Letter now Court case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibalector

oh ? it's the only way to intercept the damned CW's which infact breaches as for mentioned here in this quote by you below

---

I did not say that. I said it might only be necessary if a court said there is not enough proof that he did intercept the signal. If that happens than other defendants can say there is not enough proof not that the only way to intercept is by having a bin. If they prove he had a pirate receiver they don't than have to prove he had a bin. By having the receiver it shows he had the equipment if the court says the purchase is not enough. Courts before in dave cases did not say the defendant did not have the bin they said there was no proof provided that he had the receiver. Now that was on on one statue not on the DMCA so don't know if that would carry over to the DMCA.


The court does not need to decide that the only way to intercept is if he had a bin. The court could likely not know what a bin is. They only need to decide if its more likely than not and that can happen with the purchase and lets say an incriminating email. They do not need to determine if he had a bin. Its not a requirement as you propose. It was not a requirement in the DA cases. I don't know about the purchase. Was the payment a one shot deal or was it monthly payment. ? If it was monthly and the defendant kept paying for a considerable time than that is more circumstantial evidence. People as a rule don't keep paying month after month for something they say they never used. A court needs to decide what is more likely not that they have to determine that the defendant had a bin. Its not a Perry Mason situation.





GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

If they pick up an incriminating email from the defendant why would they have to prove he used it or have server logs.

If the defenant says in an email to wufman just as an example, why is it in the last two days the PPV's are not working do you think they have to actually prove he used it.

---

"If" is a small word, with a large consequence, my friend.

Yes, "if" they had other correspondence verifying obvious usage, there's no question the defendant is toast...IF.

Lacking that, we are again looking at the purchase of a code as the only alleged evidence of signal theft and violation of the DMCA. I am now saying that it's "alleged" because that's exactly what it is...Evidence has to be used to prove a point, and this one item used by itself would pose a somewhat specious conclusion. You tend to think that it's enough to tip the scales 51%...I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

I don't agree with your therory that people buy some illegal service and just put it away. People buy things and can just put it away but we are talking about buying something that is illegal. People don't just buy illegal things in my opinion.
GS2

---

You are missing a primary point here; because it can lead to illegal doings is a very motivational reason to in fact "put it away"...More so than if it were completely legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarvinGardens

On the contrary. You will see declarations presented to the court from DN investigators who subscribed to the same IKS service. They will state under oath that the purchase and use of these access codes allowed them to view DN's programming without paying DN.

Then DN will present evidence to the court that the defendant purchased the same kind of subscription. That is more than enough circumstantial evidence for the court to find against the defendant.

---

I don't think so.

All DN's stooges are doing, in your example, is showing the court how the theft of service operation works, by posing as customers.

Their actions reflect not a whit on what the defendant did or didn't do, AFA using or not using the service. Yes, he bought a code, then states that he got cold feet...Prove that he used it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Not for legal products. But if you look at the TDG case he was a salesman for Viewsat ( illegal ) and was found liable in his Civil lawsuit. They will come after you alleging you assisted others to violate the statue. I am assuming wufman avoided legal action by handing over his business records. Was he sued. ?


GS2

---

I do not think he alleged on being a salesman only ..was more for involvement on sites .

But wuf is not on trial (being that he rolled over his info )..more the people he dealt with .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

"If" is a small word, with a large consequence, my friend.

Yes, "if" they had other correspondence verifying obvious usage, there's no question the defendant is toast...IF.

Lacking that, we are again looking at the purchase of a code as the only alleged evidence of signal theft and violation of the DMCA. I am now saying that it's "alleged" because that's exactly what it is...Evidence has to be used to prove a point, and this one item used by itself would pose a somewhat specious conclusion. You tend to think that it's enough to tip the scales 51%...I don't.


You are missing a primary point here; because it can lead to illegal doings is a very motivational reason to in fact "put it away"...More so than if it were completely legal.



I don't think so.

All DN's stooges are doing, in your example, is showing the court how the theft of service operation works, by posing as customers.

Their actions reflect not a whit on what the defendant did or didn't do, AFA using or not using the service. Yes, he bought a code, then states that he got cold feet...Prove that he used it...

---

Interesting argument Fifties, isn't intent covered by the DMCA though. The fact that the defendant admitted to buying the codes, shows that he intended to use it, or why bother purchasing. They only have to demonstrate that you knew what the code was for. To argue that you purchased it, knowing full well what it was for, simply puts the nail in the coffin. Haven't you given them the evidence they need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kutter

Interesting argument Fifties, isn't intent covered by the DMCA though. The fact that the defendant admitted to buying the codes, shows that he intended to use it, or why bother purchasing. They only have to demonstrate that you knew what the code was for. To argue that you purchased it, knowing full well what it was for, simply puts the nail in the coffin. Haven't you given them the evidence they need.

---

Welcome to satFIX kutter.......glad you joined to give your opinion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeldf

Welcome to satFIX kutter.......glad you joined to give your opinion!

---

I'm not good at detecting sarcasm ... so I'll take that as a genuine welcome :)

there i a way to stop all this court crap, give the server 1 legal use, like a news CH you could seream from the internet or any thing
like that would work, then it would have a legal use and that would put an end to the court case.

I can think of good reasons for buying codes without intending to use them - resell them, Christmas/birthday gift to a loved one/friend, for a friend with no PP. Evidently reselling is not illegal, otherwise they'd be suing Wuf. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iq180

there i a way to stop all this court crap, give the server 1 legal use, like a news CH you could seream from the internet or any thing
like that would work, then it would have a legal use and that would put an end to the court case.

---

Wasn't that tried with a weather map somewhere?

If they can follow the money trail from end user to Wuf and he's singing like a bird, why can't they follow the money trail from Wuf to NFPS/Rocket?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hondoharry

Wasn't that tried with a weather map somewhere?

---

I believe that was the "official" reason for the Nfusions having an ethernet port. And was included in the factory software.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hondoharry

If they can follow the money trail from end user to Wuf and he's singing like a bird, why can't they follow the money trail from Wuf to NFPS/Rocket?

---

they can, but it want do them any good, the server is not in the U.S.
i say if the server had a legal use then you could say thats why i have a code and thats all i use it for, and all this crap would be over, end of case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kutter

Interesting argument Fifties, isn't intent covered by the DMCA though. The fact that the defendant admitted to buying the codes, shows that he intended to use it, or why bother purchasing. They only have to demonstrate that you knew what the code was for. To argue that you purchased it, knowing full well what it was for, simply puts the nail in the coffin. Haven't you given them the evidence they need.

---

IDK if the term, "intent", is covered in the DMCA. AFAIK, "intent" is normally used in criminal cases, which this is not.

Of course we are all just speculating at this point. If we see several court cases emerge, a pattern may be developed, determining if purchase by itself with no corroborating additional evidence, is sufficient to tilt the justice scale.

I would like to think that a somewhat more convincing set of circumstances exists, before a plaintiff can get awarded a money judgment.

Posts discussing setup in a forum, PM's discussing usage of the code, proof of the ownership of a satellite receiver, and/or proof of the existence of a satellite dish, and of course logs obtained from the ISP showing multiple connections to the server IP would seem not all that hard to get, and IMHO at least one should be required, to support the notion that the defendant followed through and actually did purloin DN's signal.

Just because there is proof that one bought bullets, doesn't prove that he either has a gun, or fired any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iq180

they can, but it want do them any good, the server is not in the U.S.
i say if the server had a legal use then you could say thats why i have a code and thats all i use it for, and all this crap would be over, end of case.

---

Well, the Viewsat Weather Forecaster scheme apparently didn't work, so why would this be any different?

And it really doesn't matter about where the server is located, as much as the country of residence of it's owner(s), given that they would be bound by their countries laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

IDK if the term, "intent", is covered in the DMCA. AFAIK, "intent" is normally used in criminal cases, which this is not.

Of course we are all just speculating at this point. If we see several court cases emerge, a pattern may be developed, determining if purchase by itself with no corroborating additional evidence, is sufficient to tilt the justice scale.

I would like to think that a somewhat more convincing set of circumstances exists, before a plaintiff can get awarded a money judgment.

Posts discussing setup in a forum, PM's discussing usage of the code, proof of the ownership of a satellite receiver, and/or proof of the existence of a satellite dish, and of course logs obtained from the ISP showing multiple connections to the server IP would seem not all that hard to get, and IMHO at least one should be required, to support the notion that the defendant followed through and actually did purloin DN's signal.

Just because there is proof that one bought bullets, doesn't prove that he either has a gun, or fired any.


Well, the Viewsat Weather Forecaster scheme apparently didn't work, so why would this be any different?

And it really doesn't matter about where the server is located, as much as the country of residence of it's owner(s), given that they would be bound by their countries laws.

---

did you ever see the weather on the weather forecaster, all they need is one legal use for the server, just one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

"If" is a small word, with a large consequence, my friend.

Yes, "if" they had other correspondence verifying obvious usage, there's no question the defendant is toast...IF.

Lacking that, we are again looking at the purchase of a code as the only alleged evidence of signal theft and violation of the DMCA. I am now saying that it's "alleged" because that's exactly what it is...Evidence has to be used to prove a point, and this one item used by itself would pose a somewhat specious conclusion. You tend to think that it's enough to tip the scales 51%...I don't.

---

So than your saying if they find incriminating emails or messages that they don't need the server logs ? It appeared to me that you have been saying no server logs to show a connection than no case so not sure where you stand on this. The evidence is the purchase of the codes from an illegal service. That alone in my opinion is compelling.Though I am speculating there will be more evidence and think the defendant is going to have a hard time explaining why he bought those codes.

Quote:

---

You are missing a primary point here; because it can lead to illegal doings is a very motivational reason to in fact "put it away"...More so than if it were completely legal.

---

I don't see your speculation of putting away as a primary point. I see the primary point being the defendant spent money to subscribe to an illegal service that only has one purpose but to received signals from the plaintiff unlawfully.

Quote:

---

I don't think so.

All DN's stooges are doing, in your example, is showing the court how the theft of service operation works, by posing as customers.

Their actions reflect not a whit on what the defendant did or didn't do, AFA using or not using the service. Yes, he bought a code, then states that he got cold feet...Prove that he used it...

---

The testimony from their investigator saying what he was able to do has been done several times in other cases. That testimony is for the court to show it was able to be done. As far as proving that the defendant used it circumstantial evidence can be accepted by courts with regards to useage.



GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1boxman

I do not think he alleged on being a salesman only ..was more for involvement on sites .

But wuf is not on trial (being that he rolled over his info )..more the people he dealt with .

---

His involvment on sites was to promote the Viewsat products for sale acting as their spokesperson. Yes Wuf is not on trail but he could possibly be used as a support witness for the plaintiff if he cooperated. That is why I asked if he was sued.



GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iq180

did you ever see the weather on the weather forecaster, all they need is one legal use for the server, just one.

---

I never had a WF dongle, so never connected to their server to see if weather forecasts were there.

Apparently however, since no other IKS service that I've heard of uses that tactic, it doesn't seem to be a viable "excuse".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

So than your saying if they find incriminating emails or messages that they don't need the server logs ? It appeared to me that you have been saying no server logs to show a connection than no case so not sure where you stand on this. The evidence is the purchase of the codes from an illegal service. That alone in my opinion is compelling.Though I am speculating there will be more evidence and think the defendant is going to have a hard time explaining why he bought those codes.

---

You have brought up the specter of incriminating posts at "FTA" and IKS server forums, AWA damaging emails or PM's, acknowledging usage, by the defendant.

I can agree that those would most likely seal the deal for DN, W/O the need for ISP logs, showing connection to the server. Now without those items, then I would say the logs would need to be shown, to establish proof that the defendant did in fact, "pull the trigger".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

I don't see your speculation of putting away as a primary point. I see the primary point being the defendant spent money to subscribe to an illegal service that only has one purpose but to received signals from the plaintiff unlawfully.

---

The point was that a person would be more likely to have second thoughts, and put away an item of questionable legality, than one of which legality was no concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

The testimony from their investigator saying what he was able to do has been done several times in other cases. That testimony is for the court to show it was able to be done. As far as proving that the defendant used it circumstantial evidence can be accepted by courts with regards to useage.

---

And your (their) circumstantial evidence is simply and only proof that the defendant bought the code.

Nothing showing that he used it, or even had the equipment necessary to make it work.
No records displaying a discussion of any problems with it, how to set it up, what channels would be available, how long it was good for, what IP to use to connect to.

Your contention is that his purchase displayed an initial intent, and that should be good enough to garner a judgment against him.

Mine is that this isn't a criminal court felony case, where mere intent might be enough, but a relatively low level civil action, where just a little more would need to be proven by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff; he bought the code
Defendant; I never used it
50/50 so far.
The plaintiff would need to push it over the edge, even ever so slightly, with another tidbit of evidence.

ok fifties, remember when DTV sent out the demand letters for the unloopers/programers/ then one case went to court and they
proved that it did have some legal use and that was the end of that, now if the server had a legal use then would that not be the same thing, they could not use the isp or server logs in court or the fact that you did buy a code.

The fact that these and the Dave cases both concern possible hacking of a satellite signal is about their only similarity.

There is no question that the server, and by extension the codes to access it, are in violation of the DMCA, and would therefore be deemed illegal.

The question might be, did the individual who purchased the code actually use it, or is the fact that he bought it sufficient for a judgment against him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

The fact that these and the Dave cases both concern possible hacking of a satellite signal is about their only similarity.

There is no question that the server, and by extension the codes to access it, are in violation of the DMCA, and would therefore be deemed illegal.


The question might be, did the individual who purchased the code actually use it, or is the fact that he bought it sufficient for a judgment against him.

---

Umm so a non tobacco smoker could be imprisoned for buying or owning rolling papers...
What else would he use them for other than rolling up a doobie..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

The fact that these and the Dave cases both concern possible hacking of a satellite signal is about their only similarity.

There is no question that the server, and by extension the codes to access it, are in violation of the DMCA, and would therefore be deemed illegal.

The question might be, did the individual who purchased the code actually use it, or is the fact that he bought it sufficient for a judgment against him.

---

yes this is true but if the server had one legal use, then the code was to be used for that one legal use, so the DMCA would
not apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iq180

yes this is true but if the server had one legal use, then the code was to be used for that one legal use, so the DMCA would
not apply.

---

I doubt the server for weather was the same one .

Being that hub was able to get the weather ...(like kbox did ) would be for the sale of the hardware .
I see what you are saying ..But having a connection at the same server ..differently not good .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

His involvment on sites was to promote the Viewsat products for sale acting as their spokesperson. Yes Wuf is not on trail but he could possibly be used as a support witness for the plaintiff if he cooperated. That is why I asked if he was sued.



GS2

---

He was a spokesman for viewsat ? or for the so called third party bins ?

I have said this before ..If they use wuf to testify against the plaintiffs ..question would..whether they have enough ..Being it is civil they may not need to prove it was used .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCO

Umm so a non tobacco smoker could be imprisoned for buying or owning rolling papers...
What else would he use them for other than rolling up a doobie..

---

There we go again, confusing criminal with civil. Different courts, different standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1boxman

He was a spokesman for viewsat ? or for the so called third party bins ?

I have said this before ..If they use wuf to testify against the plaintiffs ..question would..whether they have enough ..Being it is civil they may not need to prove it was used .

---

AFA TDG, he was a promoter for Viewsat, and the primary legal thrust against him was for his posting of bins on the various "FTA" forums. IDK if anyone remembers, but DN used forum counters showing the number of downloads of each bin, for their calculation of their "damages". The judgment was over 50 million, BTW. It was at his trial, in fact, that a judge ruled the decryption bins were illegal. Before that, they were never ID'd as such.

Why would they need Wuf to testify, BTW? They already have proof that the codes were purchased, and would also have any email correspondence between his buyers and himself. I don't see where any testimony from him could further harm the defendants, by aiding DN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

You have brought up the specter of incriminating posts at "FTA" and IKS server forums, AWA damaging emails or PM's, acknowledging usage, by the defendant.

I can agree that those would most likely seal the deal for DN, W/O the need for ISP logs, showing connection to the server. Now without those items, then I would say the logs would need to be shown, to establish proof that the defendant did in fact, "pull the trigger".

---

If the find he had or bought a receiver ( leaving out that he said he didn't ) in your opinion would they still need to show logs to establish proof that the defendant did in fact pulled the trigger. ?

Quote:

---

And your (their) circumstantial evidence is simply and only proof that the defendant bought the code.

Nothing showing that he used it, or even had the equipment necessary to make it work.
No records displaying a discussion of any problems with it, how to set it up, what channels would be available, how long it was good for, what IP to use to connect to.

Your contention is that his purchase displayed an initial intent, and that should be good enough to garner a judgment against him.

Mine is that this isn't a criminal court felony case, where mere intent might be enough, but a relatively low level civil action, where just a little more would need to be proven by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff; he bought the code
Defendant; I never used it
50/50 so far.
The plaintiff would need to push it over the edge, even ever so slightly, with another tidbit of evidence.

---

We don't know what circumstantial evidence they have or could get along the way. Yes I believe buying a subscription to codes that have only one purpose shows intent. I believe the codes would fall under the description below from the DMCA. I believe buying the codes is more damaging than buying an unlooper.

Quote:

---

they are primarily designed or produced to circumvent;
they have only limited commercially significant purpose or use other
than to circumvent;

---

GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1boxman

I doubt the server for weather was the same one .

Being that hub was able to get the weather ...(like kbox did ) would be for the sale of the hardware .
I see what you are saying ..But having a connection at the same server ..differently not good .

---

The one with the weather was debunked in court with an expert testifying. I have to look it up as don't remember exactly but something to do with how it worked or that it didn't work or couldn't work.




GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

There we go again, confusing criminal with civil. Different courts, different standards.



AFA TDG, he was a promoter for Viewsat, and the primary legal thrust against him was for his posting of bins on the various "FTA" forums. IDK if anyone remembers, but DN used forum counters showing the number of downloads of each bin, for their calculation of their "damages". The judgment was over 50 million, BTW. It was at his trial, in fact, that a judge ruled the decryption bins were illegal. Before that, they were never ID'd as such.

Why would they need Wuf to testify, BTW? They already have proof that the codes were purchased, and would also have any email correspondence between his buyers and himself. I don't see where any testimony from him could further harm the defendants, by aiding DN.

---

It didn't come up before for lack of trial with posting bins and it doesn't mean it was legal before that ruling. I think with reading the DMCA and case law it would be more clear that it was always illegal from the DMCA and rulings in 2000 by Judge Kaplan. Posters before of code or software were found liable. Even posting a link on a site to software on another site was ruled as a violation.




GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

IDK if the term, "intent", is covered in the DMCA. AFAIK, "intent" is normally used in criminal cases, which this is not.

Of course we are all just speculating at this point. If we see several court cases emerge, a pattern may be developed, determining if purchase by itself with no corroborating additional evidence, is sufficient to tilt the justice scale.

I would like to think that a somewhat more convincing set of circumstances exists, before a plaintiff can get awarded a money judgment.

Posts discussing setup in a forum, PM's discussing usage of the code, proof of the ownership of a satellite receiver, and/or proof of the existence of a satellite dish, and of course logs obtained from the ISP showing multiple connections to the server IP would seem not all that hard to get, and IMHO at least one should be required, to support the notion that the defendant followed through and actually did purloin DN's signal.

Just because there is proof that one bought bullets, doesn't prove that he either has a gun, or fired any.


Well, the Viewsat Weather Forecaster scheme apparently didn't work, so why would this be any different?

And it really doesn't matter about where the server is located, as much as the country of residence of it's owner(s), given that they would be bound by their countries laws.

---

I think your anaology is flawed, the codes he purchased are illegal, bullets are not :)

Yes it's true, this is not a criminal case, but these civil suits are based on the breaching of a criminal statute. In criminal law it's a crime to "attempt" to commit a crime. This is no different, if it's a crime, it's a crime. However, the penalties (fines or jail time) for "attempt" are limited to 1/2 the maximum penalties for that particular crime. So maybe this is a reasonable defense, even if it fails, it could limit the judgement. However, I still think the defendant is admitting guilt, by even offering that defense.

Like you said though, it's all just speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

There we go again, confusing criminal with civil. Different courts, different standards.



AFA TDG, he was a promoter for Viewsat, and the primary legal thrust against him was for his posting of bins on the various "FTA" forums. IDK if anyone remembers, but DN used forum counters showing the number of downloads of each bin, for their calculation of their "damages". The judgment was over 50 million, BTW. It was at his trial, in fact, that a judge ruled the decryption bins were illegal. Before that, they were never ID'd as such.

Why would they need Wuf to testify, BTW? They already have proof that the codes were purchased, and would also have any email correspondence between his buyers and himself. I don't see where any testimony from him could further harm the defendants, by aiding DN.

---

Yes remember how they convicted him on posts and counts . There where so many skokes for the vs gang other than JJ but that is another story ..not to get off topic here :tehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

The one with the weather was debunked in court with an expert testifying. I have to look it up as don't remember exactly but something to do with how it worked or that it didn't work or couldn't work.




GS2

---

MM...didn't see where they associated the wf (weather forecast ) with the last bit of veiwsat or stopped the sale ...I know the ihub did with sonicview .

The weather map actually worked on the Nfusion. Didn't seem to help Ramkissmyass from getting busted and going to jail in Toronto though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1boxman

MM...didn't see where they associated the wf (weather forecast ) with the last bit of veiwsat or stopped the sale ...I know the ihub did with sonicview .

---

The one I read was with Sonicview. Don't know if it was brought up in court with others.



GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hondoharry

The weather map actually worked on the Nfusion. Didn't seem to help Ramkissmyass from getting busted and going to jail in Toronto though.

---

The was for destroy evidence, if I remember correctly. Destroying the iks server it was believed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DualTest

The was for destroy evidence, if I remember correctly. Destroying the iks server it was believed.

---

Loosing his laptop and not handing over his hard drives from the fixed PC's as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCO

Loosing his laptop and not handing over his hard drives from the fixed PC's as well.

---

Imagine that. Superhero going to jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties
You have brought up the specter of incriminating posts at "FTA" and IKS server forums, AWA damaging emails or PM's, acknowledging usage, by the defendant.

I can agree that those would most likely seal the deal for DN, W/O the need for ISP logs, showing connection to the server. Now without those items, then I would say the logs would need to be shown, to establish proof that the defendant did in fact, "pull the trigger".

---

If the find he had or bought a receiver ( leaving out that he said he didn't ) in your opinion would they still need to show logs to establish proof that the defendant did in fact pulled the trigger.

---

That's a good question, in that purchase of the codes, along with proof that he had the equipment to utilize them, might be enough.

I just can't say. It may depend on the particular judge hearing the case, or there may be something in law to either support or deny the value of that combined evidence.

Logs of course would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is not required in the civil court venue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Quote:

---

And your (their) circumstantial evidence is simply and only proof that the defendant bought the code.

Nothing showing that he used it, or even had the equipment necessary to make it work.
No records displaying a discussion of any problems with it, how to set it up, what channels would be available, how long it was good for, what IP to use to connect to.

Your contention is that his purchase displayed an initial intent, and that should be good enough to garner a judgment against him.

Mine is that this isn't a criminal court felony case, where mere intent might be enough, but a relatively low level civil action, where just a little more would need to be proven by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff; he bought the code
Defendant; I never used it
50/50 so far.
The plaintiff would need to push it over the edge, even ever so slightly, with another tidbit of evidence.

---

We don't know what circumstantial evidence they have or could get along the way. Yes I believe buying a subscription to codes that have only one purpose shows intent. I believe the codes would fall under the description below from the DMCA. I believe buying the codes is more damaging than buying an unlooper.
GS2

---

I would agree that ownership of the codes is more damaging than buying actual hardware that could be used for something else, and in this regard, we can't really compare the DN litigation to what Dave's complaints were.
I would also agree that their purchase does show intent, no question, and their existence could be construed as a violation of the DMCA.
With all that said, I think a good defense hinges on the defendant casting a doubt as to whether he actually used the codes or not. W/O the plaintiff showing proof of ownership of a receiver, this would seem to be a definite defensive advantage.

As you have posted previously, the plaintiff's attorney will depose him, and may be able to trip him up when taking the deposition, unless he pays his own lawyer to be there, running up the $.

12345678910

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anubis

This is a court case against a end user by the name of KAILAS MAGI. Not wuffman.
It clearly states that the said defendant purchased codes from wuff in page one.
Guess Nagra are going after those that are ignoring their letters after all.

---

couldnt dixon also be considered an enduser??
sure he sold dons (reseller) but 99% certainty HE connected to
various p$s too imho
so why arent we seeing info on HIS accountability and accused by
nag/dn via same letters magi and others got under HIS acct
?? unless of course he WAS
served and payed up but THAT would have to be a mutually agreed
amount (settlement) since HIS would be in the thousands, right?? curious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftaalltheway

couldnt dixon also be considered an enduser??
sure he sold dons (reseller) but 99% certainty HE connected to
various p$s too imho
so why arent we seeing info on HIS accountability and accused by
nag/dn via same letters magi and others got under HIS acct
?? unless of course he WAS
served and payed up but THAT would have to be a mutually agreed
amount (settlement) since HIS would be in the thousands, right?? curious

---

Now you aren't suggesting that he cooperated with DN and gave up his customer records in exchange for not being prosecuted by them as an end-user himself, are you? Nawww.....:rolleyes:

I didn't read through this whole thing but my contention still is prove it.

The codes themselves mean nothing. You need a receiver, a dongle, a dish, and an internet connection to be able to steal television with these codes. Without each and every one of those variables in place there is no way DN/Nagra can proof theft. Unless the judges are now ruling on 'intent' which would be B.S. if that is the case. Of course lots of court cases are ruled on 'intent' that really shouldn't be. Like the buying of 'drugs' that are not drugs from an undercover agent. Or the soliciting of a 'prostitute' that isn't really a prostitute but is an undercover agent. Or the guy who goes to meet an 'underage' girl from the 'net and instead she is an undercover agent. Too many crimes in this country are being decided on 'intent'. Then when you get in front of the judge they present it as "You attempted to buy drugs from an undercover agent". No you didn't 'cause there were never any real drugs in play. Or "You attempted to solicit a prostitute". No you didn't 'cause there was never any real prostitute in play only an undercover agent. Or "You attempted to meet a 13 yo girl you met online". No you didn't cause again there was never really a 13 yo girl in play it was only an undercover agent the whole time.

Pretty soon anything you do will be critiqued as 'intent'.