.
In my opinion if they offer to sit down and talk with you or if they try to serve you - face the music and try to see what they have against you. I bet in most cases they only have one piece of evidence against you and there may be chance you can explain why you are "not guilty". It may be a long shot - but I think it is better than sticking your head in the sand and refusing to talk to them. From what I have heard the guys that refuse to talk to them or ignore their letters end up getting default judgements against them.

jvh.... was right none of us should be so stupid to be caught in their traps - never use you own emails, credit cards, PayPal or anything that can be linked to you when you pay for a service.
But if they do nab you - I think it is best to talk to them and see what they have.

[dungchau6262]

What happen if you send the money on pay pad is 2 way 1 is send is: pay for good or services and 2 is send money to friend or family , But I know the re seller is always tell you send is for friend or family and Disk say is buy the codes ? what should you do ?

[bobby]

What happen if you send the money on pay pad is 2 way 1 is send is: pay for good or services and 2 is send money to friend or family , But I know the re seller is always tell you send is for friend or family and Disk say is buy the codes ? what should you do ?

what should you do??? really?... lol...DON'T use pay pal, simple as that and if that's the only method your seller accepts find someone else who offers other methods of paying that are more discreet

[cheezed]

Been reading this thread and I'm just curios, has anyone actually paid the amount the letter or email is asking for and what was the outcome? The reason why I'm asking is because at the satscums website they even set up a pay-p link to settle up. Thats kind of strange to me.

[ranger]

I have read that many people have paid and not paid and lost in Court !!!!

[Anubis]

Been reading this thread and I'm just curios, has anyone actually paid the amount the letter or email is asking for and what was the outcome? The reason why I'm asking is because at the satscums website they even set up a pay-p link to settle up. Thats kind of strange to me.
There are numerous posts about people asking what they should do because they received a demand letter and there are all kinds of answers regarding what to do. The outcome is still the same. Either bite the bullet and try to negotiate a lower price and pay it or try to fight it in court with the outcome costing you more than the original amount. Ignore the first demand and get a second requesting substantially more. Odds are they have a PayPal option to make payment simple and guaranteed.

Bottom line is that once caught and they have shown some proof it's time to get the checkbook out.

[Thunderbolt]

Thnk you Anubis. This is the most helpful advise I heard yet. Do you have any insight as to what the Nagra will do?

[notocer]

I had to pay. Follow there instructions. I wrote them a letter saying I didn't do anything but settling to end it. Get a certified ck and make copies of everything for your records. Send ups or registered mail so u will have proof they received it. That's it won't here from them again. It has been over 2 years. I also changed my ip.

[nob0dy]

Thnk you Anubis. This is the most helpful advise I heard yet. Do you have any insight as to what the Nagra will do?

you should ask your employer :offtopic1:

[Midnight Rider]

you should ask your employer :offtopic1:
:hide: from the :judge:
:stooges:

[MarvinGardens]

Odds are they have a PayPal option to make payment simple and guaranteed.


Why not? DN already has their paypal account info as part of their evidence. DN loves you to use paypal.

[Moonman]

yeah, they sure do love it....Just got my happy tidings from satscams today. Will be calling them tomorrow to find out what they have . Since I am retired and on a fixed income which doesn't have any room to pay the $3500, will be interesting to see what they say. This action is from 4 years ago, isn't there a statute of limitations on how far they can go back?

[MarvinGardens]

The statute of limitations begins to run when they first discover the violation, not when the event occurred.

[bondock saint]

Anyone has any input on this lawyer Gary W. Ruff?