Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
Again why are you saying they have to prove useage for it to be more likely than not. Is it more likely than not that you subscribed to private server that provided the control words to decrypt their signal to access their signals illegally ? or its more likely not that you didn't. ?
I think preponderance of the evidence tilts their way.
GS2
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
When DTV lost their early court cases it was because the court did not accept DTV's claim that simply owning an unlooper or ISO programmer was convincing evidence that there was illegal access to their signals.
That's because the court said that unlooper's and ISO programmers could have a use that is not illegal.
The court further said that if DTV could show that the person also owned a sat dish and receiver then that would have convinced the court.
Here being in possession of access codes to an IKS server only has one purpose. DN does not have to prove anything else.
there was a satellite tracking station about 25 miles from where I used to live and I had 2 different neighbors that worked there. They both told me the same story at different times about how they locked on to a Russian sat one night going over and decided to have a look at what the Russians were looking at. Well the story was the same from both of them and they said the Ruskies were looking at the girls on a beach in Florida and you could easily read the signs there. Well had one said it, or both of them had been together I might have doubted it but I heard the same story twice. Whether it is true or not I can't testify to it because it is only heresay but I tend to believe it. Especially a Russian sat buzzing over Cape Canaveral area would have been quite high tech cutting edge stuff as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by hondoharry
Well I can vouch for the high res capacity of satelite images.. Just look at what they had as images in the 70's from an sSR71 and that was on film.. with older optics..Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
The russians were probably able to see the non died roots in the blonds hair..ROFLMAO
No, I don't think that the purchase of the codes shows anything more than intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarvinGardens
It certainly does not prove that the defendant actually used the codes.
Now if DN supplied ISP logs showing lengthy connections to the IKS server (at least an hour, daily), then I would agree that the scale is certainly tipped.
Dave lost a case when he couldn't prove to the court that the defendant actually owned a satellite dish antenna. I think that case is an excellent reference for a defense, especially because during discovery, the plaintiff has to show what his evidence is. If he has nothing to prove there is a dish at the defendants house...And beyond that, proof of ownership of a satellite receiver.
There are four components at play here; ownership of the codes, usage of the IKS server via internet connection, a satellite dish antenna, and a satellite or other capable receiver. The dish antenna could be explained away as, "it was already there when I moved in". I think if Charlie can prove two of the others, however, he gets his judgment.
The RIAA wins case after case for simply downloading music from a file sharer. They never have to prove that you actually listened to the music you illegally downloaded.Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
There is no viable defense to asking for and accepting IKS server access codes.
There is a strong inference that you actually used the codes that cannot be overcome by any rational explanation to the alternative.
Downloading music from a file sharer would be akin to proof -ISP logs, for example- that one connected to an IKS server, and in that case, the plaintiff wins, no argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarvinGardens
Paying for and receiving IKS codes all by itself proves nothing, beyond possible intent.
well maybe purchasing codes would show more than intent. what would happen if the ones getting the letters had made more than one purchase on different dates? Now that would look like a little more than intent
"I was going to use it with an IKS server, but never got around to purchasing a receiver. I also bought one later on for my girlfriend to use, but she then decided against it".Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
Remember, as long as they can show no proof of either a receiver, or connection to the server, all they have is/are code purchase(s). We haven't seen where it has been established that ownership of the codes has been determined to be illegal.
Cases (wisely) settled out of court in the DA situation -where the plaintiff had server information, can't be displayed as an example because of that reason.
what server info was used in the DA cases?they showed the paper trailQuote:
Originally Posted by fifties
I never saw the complaint, nor the evidence, used in the DA cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by dishuser
Do you know what the paper trail consisted of?
sure that is going to fly with a judge, yeah I bought one for me I never used and then I bought one for the old lady and never used that etc. etc. There are some things in this world that possession of will get you in trouble whether you have used it or not. Is a username and a password to a site offering up illegal codes one? I don't know and neither do you. But as same time this isn't criminal court. Not like getting caught with break and enter tools in the trunk of your car. A smart lawyer will get you off on those charges unless they can prove you did do a B&E but that is criminal and beyond a reasonable doubt. These charges are civil, you have no lawyer to back you up in a court room and it is a preponderance of the evidence. In other words tip the scales and they are already leaning the wrong way as some judge seen their side of things and granted an injunction against you. BS & feigning ignorance won't get you too far in the court system. Good luck with that!Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
Lol, where do you get that? Anyone actually going to court would be crazy not to be represented by an attorney, because they are gonna have one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
And as I had posted, in case you missed it;
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
it showed the transactions between clients and justinQuote:
Originally Posted by fifties
bingo the seeder is the one that actually DECRYPTED the signalQuote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
for once fifties I'm going to agree with you...lol, simply possesion or intent of purchase means squat of actual use of CW's without a box and a bin with a Nagra image on it those CW's can't do squat, CW's themselves are useless and have no means of decryption without a nagra image, as stated to GS2 the seeder is decrypting, yes it's parsing the obvious but nonetheless that takes place 1st, wheres the proof theres a bin involved to decrypt anything ? wouldn't that matter ? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by fifties