Letter now Court case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

Well I know that you've been through court trials in Canada in regards to satellite TV issues, so your opinion does carry some gravity.

I base my speculation about this on prior cases that Dave lost.

In addition to losing because he couldn't prove ownership of a dish, he also lost when, using the purchase of multiple boot boards as his evidence, the defendant displayed how he bought them to use in security doors, and purchased from a pirate satellite dealer because they offered the best price.

So there are defenses that will work, and the above examples might actually be useful as precedents in certain litigation.

Given that, paying the $3500 initially is going to be the cheapest way out, as I have posted several times before.

---

Dave lost a case when they didn't show that defendant prossessed the necesarry equipment to intercept the signal. Perhaps that's the one your referring to with not proving ownership of a dish. ? That case was appealed and the defendant ended up settling after Dave made a motion to bring in 5 potential expert witnesses to testify plus supplying a CD- ROM to the defendant. It sounded like they had possibly had more evidence of sales of devices to the defendant on top of the unlooper they initially went after him for.


The defendant who was able to demonstrate that he bought devices for security doors did well. If you really can demonstrate you bought these code subcriptions for another purpose othen than the one they allege go for it. I don't know what other purpose there may be. But this is why the onus really shifts to the defendant to prove what he bought it for versus the Plaintiff proving it. They already allege what they say you bought the subscription for.


On the case where Dave lost on the mere possession on appeal it applies to 2512(1)(b). DN is alleging violation of 2511(1)(a) not 2512(1)(b)


They probably purposely stay away from citing that violation where the defendant won and remains in effect as the interpretation since there is no appeal from that decision. None of it reflects on the DMCA and the other violation they allege. It appears that Dave ruling loss is a non issue in the current cases although a lawyer would need to confirm that.




GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

What information would be in server logs. ?

GS2

---

I would assume that they would show user IP's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

The defendant who was able to demonstrate that he bought devices for security doors did well. If you really can demonstrate you bought these code subcriptions for another purpose othen than the one they allege go for it. I don't know what other purpose there may be. But this is why the onus really shifts to the defendant to prove what he bought it for versus the Plaintiff proving it. They already allege what they say you bought the subscription for.

---

Their case would appear to hinge solely on the purchase of the subscription.

The counter could simply be, "yes I bought it with the intention to use it, but I never did, because I never bought a satellite receiver".

If they don't have the defendants ISP logs to show that he connected to the server, nor any proof that he bought a receiver, it then simply becomes their allegation that he used it.

A synonym for the term, "allege" is, "suppose", and generally assumes no proof.

Now whether or not that would be enough to convince a judge, or a jury (if the defendant wisely asks for one), is another matter.

If they can tie the defendant to a user nic on an "FTA" forum, discussing his hardware, asking questions about hooking it up, etc, then all bets are off. He's toast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

On the case where Dave lost on the mere possession on appeal it applies to 2512(1)(b). DN is alleging violation of 2511(1)(a) not 2512(1)(b)

---

Quote:

---

(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

---

I think the term, "endeavor", would be key here. Is simply buying the code sufficient to satisfy that term fully, or would DN need to prove up an internet connection to the server, and/or proof that the defendant owned a satellite receiver, as well?


And I think we should charge the DN stooges who are peeping in on this powwow, lol. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibalector

not at all.........

---

really?
then why do you keep mentioning bins and stb's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

There's no question of the motive, which is proven from their purchase of the codes, and that would be a supporting issue.

The problem for them is, that they won't be able to prove that the defendant owns a "box".


OK, NOW we are getting to the meat of the bone.

DN needs to have a case wherein the code is ID'd by a judge as being illegal to possess. Will that be enough for them to get a judgment, W/O showing any evidence that the defendant (1) had the means to de-scramble and receive their signal -such as ownership of a satellite receiver- and (2) connected to their server as proven by ISP or server logs? We have no court case(s) to go by, so far.


And we don't know how much they really need, as offered in the paragraph above.

---

have you still not read the DA cases?
they lost because they subscribed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dishuser

really?
then why do you keep mentioning bins and stb's?

---

are you forgetting about ird's?lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibalector

no name calling and understand I respect alex if you have the need to thrust bs onto this as an Admin fly at it

---

It was a comment directed to everyone so if you wish to continue this with me it'll be a short conversation

Who said anything about 'buying codes'? Weren't they donating to a poor guy with family problems? Never received any 'codes'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hondoharry

Who said anything about 'buying codes'? Weren't they donating to a poor guy with family problems? Never received any 'codes'.

---

good luck with that
wanna bet they have the emails and pm's with codes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by torpainter

It was a comment directed to everyone so if you wish to continue this with me it'll be a short conversation

---

I'd much rather stick around and torment you for awhile if thats ok ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibalector

I'd much rather stick around and torment you for awhile if thats ok ?

---

Lol I have no issues personally with anyone as long as they behave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by torpainter

Lol I have no issues personally with anyone as long as they behave

---

LOL me neither i'm just watching quietly waiting for the sparks to fly!!!

popcorn anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

A bin is not required. There is nothing in law that talks about a bin or that it is needed. If your watching their encrypted programming without their authorization than your circumventing their encryption. I don't think a court cares all that much how you did it. The only purpose of subscribing to that server was to do that and that is where the problem is. What it more likely than not. Again as mention by several people the proof required in Civil is a low standard.




















The problem is these types of legal situations have been going on for a long time. Many now see things differently because of what has happened in court. So here we are again with people offering defenses like I didn't order it my sister did. They don't work. Go look back at threads like ones from DA with suggestions for defense. These are not lawyer thought up defenses and if any viable defense comes up it will be from a lawyer. I don't have to be a lawyer to say what I did. I hope there is some defense based on law but unlikely anyone is going to take it to trial to find out. Now if there are some technical problem like you were not served properly you can try that. That is a defense. If they don't have proper jurisdiction or you don't think so you can try that. These are based on law. Fifties mentions the court decision about purchase or possession not being interpretated as sufficient enough as a violation. That is based on law.




GS2

---

the part in bold is the dumbest thing I've heard you say in along time and you're a pretty smart fella, of course it's required GS2 you can't circumvent without it there has to be a bin present with a Nagra image on it, it's needed ....lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just_angel

LOL me neither i'm just watching quietly waiting for the sparks to fly!!!

popcorn anyone?

---

no flying sparks J_a, I'm not here to cause anyone any grief, seriously ...lol

I've attached a complaint and motion for default judgment from a DA case.

You will see that DN did not have to allege and prove ownership of satellite equipment to get their default judgment.

All that was needed was to prove subscription to an IKS service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

I would assume that they would show user IP's.


Their case would appear to hinge solely on the purchase of the subscription.

The counter could simply be, "yes I bought it with the intention to use it, but I never did, because I never bought a satellite receiver".

If they don't have the defendants ISP logs to show that he connected to the server, nor any proof that he bought a receiver, it then simply becomes their allegation that he used it.

A synonym for the term, "allege" is, "suppose", and generally assumes no proof.

Now whether or not that would be enough to convince a judge, or a jury (if the defendant wisely asks for one), is another matter.

If they can tie the defendant to a user nic on an "FTA" forum, discussing his hardware, asking questions about hooking it up, etc, then all bets are off. He's toast.

---

Its just not a subscription its a subscription to an illegal service. If the defendant says he bought it to use it but never did than I don't think that would be good because hes saying he bought it with the intent of using it.

Quote:

---

I think the term, "endeavor", would be key here. Is simply buying the code sufficient to satisfy that term fully, or would DN need to prove up an internet connection to the server, and/or proof that the defendant owned a satellite receiver, as well?


And I think we should charge the DN stooges who are peeping in on this powwow, lol. ;)

---

Its extremely unlikely anyone bought the subscription without having an internet connection or receiver. I wouldn't think that exists. If you come to court and say you didn't and you did you better make sure they can't find out.



GS2