End Users

[Hannibalector]

its becoming increasingly clear from some recent cases that Nagra has had a hard time bringing charges against iks dealers and fta iks dealers, one recent attempt by nagra was thwarted by virtue of...

[dishuser]

they don't need an end user busted to pop the dealer

[Hannibalector]

they don't need an end user busted to pop the dealer

depends on the evidence doesnt it, and if there going to make claims against Echelon without themselves being one of the end users then they have to make a case stick against an end user first before Echelon

[Hannibalector]

if somone in a courtroom is going to point a finger at somone for selling them IKS services, then they first are guilty before the one being charged of IKS services , sad fact but the cart is before...

[dishuser]

depends on the evidence doesnt it, and if there going to make claims against Echelon without themselves being one of the end users then they have to make a case stick against an end user first before Echelon

so you think that if nagra bought from justin they can't go after him?
they don't even have to prove the service worked

[Hannibalector]

Nagra can go after anybody within reason of suspicion <br />
<br />
charges and a verdict are two seperate issues

[dishuser]

all this means is that justin gave up everyone
whether it was to save himself or not remains to be seen
but if they didn't get this evidence justin was going to lose
the end users is just a bonus

[Hannibalector]

oh?....and now Nagras content to charge the individuals $3500 for being on Echelons list ?....if there were no list dishuser of end users how do you make charges stick within the circle of user,...

[dishuser]

and how do you know nagra didn't pay for his service? <br />
they don't need an informant <br />
the guy was public

[Hannibalector]

and how do you know nagra didn't pay for his service?
they don't need an informant
the guy was public

if Nagra paid for the services they wouldnt need an end users conviction or threat of 3500 dollars, they would have been the end user themselves right ?
the mere fact that that there going after the end users is concern enough dishuser , this appears to me that they didnt have enough to convict they brought a case against Echelon and his lawyer said prove my client completed the circle of IKS seed to end user, so Nagra went after the end user to complete a fact of evidence to provide the court as evidence and slapped the end user(s) with 3500 dollars

[dishuser]

if Nagra paid for the services they wouldnt need an end users conviction or threat of 3500 dollars, they would have been the end user themselves right ?
the mere fact that that there going after the end users is concern enough dishuser , this appears to me that they didnt have enough to convict they brought a case against Echelon and his lawyer said prove my client completed the circle of IKS seed to end user, so Nagra went after the end user to complete a fact of evidence to provide the court as evidence and slapped the end user(s) with 3500 dollars

it means it's a bonus
they obviously had enough against justin if he turned over all his records
it's dtv all over again...first the dealers,then the end users

[Hannibalector]

it means it's a bonus
they obviously had enough against justin if he turned over all his records
it's dtv all over again...first the dealers,then the end users

i agree its DTV all over again , but the carts before the horse in this case, which Nagra learned from dtv, they need the end user first this time be it nagra themselves as i said already or subscribed end users of Echelons IKS service, again dishuser this is precedents here 3500 dollar precedents

[dishuser]

i agree its DTV all over again , but the carts before the horse in this case, which Nagra learned from dtv, they need the end user first this time be it nagra themselves as i said already or subscribed end users of Echelons IKS service, again dishuser this is precedents here 3500 dollar precedents

you're very confused
good luck with that

[Hannibalector]

explain the confusion then so that others can bennefit from your wisdom here on this , end users are being charged dude enough said, prefferably in detail and more then 2 lines of writing

[dishuser]

when did they have a hard time? <br />
against who? <br />
I've yet to see where end users were busted before the dealer

[badboyz4life]

This may be off topic a little but the courts and law can do what they want,my buddy sold a 8ball to a person(girl) in a jeep that he knew, with audio and video in the A/C vent that he didnt know was...

[Hannibalector]

there are cases where the end user has gotten off the charge brought about by complaints towards dealers against fta iks dealers who pre loaded fta's, a case in point was 4 individuals that said...

[Nostradamus]

well internet provider logs would fill that bill quite easily .... something at IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx was transferring data on port xxxx to a system at yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy between the hours of such and such. Now if the ip yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy just so happens to be the IP of the IKS server . Joe Schmuck who had the xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx IP assigned to him by his internet provider doesn't have a leg to stand on since there is no other devices that could possibly be connecting to that server on that port but an FTA receiver grabbing control words as required. Man I am no lawyer but I could get a conviction and walk out of a courtroom in 10 min myself. It's a simple slam dunk!

[fifties]

Hannibal, where did you get these documents from?
http://www.satfix.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=7967&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1294630627
http://www.satfix.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=7968&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1294630636
We all know that there are phony docs floating around the internet, and I am not doubting your sincerity in wanting to alerting the community, but let's be sure that they are genuine.


well internet provider logs would fill that bill quite easily .... something at IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx was transferring data on port xxxx to a system at yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy between the hours of such and such. Now if the ip yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy just so happens to be the IP of the IKS server . Joe Schmuck who had the xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx IP assigned to him by his internet provider doesn't have a leg to stand on since there is no other devices that could possibly be connecting to that server on that port but an FTA receiver grabbing control words as required. Man I am no lawyer but I could get a conviction and walk out of a courtroom in 10 min myself. It's a simple slam dunk!
Not quite so simple that way, amigo. Whose to say that the IP customer's signal wasn't piggybacked?

I run my wireless router without encryption because (1) it works better unhindered by scrambling, and (2) there are ppl out there who can snare your signal damn near regardless of what measures you take.

The paper trail is a far more reliable evidence approach for the court to consider.

[dishuser]

I asked against who? <br />
name the dealer and the 4 end users

[dishuser]

Hannibal, where did you get these documents from?
http://www.satfix.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=7967&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1294630627
http://www.satfix.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=7968&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1294630636
We all know that there are phony docs floating around the internet, and I am not doubting your sincerity in wanting to alerting the community, but let's be sure that they are genuine.


Not quite so simple that way, amigo. Whose to say that the IP customer's signal wasn't piggybacked?

I run my wireless router without encryption because (1) it works better unhindered by scrambling, and (2) there are ppl out there who can snare your signal damn near regardless of what measures you take.

The paper trail is a far more reliable evidence approach for the court to consider.

they would have to prove it was piggybacked

[1boxman]

That is called entrapment..which only pertains to the law . <br />
<br />
In Narga case would blackmail ..there fore would be illegal . <br />
<br />
Narg can only present hard evidence to the court to proceed . <br />
<br />
They...

[Hannibalector]

you know i think im more concerned with what the people can expect with regards to demand letters perhaps from people that have been down this road with dtv and what there thoughts are, toss the letters as once mentioned from others ?.....disregard them ?....obviously seek legal advice ....dialogue on this seems to be more important if theres a situation that quite likely known members from elsewhere are facing. if this is the stance thats now being taken by the provider or an isolated case the fact still bares some dialogue

[1boxman]

As before ....Those days have changed...and persistence has been set..Those letter where stopped by court on a general mailing..as innocence people where involved .

Not just to have equipment but usable as to steeling signal .

So if you receive a letter now..chances are it will be to do with you personally .

Not just a random mail .

[unclesly]

Hannibal, where did you get these documents from?
http://www.satfix.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=7967&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1294630627
http://www.satfix.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=7968&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1294630636
We all know that there are phony docs floating around the internet, and I am not doubting your sincerity in wanting to alerting the community, but let's be sure that they are genuine.


Not quite so simple that way, amigo. Whose to say that the IP customer's signal wasn't piggybacked?

I run my wireless router without encryption because (1) it works better unhindered by scrambling, and (2) there are ppl out there who can snare your signal damn near regardless of what measures you take.

The paper trail is a far more reliable evidence approach for the court to consider.

Not only do i run my wireless unencrypted with the default ip address of the modem, i also run my iks on the wireless network with a modified wireless router (just a bridge). It could be the neighbor's, who the hell knows?

I don't know if that is safe or not.

I do however have a question about the US provider charging an end user in Canada. In order to sue, don't they have to show a loss of revenue? How can they show a loss, if I can't legally buy this service in Canada? There is no way for me to pay them 40.00$ a month if I wanted to. However, I pay a large monthly bill to the Canadian provider.

[Hannibalector]

nobody has been charged yet as for end users need to be clear on that , the demand letter is an attempt at getting restitution for losses or DMCA violations to the tune of $3500 dollars , unclesly...

[dishuser]

nobody has been charged yet?:rolleyes:

[Hannibalector]

well they do have options before appearing before the judge with evidence against them, either way dont pay face official charges hard to avoid the innevitable

[Hannibalector]

btw anyone that thinks that pay for IKS is any different you might want to re consider and take whats happened in this and seriously question if its worth it to you , it leaves pretty much the same trail that Dark Angel left and push comes to shove they're only out for themselves

[Nostradamus]

Not quite so simple that way, amigo. Whose to say that the IP customer's signal wasn't piggybacked?

I run my wireless router without encryption because (1) it works better unhindered by scrambling, and (2) there are ppl out there who can snare your signal damn near regardless of what measures you take.

The paper trail is a far more reliable evidence approach for the court to consider.

true your account could be piggy backed and then you are going to get reamed for something your neighbor is doing... it is up to you to secure your connection to the best of your ability and even though that reason might have some merit nobody is going to take it serious if you have dishes, cables and receivers all over the place

[Montanaman]

The poor bastard who got this letter has got a problem.

Dark Angel got busted, and he gave the enemy his customer database - records of the order, and a paper trail on the payments. For one purpose only - IKS.

I don't tell anybody else how to live, but I would never use a paid-server for IKS - and to anybody who does, they should use an ad-hoc name, a wireless bridge to an open network, and pay for it with a VISA gift card -

no traces -

[lemming]

The poor bastard who got this letter has got a problem.

Dark Angel got busted, and he gave the enemy his customer database - records of the order, and a paper trail on the payments. For one purpose only - IKS.

I don't tell anybody else how to live, but I would never use a paid-server for IKS - and to anybody who does, they should use an ad-hoc name, a wireless bridge to an open network, and pay for it with a VISA gift card -

no traces -

And what do you think SS will give them?

7990

[mad ivan]

I was wondering if they were sending those letters to Canada ? :noidea:

It would be interesting to see that type of letter

[fifties]

Not necessarily; the claim (of having one's signal piggybacked) by itself should be sufficient to defeat the preponderance of the evidence yardstick used in U.S. civil court. It causes a doubt,...

[Hannibalector]

thanks for the input fifties

[dishuser]

they prove it was your ip
there's no doubt
now you have to prove it wasn't you using it
that is the only doubt

[lemming]

they prove it was your ip
there's no doubt
now you have to prove it wasn't you using it
that is the only doubt

In civil courts that is correct.

[lemming]

And fifties, I see you still believe in Bob's defense. "Prove it wasme, xxxxxxxxx. It did not work out so good in his, or any other civil case.

[fifties]

they prove it was your ip
there's no doubt
now you have to prove it wasn't you using it
that is the only doubt
Again, not necessarily. The average internet user most likely wouldn't know what type of hardware or software to employ, in order to ID a usurper, and jurors, as peers, would understand that.

The idea is simply to put doubt in their minds of whether it was you or not.

As you said, that is the only doubt, but it should be sufficient enough to defeat the plaintiff.

[Nostradamus]

quite sure they show up with a subpoena they will probably have a search warrant in tow as well

[dishuser]

Again, not necessarily. The average internet user most likely wouldn't know what type of hardware or software to employ, in order to ID a usurper, and jurors, as peers, would understand that.

The idea is simply to put doubt in their minds of whether it was you or not.

As you said, that is the only doubt, but it should be sufficient enough to defeat the plaintiff.

you must be forgetting the fact that they have more than an ip
plus not all civil proceedings have jurors
you're not going to sway a judge by saying...it wasn't me

[lemming]

Again, not necessarily. The average internet user most likely wouldn't know what type of hardware or software to employ, in order to ID a usurper, and jurors, as peers, would understand that.

The idea is simply to put doubt in their minds of whether it was you or not.

As you said, that is the only doubt, but it should be sufficient enough to defeat the plaintiff.

You are confusing criminal and civil law. In criminal it is beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil it is only if it is likely.

[jazzman]

Not network savvy at all here but what if you were "borrowing" your internet from someone down the street?

[dishuser]

Not network savvy at all here but what if you were "borrowing" your internet from someone down the street?

well they already have the info that you purchased from justin
the ip issue is a moot point actually

[lemming]

well they already have the info that you purchased from justin
the ip issue is a moot point actually

They all roll in the end to save their own skin. Superstar being the latest, AKA whistleblower #5

[dishuser]

They all roll in the end to save their own skin. Superstar being the latest, AKA whistleblower #5

not all
there's 2 that I know of that destroyed all evidence and got sent to jail for doing so

[fifties]

quite sure they show up with a subpoena they will probably have a search warrant in tow as well
A search warrant based on suspicion of pirating TV for oneself? Unless they had corroborating evidence that sales were involved, I kinda doubt it. Not saying it's impossible, but rather more likely improbable.


you must be forgetting the fact that they have more than an ip
plus not all civil proceedings have jurors
you're not going to sway a judge by saying...it wasn't me
Yes, they would have the mac address of the router; still doesn't disprove that someone else piggybacked. And AFA trial by judge or jury, I believe either party can request their preference.


You are confusing criminal and civil law. In criminal it is beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil it is only if it is likely.
I'm not confusing anything. In civil it is by a preponderance of the evidence, which I clearly stated.

[Nostradamus]

Not network savvy at all here but what if you were "borrowing" your internet from someone down the street?

might make it a little tougher for them but they initially hit the wrong house and do not find what they are looking for and owner is grateful he is off the hook so they ask to look at router logs and there is the MAC address of that damn troublesome FTA box hehehe

Really it is all conjecture and hypothetical on our part as to how irt would play out but if they wanted to play hardball and really come after someone then they are going to get them. Doesn't matter how many smoke screens you toss up

[jazzman]

well they already have the info that you purchased from justin
the ip issue is a moot point actually

Actually I've never paid for private IKS but I could be using a popular one...:innocent:

[lemming]

not all
there's 2 that I know of that destroyed all evidence and got sent to jail for doing so
I'll give you SR, and probably Satfta. So I should have said a vast majority.

[dishuser]

I'll give you SR, and probably Satfta. So I should have said a vast majority.

and ez123 dish went to jail
think it was 90 days

[fifties]

Really it is all conjecture and hypothetical on our part as to how irt would play out but if they wanted to play hardball and really come after someone then they are going to get them. Doesn't matter how many smoke screens you toss up
They don't have to get or prove anything. All they have to do is litigate, causing defendants in our community to cough up thousands for a legal defense, in order to use the court method to discourage piracy.

The same arena -public forums- that have been used to foster the hobby, can be used to spread fear throughout it, with news of litigation doings.

[lemming]

Again, not necessarily. The average internet user most likely wouldn't know what type of hardware or software to employ, in order to ID a usurper, and jurors, as peers, would understand that.

The idea is simply to put doubt in their minds of whether it was you or not.

As you said, that is the only doubt, but it should be sufficient enough to defeat the plaintiff.

You keep saying "cause doubt" and all I am telling you that is not good enough in civil court. It probably would end in a summary judgement and PRO way before a jury was eve. Looked at.

[fifties]

You keep saying "cause doubt" and all I am telling you that is not good enough in civil court. It probably would end in a summary judgement and PRO way before a jury was eve. Looked at.
Your reference for your conclusion?

[Hannibalector]

well they already have the info that you purchased from justin
the ip issue is a moot point actually

draw me a diagram where the ip is a moot point they clearly used the ip for purchase records

[Nostradamus]

They don't have to get or prove anything. All they have to do is litigate, causing defendants in our community to cough up thousands for a legal defense, in order to use the court method to discourage piracy.

The same arena -public forums- that have been used to foster the hobby, can be used to spread fear throughout it, with news of litigation doings.


Oh come on! You really believe that? They can't just start a law suit without some type of evidence to justify it's validity. There are laws against that as well as that would be called harassment. I dont think anybody spreading fear but people need to realize free TV might not be that free after all unless they get convicted but I think the jail subs to Dave instead. :D

IKS is like a rose garden full of landmines, picking the flowers could blow your butt off

[Hannibalector]

Oh come on! You really believe that? They can't just start a law suit without some type of evidence to justify it's validity. There are laws against that as well as that would be called harassment. I dont think anybody spreading fear but people need to realize free TV might not be that free after all unless they get convicted but I think the jail subs to Dave instead. :D

IKS is like a rose garden full of landmines, picking the flowers could blow your butt off

do try to remember that there are those that have been through and or around this before and to have respect for those opinion's of those that have been

[lemming]

Your reference for your conclusion?

Albert Zakarian

[dishuser]

draw me a diagram where the ip is a moot point they clearly used the ip for purchase records

draw you a diagram?
you still wouldn't get it:tehe:
it clearly states on page one that business records were obtained
do you even read what you upload?
apparently not:rolleyes:

[dishuser]

do try to remember that there are those that have been through and or around this before and to have respect for those opinion's of those that have been

what makes you think he wasn't?
man you're ignorant
and I don't mean rude

[Hannibalector]

Actually I've never paid for private IKS but I could be using a popular one...:innocent:

nothing like making yourself take a short walk off a long pier, Robert Ward thought all his posts were left back in the dust you wanna retract that statement

[fifties]

Originally Posted by fifties
They don't have to get or prove anything. All they have to do is litigate, causing defendants in our community to cough up thousands for a legal defense, in order to use the court method to discourage piracy.

The same arena -public forums- that have been used to foster the hobby, can be used to spread fear throughout it, with news of litigation doings.


Oh come on! You really believe that? They can't just start a law suit without some type of evidence to justify it's validity. There are laws against that as well as that would be called harassment. I dont think anybody spreading fear but people need to realize free TV might not be that free after all unless they get convicted but I think the jail subs to Dave instead. :D

IKS is like a rose garden full of landmines, picking the flowers could blow your butt off
Of course they wouldn't file frivolous lawsuits; should they begin litigating IKS users, based on payment records as their evidence, I believe they would win without question. Once word of this activity -occurring in multiples- began showing up on FTA boards, what do you think the result would be?

The point is that even if Charlie didn't win all cases, or even the majority, the defendants are still out of pocket thousands of dollars for their legal defense, and it would give pause to anyone considering using IKS.

[Hannibalector]

stop hyping selling posting of hyping or selling, let the up time speak for itself , dont hype paid for iks service as you're screwing the community, ask all memebers that are in paid for private to stop, help the ones that are thinking paid for is ok and say no its not

[jazzman]

nothing like making yourself take a short walk off a long pier, Robert Ward thought all his posts were left back in the dust you wanna retract that statement

Better? LOL

[Hannibalector]

Better? LOL

bro i love this community and all of you in it

[Nostradamus]

do try to remember that there are those that have been through and or around this before and to have respect for those opinion's of those that have been
been there, done that!

no disrespect intended but suggesting that is realley fear mongering. I am not saying the opposite and that it is safe I am just saying they just can't go filing suits willy nilly without something to back them up.

at the same time if they want the end user they will get the end user. Plain and simple. So far they haven't but if they see it in their best interest to do so they will.

how many sites have we all been on over the past 5 years? how many of those sites have gotten seized? how many databases have been obtained?

How many files have you uploaded? How many times have you helped someone load a file or troubleshoot a system because he couldn't scan a providers signal. Aiding someone else stealing a signal might be worse than doing it yourself because many could gain knowledge from the info you post. Regardless they have never prosecuted a end user yet and they certainly have the goods on a lot of people to do so.

Just because it has never happened does not mean it can not happen in the future. The same applies to IKS, but to make it sound like because you were a member on a IKS server that got taken down does not mean they are automatically coming after you either.

[fifties]

Albert Zakarian
In reviewing DirecTV's opposing attorney's, I found this little gem;


DirecTV loses summary judgment; couldn't prove defendant had all the necessary equipment to steal

This just in: DirecTV has lost a significant case in Texas. The judge threw the case out because DirecTV failed to prove that the defendant had all the necessary equipment in order to steal signal. The defendant admitted he had an unlooper and a satellite dish, but there was no evidence he had ever possessed a DirecTV access card or a DirecTV receiver/decoder, both of which were necessary to pirate signal. If the decision stands, this means that no matter what technology you possess, you may be able to get your case dismissed if DirecTV fails to prove you have every necessary piece in the chain required for interception of its signal.

I had forgotten about the case they also lost in -I believe it was either Louisiana or Mississippi- when they failed to prove that the defendant had a satellite dish.

So on the assumption that they need to prove the defendant owns every piece of gear needed (which might or might not be relevant if they can prove that he purchased IKS service), then the IP addy is only one segment of the "chain" required.

I just don't see judges signing search warrants based on the assumption that the defendant might be watching pirated TV...

[dishuser]

In reviewing DirecTV's opposing attorney's, I found this little gem;



I had forgotten about the case they also lost in -I believe it was either Louisiana or Mississippi- when they failed to prove that the defendant had a satellite dish.

So on the assumption that they need to prove the defendant owns every piece of gear needed (which might or might not be relevant if they can prove that he purchased IKS service), then the IP addy is only one segment of the "chain" required.

If the decision stands
did it?

[Nostradamus]

I think that would sort of fall under the same category as buying a card burner. What else would you buy it for type of thing

[fifties]

If the decision stands
did it?


posted on [ Sep 8 04 at 4:54 PM ]
I don't know, but the other one that I referenced did.

[lemming]

If the decision stands
did it?

If the device is primarily designed to break encryption, it violates the DMCA. The point to fifties is creating doubt will not in itself win your case. In civil court, you must actually disprove the plaintiffs complaint.

[hondoharry]

The letter sounds like extorsion to me. Pay me or I'll sue you for even more. I don't believe it and think it's a phony plant by the provider, a scare tactic.

[fifties]

If the device is primarily designed to break encryption, it violates the DMCA.
100% incorrect.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled several years ago in a case brought by the RIAA against a music downloader that mere possession of a device that could be used for piracy was not in and of itself grounds for a judgment.

My memory of the specific device fades, but it most likely was software.

[hondoharry]

How do they come up with $3500 in that letter? Trying to remind us of Dave's futile attempts years ago? At a $100/mo. that would be 35 mos. of DA service which I doubt anybody has ever had. That letter's a phony.

[fifties]

I think Dave's letters had asked for $3700 or so. The figure is not based on TV service, but is rather about 25% below what retaining a defense attorney would cost.

IOW, you're gonna pay, so will it be 5 grand, or 3/4 of that?

[lemming]

100% incorrect.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled several years ago in a case brought by the RIAA against a music downloader that mere possession of a device that could be used for piracy was not in and of itself grounds for a judgment.

My memory of the specific device fades, but it most likely was software.

Sorry it is correct, like a 8psk board. Really you should read more actual cases that are going through the courts now.

[Hannibalector]

extortion is exactly whats taking place like it did before

[fifties]

Well, let's see if and how many more of these letters begin to surface...

[hondoharry]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame Justin for turning over any customer info. They come unannounced with a warrant and order you to stand away while they scoop up everything. But I still don't believe that letter. If that one's surfaced there would be hundreds more. The OP still hasn't disclosed where it came from.

[Hannibalector]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame Justin for turning over any customer info. They come unannounced with a warrant and order you to stand away while they scoop up everything. But I still don't believe that letter. If that one's surfaced there would be hundreds more. The OP still hasn't disclosed where it came from.

when last have you seen people busted recently back on these sites ??...you wanna give the green light and be responsible for telling everyone that the document is horsechit go ahead hondo , tell everyone they have nothing to worry about ok get your conscience squared away

[Hannibalector]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame Justin for turning over any customer info. They come unannounced with a warrant and order you to stand away while they scoop up everything. But I still don't believe that letter. If that one's surfaced there would be hundreds more. The OP still hasn't disclosed where it came from.

nope and you wont get the answer

[hondoharry]

when last have you seen people busted recently back on these sites ??...you wanna give the green light and be responsible for telling everyone that the document is horsechit go ahead hondo , tell everyone they have nothing to worry about ok get your conscience squared away

What end users have been busted? Where did this fabrication come from and how did YOU get it? Why is the law firm and address blocked out?

[hondoharry]

nope and you wont get the answer

Well that makes you and your letter VERY suspicious.

[fifties]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
100% incorrect.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled several years ago in a case brought by the RIAA against a music downloader that mere possession of a device that could be used for piracy was not in and of itself grounds for a judgment.

My memory of the specific device fades, but it most likely was software.
Sorry it is correct, like a 8psk board. Really you should read more actual cases that are going through the courts now.
I just cited an actual case, and you are saying that it is incorrect. You are further stating that 8PSK boards are illegal, even though they are openly sold. It seems to me that wouldn't be the case if you were right.

[fifties]

Well that makes you and your letter VERY suspicious.
There are times when those of us in the community get privy information, and cannot reveal the source at that instant.

[hondoharry]

Yeh, okay.

[Montanaman]

"And what do you think SS will give them?"

Your answer is this; Anything he has available to save his own skin.

That being said - Nfusion got shut down over a year ago.

If they actually had logs showing IP addresses of public IKS end-users they would have been knocking on doors already.

The enemy knows how many files were downloaded from sites, just look at what they did in their case against thedssguy - but they never went after members of the site, did they?

Private IKS is a whole different ballgame - if they can find a money trail, it's game over.

The internet-saavy aren't worried.

Try tracking down a year-old IP address, from a modded cable modem, that showes up 100+ miles away from where you're at.

Try showing up at a public-wifi spot, with a search warrant, and a court order, only to try to figure out who was bridging off their system last year.

The moral is - make sure your ass is covered.

[1boxman]

Even back in dav days..Just having the equipment wasn't enough to convict but enough to proceed for more . <br />
<br />
Now if you are selling it to a person intent to use for the purpose it was made for and...

[HammerSet]

comparing dtv letter with that possible one, is useless

iks buy service invoice is 100% evidence and cannot be put aside in anyway

not the same as those unlocker ...

[hondoharry]

Yes, your honor I ordered it and I paid for it but never used it. Too many numbers that confused me. And could I get my money back from the new DA owners?

OK, if they got the logs of your IP connected to the pay server, you're screwed. Of course they'd have to get you from your ISP. That's a lot of ISP's and warrants.

[wildman25]

What bothers me is everyone assumes a payment or donation in small amounts constitutes a crime. I have donated to sites before and never expected anything in return- it's called a donation. Just a way to show support and thanks- it takes money to run. So, showing you payed a site or someone associated with a site isn't incriminating in itself in my opinion. You're still free to give money to anyone you want- under normal circumstances.

[fifties]

What bothers me is everyone assumes a payment or donation in small amounts constitutes a crime. I have donated to sites before and never expected anything in return- it's called a donation. Just a way to show support and thanks- it takes money to run. So, showing you payed a site or someone associated with a site isn't incriminating in itself in my opinion. You're still free to give money to anyone you want- under normal circumstances.
The issue isn't payment to a piracy site, but rather payment to an IKS operator, which would be pretty strong evidence that you are receiving unauthorized service from the provider.

[dishuser]

What bothers me is everyone assumes a payment or donation in small amounts constitutes a crime. I have donated to sites before and never expected anything in return- it's called a donation. Just a way to show support and thanks- it takes money to run. So, showing you payed a site or someone associated with a site isn't incriminating in itself in my opinion. You're still free to give money to anyone you want- under normal circumstances.


http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16560691/letters/pg3.GIF
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16560691/letters/pg4.GIF
does that look like a donation to you?

[wildman25]

Well, that is definitely not an invoice for a donation lol'ol
Not really the smartest way to do it- and then keeping the records wasn't smart.
Guess his tax guy wanted detailed records- thanks, never saw the pics before.

[surfinisfun]

The issue isn't payment to a piracy site, but rather payment to an IKS operator, which would be pretty strong evidence that you are receiving unauthorized service from the provider.

True to a certain extent. If you buy any product they still have to have some kind of proof that you intended to or did use it.

One example would be if you bought service from a p$ and the bad guys came to your house and found no equipment to use it then what. At the end of the day they would need to prove, at some point in some way connected to the p$ server to continue. Then of coarse if they want to check what equipment you have they would need a search warrant.

Just my opinion

[surfinisfun]

Sorry, my actual point was if you feel the need to go p$ then protect yourself as much as possible. Get a friend/mother/father/uncle ( you see where this is going right.lol ) to purchase it and you can sleep a little easier.

Its not fool proof but its something.

[1boxman]

True to a certain extent. If you buy any product they still have to have some kind of proof that you intended to or did use it.

One example would be if you bought service from a p$ and the bad guys came to your house and found no equipment to use it then what. At the end of the day they would need to prove, at some point in some way connected to the p$ server to continue. Then of coarse if they want to check what equipment you have they would need a search warrant.

Just my opinion

Your right...but if they have the logs from sever with your mac /ip ...Than they do .They will no that you where connected to sever for only one use .

[Blaster]

Sorry, my actual point was if you feel the need to go p$ then protect yourself as much as possible. Get a friend/mother/father/uncle ( you see where this is going right.lol ) to purchase it and you can sleep a little easier.

Its not fool proof but its something.

Why put your own neck on the line, when you can just let your loved ones do that for ya??..lol:nono::nono:

[Blaster]

Somewhere in this thread there was a great advices in regards to using PS. I'll just through my 2 sense in here as well for all the ones who are just thinking of getting into Private IKS. Unless the transactions are done face to face and in cash, and you personally know who is running the server(s) and can vouch for their integrity, stay FAR away from Private CS. JMHO

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

You keep saying "cause doubt" and all I am telling you that is not good enough in civil court. It probably would end in a summary judgement and PRO way before a jury was eve. Looked at.



I would have to agree with that. The bar in Civil for evidence is the least amount required. If its more likely then not that the defendant is guilty then they will lose. In my opinion in these cases it will be more likely then not with the evidence they have unfortunitly. The concept that you made a purchase by never use it because it was a neighbour that piggedback your wireless connection has very little chance of being successful. The plaintif will not have to prove you use it and not sure how some defendant is going to prove it was not him but some neighbour if that is the defense that is going to be tried.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

100% incorrect.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled several years ago in a case brought by the RIAA against a music downloader that mere possession of a device that could be used for piracy was not in and of itself grounds for a judgment.

My memory of the specific device fades, but it most likely was software.



What case was that. Myself I can't find such a case.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

What case was that. Myself I can't find such a case.



GS2



I assume your talking about the Jammie Thomas case. In that case RIAA originally won. However later a court on appeal ordered a new trial saying the judge did not give proper instructions to the jury.


RIAA won again in the second trial and Thomas was ordered to pay 1.5 million to RIAA. Thomas then went back to court to argue on the amount that was awarded and it was slashed down to $54,000


There is no other case that I know of against an end user that was filed by RIAA.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I just cited an actual case, and you are saying that it is incorrect. You are further stating that 8PSK boards are illegal, even though they are openly sold. It seems to me that wouldn't be the case if you were right.


Because somewthing is sold openly does that therefore make it legal. Lots of Sat stuff that is illegal has been sold openly. In the Sonicview case the court issued a preliminary injunction against the manufactering and sale of 8PSK boards.



GS2

[fifties]

I would have to agree with that. The bar in Civil for evidence is the least amount required. If its more likely then not that the defendant is guilty then they will lose. In my opinion in these cases it will be more likely then not with the evidence they have unfortunitly. The concept that you made a purchase by never use it because it was a neighbour that piggedback your wireless connection has very little chance of being successful. The plaintif will not have to prove you use it and not sure how some defendant is going to prove it was not him but some neighbour if that is the defense that is going to be tried.




GS2
Too bad you didn't read my posts before jumping into this. It was very clearly stated that a purchase record, for IKS service, is about all they need for a verdict.

The piggybacking concept obviously assumes that no other evidence is in their hands...



I assume your talking about the Jammie Thomas case. In that case RIAA originally won. However later a court on appeal ordered a new trial saying the judge did not give proper instructions to the jury.


RIAA won again in the second trial and Thomas was ordered to pay 1.5 million to RIAA. Thomas then went back to court to argue on the amount that was awarded and it was slashed down to $54,000


There is no other case that I know of against an end user that was filed by RIAA.
I don't remember the name of the defendant, or the outcome of the case itself.

What caught my interest is as I have stated; the court ruled against the concept of a potential piracy device as admissible in and of itself. It may have been one of the appellate decisions.


Because somewthing is sold openly does that therefore make it legal. Lots of Sat stuff that is illegal has been sold openly.
The largest purveyor of satellite goods is arguably eBay, and they have a strict policy regarding illegal items in any category. Now AFA your contention that , "Lots of Sat stuff that is illegal has been sold openly", name one thing. Dongles haven't been adjudicated as being outside the law. Card programmers? Hardly. Boot-boards? Useful in electronic security doors. I might have to concede on Unloopers, but that by itself doesn't qualify for your "lots of Sat stuff" statement.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Too bad you didn't read my posts before jumping into this. It was very clearly stated that a purchase record, for IKS service, is about all they need for a verdict.

The piggybacking concept obviously assumes that no other evidence is in their hands...


I did read all your posts. I did not quote you just gave my view on this in general.



I don't remember the name of the defendant, or the outcome of the case itself.

What caught my interest is as I have stated; the court ruled against the concept of a potential piracy device as admissible in and of itself. It may have been one of the appellate decisions.


As I stated on appeal the court ruled that the instructions by the judge to the jury was incorrect and therefore ordered a new trial as far as a case involving the RIAA against a end user which is what you mentioned. The judge erred in his instructions to the jury on the law when saying making available was sufficient for an infringement. Other cases suggested that making available was not sufficient enough. On retrial the defendant was found guilty again with proper instructions given to the jury by the judge this time.



The largest purveyor of satellite goods is arguably eBay, and they have a strict policy regarding illegal items in any category. Now AFA your contention that , "Lots of Sat stuff that is illegal has been sold openly", name one thing. Dongles haven't been adjudicated as being outside the law. Card programmers? Hardly. Boot-boards? Useful in electronic security doors. I might have to concede on Unloopers, but that by itself doesn't qualify for your "lots of Sat stuff" statement.



There have been so many dealers who openly sold sat pirate devices that were brought to court. They all lost. If you want I can list some cases for you involving dealers who openly sold devices.


As far as dongles being used for IKS in the Sonicview case there is a preliminary injunction against the sale of them.


There have been several dealers who sold card programmers along with other stuff that had legal problems. Not sure what you mean with Boot-boards as not sure what that is. When your selling devices for use in electronic security then there is no problem but in the sat case dealer world they were not being sold for that use. So it depends on the intent. An example is FTA. FTA receivers are not illegal but when you sell them under circumstances that give rise to believe its to be used for illegal purposes then it can be illegal. Theres no blanket statement that says card programmers or FTA is illegal or legal as it depends on the intent of sale and its use. If it is determined that the intended use is violate a law then you can have a legal problem.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

And what do you think SS will give them?

7990



Assuming thats him ( SuperStar ) in the doc as whistleblower 5 then he already gave plenty.



GS2

[HammerSet]

it is a win-win for the provider

or a loose loose for the one that receive the letter

pay 3.5k and forget about it

or go check your attorney and pay twice the price

you loose money

it is not about a win for the one that receive a letter

they already loose at least 3.5k

well, better give it to your attorney then d!sh, sad but true ...

[fifties]

There have been so many dealers who openly sold sat pirate devices that were brought to court. They all lost. If you want I can list some cases for you involving dealers who openly sold devices.


As far as dongles being used for IKS in the Sonicview case there is a preliminary injunction against the sale of them.


There have been several dealers who sold card programmers along with other stuff that had legal problems. Not sure what you mean with Boot-boards as not sure what that is. When your selling devices for use in electronic security then there is no problem but in the sat case dealer world they were not being sold for that use. So it depends on the intent. An example is FTA. FTA receivers are not illegal but when you sell them under circumstances that give rise to believe its to be used for illegal purposes then it can be illegal. Theres no blanket statement that says card programmers or FTA is illegal or legal as it depends on the intent of sale and its use. If it is determined that the intended use is violate a law then you can have a legal problem.



GS2
We have had this discussion/argument before; you are referring to dealers, and I am referring to end users, and each would be treated differently in a court of law.

I can't comment about what they do in Canada, but here in the U.S., purchasing an FTA receiver, card reader, etc, is legal, and this "intent" supposition doesn't work unless and until someone is caught with a smoking gun in their hand.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

We have had this discussion/argument before; you are referring to dealers, and I am referring to end users, and each would be treated differently in a court of law.

I can't comment about what they do in Canada, but here in the U.S., purchasing an FTA receiver, card reader, etc, is legal, and this "intent" supposition doesn't work unless and until someone is caught with a smoking gun in their hand.


Basically you asked to provide one thing that was sold openly. I did and it stands to reason it would likely be dealers/vendors who do that.


I don't think in the US under Civil litigation that someone has to be caught with a smoking gun as the bar for evidence in Civil is basically the same in both countries but that depends on what you mean in relation to a smoking gun. Do you consider the evidence of a purchase from Dark Angel to be a smoking gun. ?



GS2

[Nostradamus]

actually won't be too hard on the pocketbook if all the different people that posted as SS split the bill :)

[pugsycan]

actually won't be too hard on the pocketbook if all the different people that posted as SS split the bill :)

Should be what ten twelve bucks apiece :thumbsup:

[JCO]

I wonder if they will use satfix bux to pay it off:noidea:

[HammerSet]

We have had this discussion/argument before; you are referring to dealers, and I am referring to end users, and each would be treated differently in a court of law.

I can't comment about what they do in Canada, but here in the U.S., purchasing an FTA receiver, card reader, etc, is legal, and this "intent" supposition doesn't work unless and until someone is caught with a smoking gun in their hand.


you are correct

they have try 4 end user with preloaded fta box with proof of purchase, nagra2 time , and d!sh lost at least 2 case

link: http://www.satfix.net/showthread.php?t=33800

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

you are correct

they have try 4 end user with preloaded fta box with proof of purchase, nagra2 time , and d!sh lost at least 2 case



Those cases were mysteriously voluntarily dismissed with a stipulation by the parties and we don't know why. Each party had to bear their own costs. There was no trial or verdict. There could be a number of reasons for this and I doubt we will ever know.



GS2

[JCO]

Those cases were mysteriously voluntarily dismissed with a stipulation by the parties and we don't know why. Each party had to bear their own costs. There was no trial or verdict. There could be a number of reasons for this and I doubt we will ever know.



GS2

One of 2 things, the proof didnt stick or someone negotiated a deal..Read sang like a canary..

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

One of 2 things, the proof didnt stick or someone negotiated a deal..Read sang like a canary..



Yes. Its too bad the defendants don't post and say guess what we won as the plaintifs had no case. Because of not seeing that it could have gone either way.




GS2

[fifties]

Basically you asked to provide one thing that was sold openly. I did and it stands to reason it would likely be dealers/vendors who do that.

GS2
You provided the sale of Sonicview dongles as an example of an illegal device, with the "illegality" based on a preliminary injunction; that does not constitute grounds for the items being considered illegal. A permanent injunction might qualify. Furthermore, we have seen no such action taken against the dongle that replaced the original Sonicview unit, Viewsat Weather Forecaster, or the dongles being openly sold for other FTA brands, such as Captive Works.

IDK what legal purpose dongles could represent as having, but the point is,
with the one possible exception that you brought up, they have not been deemed illegal by any judges decision, and that is the current status in both Canada and the U.S.



I don't think in the US under Civil litigation that someone has to be caught with a smoking gun as the bar for evidence in Civil is basically the same in both countries but that depends on what you mean in relation to a smoking gun. Do you consider the evidence of a purchase from Dark Angel to be a smoking gun. ?
GS2
As I have previously elucidated, the proof of purchase of an IKS service should be enough to garner a judgment, so yes, that would be a smoking gun, in my view.

Now it could be that further evidence may be needed, to include proof that the defendant had all necessary hardware -satellite dish and FTA receiver- to produce a "slam dunk" case. There is always the possibility of a defense based on, "Yes, I purchased it, for my (girlfriend, parents, etc.) to use at their house, but they never did".

After Dave stampeded through the court system eight or 10 years ago, I believe the judiciary will now want a bit firmer ground on the part of the plaintiff, before awarding judgments.

[unruly]

*yawn* .......

[HammerSet]

*yawn* .......

so true

btw

for those that think that d!sh are almighty , especially gs2, why simply admit that d!sh have lost his case in the groom list saga ?

time will tell, but yet to see any other case from that list

nah,evidence have fail, simple as that, nothing mysterious in those 4 case from n2 time

[kenkell1]

These extortion letters from DN are fake.
I have never heard of one single person getting one of these that was with DarkAngel and until I have proof then IMO this is nothing but another fabricated lie.

[profit]

These extortion letters from DN are fake.
I have never heard of one single person getting one of these that was with DarkAngel and until I have proof then IMO this is nothing but another fabricated lie.

I agree with you, when DTV took some end users to court, They where told
by the presiding Judge ,that the evidence presented in that case ,was not enough for
an conviction.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

You provided the sale of Sonicview dongles as an example of an illegal device, with the "illegality" based on a preliminary injunction; that does not constitute grounds for the items being considered illegal. A permanent injunction might qualify. Furthermore, we have seen no such action taken against the dongle that replaced the original Sonicview unit, Viewsat Weather Forecaster, or the dongles being openly sold for other FTA brands, such as Captive Works.


The reason there is an injunction against it is because the court considers that the plaintiff will likely succeed in proving their case that included these dongles as being used illegally. However what I said was there were many past cases of devices belonging to dealers that were deemed illegal and if you wanted I could post some of them. Since you mentioned dongles I thought it was relative to point out what is happening in the Sonicview case. I also said it depended on what the intended use is. Someone selling a card programmer not to be used in conjunction with decoding a provider's signal will not be illegal but if its for using to decode the provider's signal it will or can be deemed illegal. I do expect the Sonicview case to end up like the rest with a permanent injunction. There will be situations where some sellers are not pursued. There will be several. Plaintiffs whether it was DTV or DN can not saue everyone so they usually choose the larger targets. The fact that no action is taken for me would not give rise to believe that some other vendor selling a dongle for use for FTA IKS would then be legal. For me it just means they were not sued. Unfortunitly I do think Captive Works can be sued in the future just because of all the other lawsuits that have happened. I think the more the FTA receiver people are hit then there would not be too much market for these vendors selling the dongles for those receivers.



IDK what legal purpose dongles could represent as having, but the point is,
with the one possible exception that you brought up, they have not been deemed illegal by any judges decision, and that is the current status in both Canada and the U.S.


But are we not talking about satellite cases. Again if you sale a dongle for legal purposes there is no problem but if you sell it the way Sonicview is then there can be a legal problem. I am only talking about the use of devices for satellite as this site and the others focus on satellite. I don't think you will see any talk about dongles here other then the ones being used for FTA IKS. I in no way ever suggest a dongle or card programmer sold with a legal intent is illegal or suggest when its sold or used for illegal purposes then it can be illegal.



As I have previously elucidated, the proof of purchase of an IKS service should be enough to garner a judgment, so yes, that would be a smoking gun, in my view.

Now it could be that further evidence may be needed, to include proof that the defendant had all necessary hardware -satellite dish and FTA receiver- to produce a "slam dunk" case. There is always the possibility of a defense based on, "Yes, I purchased it, for my (girlfriend, parents, etc.) to use at their house, but they never did".

After Dave stampeded through the court system eight or 10 years ago, I believe the judiciary will now want a bit firmer ground on the part of the plaintiff, before awarding judgments.



Every case is different. Some defendant might be able to demonstrate it was not for use the way the plaintiff said but they will have to prove that. That the defense that it was purchased for my parents at their house and they never use it in my opinion will be difficult to be successful on but someone can try it if they want. I hope there are defendants who try to defend themselves if they think they can win.


I personally think its going to be harder to defend with this type of purchase from Dark Angel then someone who made a purchase of a device as in the DTV lawsuits. The likelyhood of saying it was for a legal use in this situation I think will be more challenging.




GS2

[JCO]

Yes. Its too bad the defendants don't post and say guess what we won as the plaintifs had no case. Because of not seeing that it could have gone either way.




GS2

A settlement is always a win win situation..RE: I will drop the case if you sign a non disclosure contract..Its always better to limit litigation and walk away unscalded or with minor burns..

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

so true

btw

for those that think that d!sh are almighty , especially gs2, why simply admit that d!sh have lost his case in the groom list saga ?

time will tell, but yet to see any other case from that list

nah,evidence have fail, simple as that, nothing mysterious in those 4 case from n2 time


I am commenting on the end user demand letters and what I think. I base my opinion on case law and what I see as what the law says. I don't think anyone is almighty but if I think the law refavors one party over the other I will say so regardless of the party. I personally fought my own case against the Canadian Government not because I thought they were almighty or not because I thought I could win. Everyone who said different at the time I understood and did not say well then you think the provider or Government is almighty. They said it because that was their opinion. It turned out they were right at the end.


I see no evidence of a trial or any decision to comment that any case was won or lost. What I see is a stiplulation by parties to vacate the lawsuit with prejudice with no explanation as to why. Not sure what you saw but that is what I read in those cases.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

A settlement is always a win win situation..RE: I will drop the case if you sign a non disclosure contract..Its always better to limit litigation and walk away unscalded or with minor burns..


I don't disagree with that. I think the defendants in those cases came out well. All I am saying is I don't know what happened. There is no trial or verdict in those cases to say someone one or lost based on the merits or no merits of the case because we don't know why. Theres no question that the defendants came out well and yes in that regard its a victory but not a win in some case law or means it could not happen to other end users as we just don't know.




GS2

[JCO]

I don't disagree with that. I think the defendants in those cases came out well. All I am saying is I don't know what happened. There is no trial or verdict in those cases to say someone one or lost based on the merits or no merits of the case because we don't know why.




GS2

We cant know for shure but an educated guess will point in a certain direction.. Usualy educated guesses are not far from the truth..:innocent:

[Dave43]

Re:letters. Strikes me as odd that the fine print reference in the posted letter refers to BLs huge summary judgement.
For a "legal" letter to an end-user, seems apples and oranges to me.
In addition to a good chuckle.lol.

[fifties]

*yawn* .......
Yeah, it DOES kinda get dry, doesn't it?



A settlement is always a win win situation..RE: I will drop the case if you sign a non disclosure contract..Its always better to limit litigation and walk away unscalded or with minor burns..
Better, but not good. There are attorney's fees involved for the defendants, and lawyers don't come cheap, so there will be some skin left on the table. Whether it's a few hundred or a few thousand, it's still a "penalty".


@ GS 2; Again, you are referring to dealers, with the "intent" term, and I am referring to end-users, for whom intent could not be proven, unless a dongle and receiver were bought together, and DN has invoiced proof of the purchase.

To counter your claim;

"I do think Captive Works can be sued in the future just because of all the other lawsuits that have happened."

Captive Works only sells FTA receivers, not dongles, so I fail to see any way in which they are gonna get sued.

AFA the dongle sellers, that remains to be seen. As I have stated, IDK if any legal purpose can be presented for their use, just as with 8PSK boards, which BTW are still openly sold.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Yeah, it DOES kinda get dry, doesn't it?


Better, but not good. There are attorney's fees involved for the defendants, and lawyers don't come cheap, so there will be some skin left on the table. Whether it's a few hundred or a few thousand, it's still a "penalty".


@ GS 2; Again, you are referring to dealers, with the "intent" term, and I am referring to end-users, for whom intent could not be proven, unless a dongle and receiver were bought together, and DN has invoiced proof of the purchase.

To counter your claim;

"I do think Captive Works can be sued in the future just because of all the other lawsuits that have happened."

Captive Works only sells FTA receivers, not dongles, so I fail to see any way in which they are gonna get sued.

AFA the dongle sellers, that remains to be seen. As I have stated, IDK if any legal purpose can be presented for their use, just as with 8PSK boards, which BTW are still openly sold.



I think intent could be proven with an end user as in these possible up coming cases related to the purchase from Dark Angel. The plaintiff has to some dregree with the letter or will lay out in the lawsuit that that you bought it with the intent to use it without their authorization. It will be pretty much up to the defendant to prove otherwise.


I think Captive Works if sued and I think it will happen at some point will be for selling receivers to access their signals unlawfully. They will make allegations like that and if they have the evidence they will probably win. They start out with saying they will get evidence through discovery and they usually do. There have been many lawsuits with people turning out as whistleblowers ( up to 5 in one case ) that is it more likely or not that it will happen to Captive Works. Its speculation but if I had to bet I would be that a lawsuit will come.



GS2

[fifties]

I think intent could be proven with an end user as in these possible up coming cases related to the purchase from Dark Angel. The plaintiff has to some dregree with the letter or will lay out in the lawsuit that that you bought it with the intent to use it without their authorization. It will be pretty much up to the defendant to prove otherwise.

Proof that the service was purchased, as I have stated, looks to be a smoking gun, but again, the court may require proof that the defendant had the necessary hardware, and was actually logged into the service. IDK what details DN may have gotten from server logs, especially if they were deleted on a scheduled (daily, or weekly) basis.


I think Captive Works if sued and I think it will happen at some point will be for selling receivers to access their signals unlawfully. They will make allegations like that and if they have the evidence they will probably win. They start out with saying they will get evidence through discovery and they usually do. There have been many lawsuits with people turning out as whistleblowers ( up to 5 in one case ) that is it more likely or not that it will happen to Captive Works. Its speculation but if I had to bet I would be that a lawsuit will come.



GS2
Well I think that's ridiculous; the sale of FTA receivers is perfectly legal. In Viewsat's case, however, the Nagravision ROM image was embedded into their firmware, so something like that would certainly make a difference, but lacking that particular evidence in other brands would pretty well leave them with no evidence.

Yes, the receivers could be flashed to intercept DN programming, and yes they can be used with dongles and IKS systems for the same purpose, but a kitchen knife or a hunting rifle -intended for those purposes only- can be used for murder, to use a similar analogy.

[Turdblossom]

Of course they wouldn't file frivolous lawsuits; should they begin litigating IKS users, based on payment records as their evidence, I believe they would win without question. Once word of this activity -occurring in multiples- began showing up on FTA boards, what do you think the result would be?

The point is that even if Charlie didn't win all cases, or even the majority, the defendants are still out of pocket thousands of dollars for their legal defense, and it would give pause to anyone considering using IKS.

Hey 50's, best post in here, and I totally agree

If you find yourself in court, you already are a loser.

[Turdblossom]

Well, let's see if and how many more of these letters begin to surface...

Well if they subpoena Paypal to provide the records for that fool selling NFPS codes on ebay, there will be quite a few letters

[Turdblossom]

In my neck of the woods you can be charged (criminally) with possession of burglary tools, even if they can't prove a burglary occurred. <br />
<br />
I'm not sure if this could be carried over to the civil...

[Turdblossom]

I've noticed some conflicting posts regarding the cessation of the Dave letters. Please correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is as follows;

Some dealers were raided and credit card receipts were seized showing purchases of unloopers/programmers/loaders.

DTV sent letters and/or sued those whose names were on the receipts.

The Attorneys General of 12 (maybe 15) states told DTV that they considered these cases to be harassment and extortion due to fact that;

1) the item was never proven to have been delivered (and not lost in shipping)
2) there was no proof the person on the card hadn't loaned it to someone
3) there was no proof the person on the card flashed the loader with the necessary sw
4) there was no proof a DTV card was altered
5) there was no proved an altered card was used to receive DTV programming

They then told DTV to cease and desist or they would file for an injunction barring DTV from selling service in their respective states.

DTV then stopped the letter campaign

[HammerSet]

Proof that the service was purchased, as I have stated, looks to be a smoking gun, but again, the court may require proof that the defendant had the necessary hardware, and was actually logged into the service. IDK what details DN may have gotten from server logs, especially if they were deleted on a scheduled (daily, or weekly) basis.


Well I think that's ridiculous; the sale of FTA receivers is perfectly legal. In Viewsat's case, however, the Nagravision ROM image was embedded into their firmware, so something like that would certainly make a difference, but lacking that particular evidence in other brands would pretty well leave them with no evidence.

Yes, the receivers could be flashed to intercept DN programming, and yes they can be used with dongles and IKS systems for the same purpose, but a kitchen knife or a hunting rifle -intended for those purposes only- can be used for murder, to use a similar analogy.

the end user brought to court from groom list, d!sh have invoice of purchase of preloaded receiver, and d!sh fail to get a judgment against the end user

they never have the fta box in hand as evidence, only hear say of an invoice, so to speak ???

so, like you stated, it is not that easy to win in court against an end user

but damage is done as soon as you receive the letter, aka you pay the fine or your lawyer fees

from one case

Alverson defense:


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Plaintiff’s sole remedy is under the cable statute. Plaintiff is not entitled to multiple remedies.

2. The Statute of Limitations has expired on plaintiff’s claims.

3. Defendant received no benefit from any services from plaintiff.

4. In the event defendant violated any federal statute the defendant is an innocent violator and is entitled to the benefit of the portion of the statute pertaining to innocent violator’s.

Wherefore, premises considered, defendant prays that the complaint against the defendant be dismissed, that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff and for such other relief as may be just.

take a look at item #4, interesting, indead ...

he got what he asked from the judge ...

no mystery in that, plain and simple: d!sh fail

mind everybody, those end user never receive letter like the last iks of dark angel

they receive a complaint asking to go to the court

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Well I think that's ridiculous; the sale of FTA receivers is perfectly legal. In Viewsat's case, however, the Nagravision ROM image was embedded into their firmware, so something like that would certainly make a difference, but lacking that particular evidence in other brands would pretty well leave them with no evidence.

Yes, the receivers could be flashed to intercept DN programming, and yes they can be used with dongles and IKS systems for the same purpose, but a kitchen knife or a hunting rifle -intended for those purposes only- can be used for murder, to use a similar analogy.



Its not ridiculas because if its sold with the intent to be used to access the provider's signal then its illegal. I think you missed what I said because the point is that if its shown that the receivers are being sold for illegal purposes then it doesn't matter if its modified or not. If it was all legal then there would be no lawsuits filled with all of them signing permanent injunctions and folding.


Now that has to be proven but that's what they end up doing with whistleblowers ( informants ) and other things. Again its not about FTA receivers its about FTA receivers that are sold/used for provider's signals. They are FTA receivers from some manufacters that never have any file that comes out after an ECM and then they are others that do. If the plaintif can link that activity to the FTA supplier then the statement that FTA receivers are legal won't apply. That is what has been happenning in the lawsuits.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

the end user brought to court from groom list, d!sh have invoice of purchase of preloaded receiver, and d!sh fail to get a judgment against the end user

they never have the fta box in hand as evidence, only hear say of an invoice, so to speak ???

so, like you stated, it is not that easy to win in court against an end user

but damage is done as soon as you receive the letter, aka you pay the fine or your lawyer fees

from one case

Alverson defense:



take a look at item #4, interesting, indead ...

he got what he asked from the judge ...

no mystery in that, plain and simple: d!sh fail

mind everybody, those end user never receive letter like the last iks of dark angel

they receive a complaint asking to go to the court



There was no ruling by the judge at all. The defendants didn't even enter a defense as it came to a quick sudden ending.The parties themselves got together and entered a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice. The judge rubber stamps what the parties want. We have no idea why that happened. It could be a good reason or not so good reason. Unfortunity we have not heard from any of the defendants on what led to it. The defendants still bear their own costs. I think if it was dismissed by a judge for lack of something he would order the plaintiff to cover the legal costs of the defendant.



Please read.




STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
COMES NOW the parties, by and through their respective attorneys of record, and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) hereby submit this Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice of all claims of the Plaintiff against the Defendant. Each party is to bear his/its own attorney fees and costs herein.





GS2

[fifties]

Its not ridiculas because if its sold with the intent to be used to access the provider's signal then its illegal. I think you missed what I said because the point is that if its shown that the receivers are being sold for illegal purposes then it doesn't matter if its modified or not. If it was all legal then there would be no lawsuits filled with all of them signing permanent injunctions and folding.
How could a receiver be sold "with the intent to be used to access the provider's signal", if it hadn't been flashed with a decryption bin? A receiver with factory firmware is as innocent as a newborn baby.



Now that has to be proven but that's what they end up doing with whistleblowers ( informants ) and other things. Again its not about FTA receivers its about FTA receivers that are sold/used for provider's signals. They are FTA receivers from some manufacters that never have any file that comes out after an ECM and then they are others that do. If the plaintif can link that activity to the FTA supplier then the statement that FTA receivers are legal won't apply. That is what has been happenning in the lawsuits.

GS2
DN already did have Viewtech, Freetech, and Panarex shut down, after providing evidence -which they had been trying to get for years- that they were tied to "3rd party S/W", which enabled decryption.
If they were going to go after any other brand, they already would have.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

How could a receiver be sold "with the intent to be used to access the provider's signal", if it hadn't been flashed with a decryption bin? A receiver with factory firmware is as innocent as a newborn baby.



If evidence is shown that they are behind the bins being released then it was sold with the intent to access the provider's signal. All the FTA suppliers sold their receivers without them being flashed. However they arranged for the files to be released according to evidence presented.




DN already did have Viewtech, Freetech, and Panarex shut down, after providing evidence -which they had been trying to get for years- that they were tied to "3rd party S/W", which enabled decryption.
If they were going to go after any other brand, they already would have.



I certaintly could not agree that if they were to go after any other brand that they would have by now. I would agree that they probably don't have sufficient evidence as if they did they would probably have filled but I would not rule that out that it could not still happen.



GS2

[HammerSet]

i hae a new title for you gs2

provider defender !!! :comfort1:

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

i hae a new title for you gs2

provider defender !!! :comfort1:



Broomer don't start with the names. That's not necesarry and its childess. If you can't discuss without resorting to something like you have then don't. I call it the way I see it even if its not what you want to hear. I don't believe in the rah rah or sugar coating. I don't see how that is any good for anyone who wants to know what really is going on versus what you would like to go on. For years people have been reading inaccurate statements regarding lergal and court cases and I just don't believe that does any good. People who find themselves in court and have to go through the process will come back and say its not what I thought or its not what people think. They will hit you with things you did not expect in court and put you through discovery where you can be examine for hours with skilled lawyers with questions you never expected. Don't confuse trying to give honest comments with anything else.



GS2

[kenkell1]

Broomer don't start with the names. That's not necesarry and its childess. If you can't discuss without resorting to something like you have then don't. I call it the way I see it even if its not what you want to hear. I don't believe in the rah rah or sugar coating. I don't see how that is any good for anyone who wants to know what really is going on versus what you would like to go on. For years people have been reading inaccurate statements regarding lergal and court cases and I just don't believe that does any good. People who find themselves in court and have to go through the process will come back and say its not what I thought or its not what people think. They will hit you with things you did not expect in court and put you through discovery where you can be examine for hours with skilled lawyers with questions you never expected. Don't confuse trying to give honest comments with anything else.



GS2
It is apparent that whatever site you appear on, contraversy follows.
It is also no secret that people are nervous when you are around.
One only has to google Gs2 to see what I am talking about and perhaps you need to mute yourself for a while ;)

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

It is apparent that whatever site you appear on, contraversy follows.
It is also no secret that people are nervous when you are around.
One only has to google Gs2 to see what I am talking about and perhaps you need to mute yourself for a while ;)



Really and that is why Broomer is a member of my site and posts because hes nervous. If you want to google his name let me know what you find out about his interactions with some people. Sure you can google my name and read all what honest Lunavic50 wrote. Ironically I or anyone else could do the same on someone also but not interested in joining the multiple diarria agenda posting group.


This is very simple. Broomer made some posts and I commented on them with a different view. That probably did not sit well with him so out comes the childess name calling. What people need to do is mute themselves on that type of comments not one that is communicating civilly and professionally and wants to post on the topic discussion without the name calling.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I've noticed some conflicting posts regarding the cessation of the Dave letters. Please correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is as follows;

Some dealers were raided and credit card receipts were seized showing purchases of unloopers/programmers/loaders.

DTV sent letters and/or sued those whose names were on the receipts.

The Attorneys General of 12 (maybe 15) states told DTV that they considered these cases to be harassment and extortion due to fact that;

1) the item was never proven to have been delivered (and not lost in shipping)
2) there was no proof the person on the card hadn't loaned it to someone
3) there was no proof the person on the card flashed the loader with the necessary sw
4) there was no proof a DTV card was altered
5) there was no proved an altered card was used to receive DTV programming

They then told DTV to cease and desist or they would file for an injunction barring DTV from selling service in their respective states.

DTV then stopped the letter campaign



I don't recall the Attorney General of various states saying that regarding the demand letters. However the Attorney General of several states had told Directv to stop their practices of charging customers huge cancellation fees and using small print. In fact lawsuits were commenced against DTV. DTV agreed to pay 13 million as part of their settlement in the case. They have been investigated for several violations of misleading consumers.


There was a couple of class action Rico lawsuits filled against DTV for the demand letters that were sent out. The cases against Directv was dismissed because of failure to state a claim under Rico. DTV had filed an anti slapp motion (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) to strike the complaint and the court granted the motion. The cases went to appeal. The appeal court had this to say:



The trial court found that DIRECTV's demand letters were absolutely protected by the litigation privilege (Civ.Code, § 47, subd. (b)) because the letters were sent in good faith, serious contemplation of litigation. After sending the demand letters, the court noted, DIRECTV filed more than 600 lawsuits. Accordingly, the trial court granted DIRECTV's anti-SLAPP motion.
After the court awarded DIRECTV attorney fees in the amount of $97,222.10, plaintiffs' appeals ensued. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (j).)"



I am posting what happened not whether I agree with it or not. I fail to see the benefit in reporting something that is not accurate. People who are getting these end user lawsuits need to know what happen before in alleging harrassment by the provider by end users. They need to know the arguments and the reasons for the rulings so they can evaluate whether they have a claim to move on. They also need to know that they can be subject to cost costs if they file an action as a plaintif and lose.




GS2

[HammerSet]

lmao !!!!

i go read the frontpage of satscams , also

what the hell that can do to me ???

i take screen shot, to show other people the news there ...

it is so dangerous !

i put my sun glasses , before ...

[kenkell1]

Really and that is why Broomer is a member of my site and posts because hes nervous. If you want to google his name let me know what you find out about his interactions with some people. Sure you can google my name and read all what honest Lunavic50 wrote. Ironically I or anyone else could do the same on someone also but not interested in joining the multiple diarria agenda posting group.


This is very simple. Broomer made some posts and I commented on them with a different view. That probably did not sit well with him so out comes the childess name calling. What people need to do is mute themselves on that type of comments not one that is communicating civilly and professionally and wants to post on the topic discussion without the name calling.



GS2
http://www.funnydesigns.com/CheeseWithThatWhine-2.5-wid.gif

[Just_angel]

Everyone needs to chill...please

thats the only warning i'm going to give

[lacoster7]

Pm me gunsmoke, on what forum u r in or is your home.
Would like to see Broomer.

And BTW, did u see ol' prick Luna, I am missing his rants.

[wildman25]

Has another letter ever surfaced (other than the one posted here) because my belief is there would be more than one surface by now.
And legal actions- there seems to be controversy on civil or criminal actions. Here's what I see it as

If it's criminal, there would be many involved requesting legal aid, and the ones that got it would be a strain on the court systems budget. Would either countries court system be able to handle the strain?

If it's civil, there's the fact that anyone can sue someone else- it isn't even that expensive to file the papers. But the problem is a judgment in civil isn't usually collectible. You can sue anyone you want but getting the cash is the hard part.

Either way, it looks like a lot of time and money invested for little gain. Unless of course the gain attempted is confusion and fear. This seems to be happening without even filing either way

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

http://www.funnydesigns.com/CheeseWithThatWhine-2.5-wid.gif



I heard that is a favorite of yours. Myself it does not interest me. Thank you just the same.



GS2

[Night Prowler]

Everyone needs to chill...please

thats the only warning i'm going to give

seems that I read it........:noidea:

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Has another letter ever surfaced (other than the one posted here) because my belief is there would be more than one surface by now.
And legal actions- there seems to be controversy on civil or criminal actions. Here's what I see it as

If it's criminal, there would be many involved requesting legal aid, and the ones that got it would be a strain on the court systems budget. Would either countries court system be able to handle the strain?

If it's civil, there's the fact that anyone can sue someone else- it isn't even that expensive to file the papers. But the problem is a judgment in civil isn't usually collectible. You can sue anyone you want but getting the cash is the hard part.

Either way, it looks like a lot of time and money invested for little gain. Unless of course the gain attempted is confusion and fear. This seems to be happening without even filing either way



It is Civil. I have not seen another that has surfaced. It does look like it was written by a professional lawfirm.




GS2

[fifties]

Originally Posted by fifties
How could a receiver be sold "with the intent to be used to access the provider's signal", if it hadn't been flashed with a decryption bin? A receiver with factory firmware is as innocent as a newborn baby.
If evidence is shown that they are behind the bins being released then it was sold with the intent to access the provider's signal. All the FTA suppliers sold their receivers without them being flashed. However they arranged for the files to be released according to evidence presented.
Originally Posted by fifties
You are missing the point here; they sued and shut down all the brands with whom they were able to tie the coders to, that were worthwhile to them. It was apparently just the three I mentioned, most likely because they had the Lion's share of the market.




Originally Posted by fifties
DN already did have Viewtech, Freetech, and Panarex shut down, after providing evidence -which they had been trying to get for years- that they were tied to "3rd party S/W", which enabled decryption.
If they were going to go after any other brand, they already would have.
I certaintly could not agree that if they were to go after any other brand that they would have by now. I would agree that they probably don't have sufficient evidence as if they did they would probably have filled but I would not rule that out that it could not still happen.

GS2
Your assumption would be based on whether they could tie pirate S/W or hardware to a brand, and since the encryption changeover, other than Sonicview, no brand is selling dongles or other hardware that would enable the use of a card sharing server. They are only available from third parties, to the best of my knowledge.

Now if they could tie a server to a brand, that would be another story.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

You are missing the point here; they sued and shut down all the brands with whom they were able to tie the coders to, that were worthwhile to them. It was apparently just the three I mentioned, most likely because they had the Lion's share of the market.


So you saying therefore it could not happen that some other supplier gets hit with a lawsuit. My point is they can still be working on tying some other FTA supplier with software for a lawsuit. I don't believe they abandon that with all that has happen. I think there was more then three. I would add Ariza as being shut down with Nfusion, Sonicview knocking at the door. It looks like Superstar has put the knife to Scheibe. Look how long it took for them to start with end users. I bet there are people who said it won't happen because if it was going to it would have happened by now. It took a provider over 10 years whether it was DTV or DN to shut down Fuss. They got two whistleblowers to do him in. Those were the most damaging depos I saw from any case because other then that they really did not have much evidence against him. Well actually Fred's recordings were the most damaging and was the whole evidence against Kwak and the other two. I have never seen anything like that with someone from the community acting as an active undercover in an FBI operation.





GS2

[HammerSet]

So you saying therefore it could not happen that some other supplier gets hit with a lawsuit. My point is they can still be working on tying some other FTA supplier with software for a lawsuit. I don't believe they abandon that with all that has happen. I think there was more then three. I would add Ariza as being shut down with Nfusion, Sonicview knocking at the door. It looks like Superstar has put the knife to Scheibe. Look how long it took for them to start with end users. I bet there are people who said it won't happen because if it was going to it would have happened by now. It took a provider over 10 years whether it was DTV or DN to shut down Fuss. They got two whistleblowers to do him in. Those were the most damaging depos I saw from any case because other then that they really did not have much evidence against him. Well actually Fred's recordings were the most damaging and was the whole evidence against Kwak and the other two. I have never seen anything like that with someone from the community acting as an active undercover in an FBI operation.





GS2

who have put the knife at you and make you mysteriously fall in canada ???

just asking ...

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

who have put the knife at you and make you mysteriously fall in canada ???

just asking ...



I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Maybe someone else does ?



FYI, Broomer this thread is not about me or you.



GS2

[fifties]

So you saying therefore it could not happen that some other supplier gets hit with a lawsuit. My point is they can still be working on tying some other FTA supplier with software for a lawsuit. I don't believe they abandon that with all that has happen. I think there was more then three. I would add Ariza as being shut down with Nfusion, Sonicview knocking at the door. It looks like Superstar has put the knife to Scheibe. Look how long it took for them to start with end users. I bet there are people who said it won't happen because if it was going to it would have happened by now. It took a provider over 10 years whether it was DTV or DN to shut down Fuss. They got two whistleblowers to do him in. Those were the most damaging depos I saw from any case because other then that they really did not have much evidence against him. Well actually Fred's recordings were the most damaging and was the whole evidence against Kwak and the other two. I have never seen anything like that with someone from the community acting as an active undercover in an FBI operation.





GS2
No, I am not saying that it couldn't happen to another brand, simply that unless they can tie third party piracy assistance to it, the likelihood is slim.

It's a different ball-game today, with third parties selling dongles, and establishing card-sharing servers.

DN even posted their reward scheme, timing it just before Christmas, in the hopes of uncovering IKS server operators.

Since they can't seem to technologically shut down cards being used as seeders, their only hope appears to be reaching out to attempt to convert someone into becoming a stool pigeon.

The thing is, damn near anyone can set up a card sharing server, located overseas, and go into business, using these forums to promote it. There is even one, from what I understand, that leeches CW's from other servers, so their expense in the endeavor would be quite small.

The irony is that although DN was able to put a stop to the masses using stand alone bins, of which they used to be able to temporarily clamp down on with "ECM's", they are boned when it comes to shutting down IKS, in the majority of cases, without a good, old fashioned, informant.

[dishuser]

badchicken you're such a loser

[Night Prowler]

badchicken you're such a loser

i think he got that message in his ban reason......:D

[Hannibalector]

oh gawd why couldn't he have been on Echelon's list, perhaps 3,500 woulda changed chickens mind

[Hannibalector]

however badchicked did have some funny comments with regards to dishuser , its not like dishuser can't handle himself without others intervening, but forum rules do prevail :)

[fifties]

Originally Posted by dishuser View Post
badchicken you're such a loser
i think he got that message in his ban reason......:D
Looks like I missed all the fun.

[Night Prowler]

Looks like I missed all the fun.

same 'ol lunatic ramblings......kinda reminds me of him.......I hope he gets the help he needs....:thumbsup:

[HammerSet]

No, I am not saying that it couldn't happen to another brand, simply that unless they can tie third party piracy assistance to it, the likelihood is slim.

It's a different ball-game today, with third parties selling dongles, and establishing card-sharing servers.

DN even posted their reward scheme, timing it just before Christmas, in the hopes of uncovering IKS server operators.

Since they can't seem to technologically shut down cards being used as seeders, their only hope appears to be reaching out to attempt to convert someone into becoming a stool pigeon.

The thing is, damn near anyone can set up a card sharing server, located overseas, and go into business, using these forums to promote it. There is even one, from what I understand, that leeches CW's from other servers, so their expense in the endeavor would be quite small.

The irony is that although DN was able to put a stop to the masses using stand alone bins, of which they used to be able to temporarily clamp down on with "ECM's", they are boned when it comes to shutting down IKS, in the majority of cases, without a good, old fashioned, informant.

talking about stool pigeon ...

i would watch Adam Dicker and his last move since 5-7 years

this guy is dangerous ... he was on high staff at godaddy, in 2003 a well known pirate

wierd how thing goes ... go daddy, hummmm

[Turdblossom]

badchicken you're such a loser


Looks like I missed all the fun.

Me too! LOL

I thought he was in hiding since he got outted?

[recove52]

interesting Hhmmm...all Old News however there are whistleblowers trying to claim the $25,000 offered by charley..as some have emerged in depositions and there is an ongoing investigation as there indentity has been kept under wraps ..as obvious threats have been made..has been reported...and they are trying to keep those names from being made public....sooner or later it will all come out....Be Safe Everyone.....

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Looks like I missed all the fun.



I gather his posts were deleted. ?



GS2

[HammerSet]

I gather his posts were deleted. ?



GS2

a good recap is at NCN, dang, 2 page of hanni with zero reply ...

humm... ok it says it all ...

weird fellow i have ever met on the web ...

@recove52

the whistleblowers can go only after owner of iks server "that is new vs the plain rat"

is there a diff ??? shame to them all ...

[fifties]

the whistleblowers can go only after owner of iks server "that is new vs the plain rat"

is there a diff ???
No difference whatsoever. A stoolie is a stoolie.

[Turdblossom]

a good recap is at NCN, dang, 2 page of hanni with zero reply ...

humm... ok it says it all ...

weird fellow i have ever met on the web ...

@recove52

the whistleblowers can go only after owner of iks server "that is new vs the plain rat"

is there a diff ??? shame to them all ...

Did anyone tell NP he was over there calling him out?

[Just_angel]

nope i don't think NP really cares

what happens on other sites should remain there

but thanks :yes: