Letter now Court case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anubis

More than one.


Not sure what you consider a few more but having 5 different individual cases in less than 4 days tells me there's a lot more coming down the pipe.
These are dates from 2011. Wuffman sold up until when? oh ya, mid 2012. You do the math. I think you are going to see more than a "few" on this one. JMO

---

i hear ya,,,a few, in relative terms,,,if you think about how many thousands
connect to iks?? one would think there should be hundreds of these claims going to court

to me a dozen to even 50 is still a few,,,it will be interesting,,,its all a numbers game at this point
the more they file the better chances at a home run,,,some forget,,,even if found guilty
one can still appeal,,,on and on it goes,,,like i says, IF PP had anything to do with this??

you would see a whole lot more heads (resellers) roll,,,i would like to hope one of these cases
goes all the way and see what evidence they had/have and see if in fact PP records on wuff
was subpoenaed,,,THAT would set the record straight once and for all,,,anyways, its NOT a game
changer by any means,,there will always be endusers connecting to iks until they crash all those servers
for good or those servers run out of seeds,,,imho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftaalltheway

even if found guilty
one can still appeal

---

When you appeal a civil judgment you have to deposit the entire amount of the judgment against you with the court while the appeal is pending.

So if the trial court determines that you owe DN $10,000 in damages you have to give the court that money before you can even file an appeal.

Then when you lose the appeal, you will also have to pay DN's attorney fees for fighting your appeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarvinGardens

When you appeal a civil judgment you have to deposit the entire amount of the judgment against you with the court while the appeal is pending.

So if the trial court determines that you owe DN $10,000 in damages you have to give the court that money before you can even file an appeal.

Then when you lose the appeal, you will also have to pay DN's attorney fees for fighting your appeal.

---

10,000??? u really and truly beleive these will be the numbers?? highly doubt that,,,

appeal is still good option BUT only for those who can afford to,,, so i get that,,,

isnt anyone in this game rich and only in it (hobby) for funzies?? LOL

side note; earlier today,notice how at NFPS home site they closed the thread started on this
subject?? curious, no? they think just b/c wuffman didnt log in over there,,,still is hypocritical

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftaalltheway

10,000??? u really and truly beleive these will be the numbers?? highly doubt that,,,

---

The court has consistently awarded DN $10,000 in each of the DA default cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarvinGardens

When you appeal a civil judgment you have to deposit the entire amount of the judgment against you with the court while the appeal is pending.

So if the trial court determines that you owe DN $10,000 in damages you have to give the court that money before you can even file an appeal.

Then when you lose the appeal, you will also have to pay DN's attorney fees for fighting your appeal.

---

Sonicview is apealing, and they did not have this requirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftaalltheway

10,000??? u really and truly beleive these will be the numbers?? highly doubt that,,,

appeal is still good option BUT only for those who can afford to,,, so i get that,,,

isnt anyone in this game rich and only in it (hobby) for funzies?? LOL

side note; earlier today,notice how at NFPS home site they closed the thread started on this
subject?? curious, no? they think just b/c wuffman didnt log in over there,,,still is hypocritical

---

Lmao 10k is the established number for endusers. Dont ever think all cases end up on Satscams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarvinGardens

The court has consistently awarded DN $10,000 in each of the DA default cases.

---

cept we all know DA is much diffrent from this type claim..plus
to think DN would actually believe (if they win) they would get a customer out of
these end users if they make them go broke??knowing how piss poor
most endusers are in this hobby?? if its to scare you away from the hobby??
well, good luck with THAT,,,
the ONLY judgement that would make sense???
is make an enduser PROMISE to never be involved with IKS and then make
them sign for a 3yr agreement with a sub to their premium line-up

THAT is IF a judge has a brain in their head...dn makes me laugh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

Sonicview is apealing, and they did not have this requirement.



Lmao 10k is the established number for endusers. Dont ever think all cases end up on Satscams.

---

Blasphemer!!!!!!! you cast doubt on the all knowing ones LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

Sonicview is apealing, and they did not have this requirement.

---

Most district courts require posting of a bond in order to stay the judgment, ultimately it is up to the discretion of the court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarvinGardens

The court has consistently awarded DN $10,000 in each of the DA default cases.

---

the DA case is not the same thing as we have here, in the DA case they had the server logs, them people were screwed from the start and should have just paid the money, but in this case they dont have the server logs, but only time will tell all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iq180

the DA case is not the same thing as we have here, in the DA case they had the server logs, them people were screwed from the start and should have just paid the money, but in this case they dont have the server logs, but only time will tell all.

---

Legally, judgement wise, it is the same thing. The evidence may be different.

A good, spirited discussion.

Yes, a bond is the usual way to satisfy a judgment on appeal, just as it is to satisfy a bail. After all, how many average ppl have 10 grand they can fork over, just like that?

DN is following Dave's playbook, to a degree. Dave had dealers busted and obtained their sales records, in order to locate purchasers of equipment that could have been used to hack their cards (card programmers, unloopers, boot boards, etc.).

Then they did their best to convince the bench that the use of these items was strictly limited to piracy (because they were bought from a "pirate" dealer), and on that basis the purchaser MUST have used it to hack into their service illegally, and they were therefore entitled to damages (a judgment).

Of course, the fact that it was SPECULATION on their part (that the equipment was used to hack their signal) could only be illuminated if one paid an attorney to meet them in court. Often times, "pirate" dealers -those advertising on satellite hacking forums (remember, "Pirates Den"?) had lower prices on items that were perfectly innocent, such as card programmers, and drew customers completely outside the satellite hacking community, who were also served by Dave.

I agree bro, gr8 discusion. Dish has failed before going after the enduser. It reminded me of this case. It will be interesting to see exactly what they have.

Attachment 17471
Attachment 17472

DN is going to win in court or out of court for all the cases because they have more money period. They can drag out the court because they can pay the bills and it will never be feasible to defend a civil case against a giant. If this was a criminal matter then you would fight for your life, but on a civil case your fight is never worth the cost or stress. Unless you have plenty of money, you should think twice before going to a fight for purely sake of principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

I agree bro, gr8 discusion. Dish has failed before going after the enduser. It reminded me of this case. It will be interesting to see exactly what they have.

Attachment 17471
Attachment 17472

---

Thx for the linx; DN sued the defendant because (1) there were sales records indicating that he had purchased a satellite receiver that MAY have been modified to receive their programming, and (2) he had then dropped his sub with them.

"Individuals who purchased modified FTA receivers WOULD have the ability to utilize the modified FTA receivers to decrypt DISH network's signals without authorization." It was speculation, just like owning a rifle WOULD give one the ability to commit murder.

Unfortunately, the poor defendant got stuck with his own attorney's fees, which prolly equaled or exceeded whatever preliminary letter DN may have sent him in the beginning. That's the part I find unfair; they caused him financial (not to mention emotional) damage with their fishing expedition, and he apparently had no recourse with them.

I think I'd sue the bastards in small claims court, where attorneys aren't allowed, lol. Emotional strife to the tune of whatever the legal fee happened to amount to (within the small claims limit, of course).

So the case is basically on buying his code and your pm too him.. He probability had Receive Email Notification of new Private Messages setting on so copy all pm is in his email box. So if he clear his pm on the site it will still be in his email.

Are any Canadians feeling the pinch from this case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnysat

Are any Canadians feeling the pinch from this case?

---

no
and none have in the past except dealers

They may not have server logs from the server end but they can always get them from your ISP. We'll have to see if they go that far in evidence gathering once the cases are adjudicated and promoted on Satscums.

not the only place that censorship is practiced---(they only want you to hear one side of the story) ==i=remember all===========i truly hope ,some one fights the allegations----lets see some facts---least we forget----the very first guy -that-came forward--and how he was treated!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bandit

not the only place that censorship is practiced---(they only want you to hear one side of the story) ==i=remember all===========i truly hope ,some one fights the allegations----lets see some facts---least we forget----the very first guy -that-came forward--and how he was treated!

---

keep your whining at pros
they don't care about truth...lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bandit

not the only place that censorship is practiced---(they only want you to hear one side of the story) ==i=remember all===========i truly hope ,some one fights the allegations----lets see some facts---least we forget----the very first guy -that-came forward--and how he was treated!

---

Do the damn words - dry up - mean anything to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abouttosnap

Do the damn words - dry up - mean anything to you?

---

I think JCO's buddy is a bitter buddy.lol

l read all post..they can do nothing against server oversea? right? bad timing for me..........my donation had expire

yesterday........i will have a hard time to buy one.....grrrrrrrrrr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by franky932

l read all post..they can do nothing against server oversea? right?

---

Wrong.

It depends on the country of residence of the server's owner. If he lives here in the US, he is subject to our laws.

very interesting that just before/as these cases are filed the code database was supposedly stolen by employee? former employee? (former employee under threat of indictment?possibly) necessitating new 12 digit codes & no more WU ......... coincidences ..........

Even a paranoid can have enemies.
Henry A. Kissinger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abouttosnap

Do the damn words - dry up - mean anything to you?

---

-------------nope-==========-sounds like an order=i dont do well with those lol
and to rotten --i learned most every thing i know from you--****ty having only one site to hang out at being banned at most of em hey bro--o well--fook em!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bandit

-------------nope-==========-sounds like an order=i dont do well with those lol
and to rotten --i learned most every thing i know from you--****ty having only one site to hang out at being banned at most of em hey bro--o well--fook em!

---

Still hang at plenty of sites...funny thing is not one person at pros knows about most of them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dishuser

Still hang at plenty of sites...funny thing is not one person at pros knows about most of them

---

He wont be able to reply, I didnt like his response to abouttosnap, so Bandit is on a long vacation..
Cant wait to see his whinning at his usual hangout..ROFLMAO

question about those donation code? those code that they get are all been expire can it be presented in the court while that donation code is not working anymore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alvirgieca

question about those donation code? those code that they get are all been expire can it be presented in the court while that donation code is not working anymore?

---

In civil cases, there is usually a 3 years statute of limitation. Criminal can be more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fputs

In civil cases, there is usually a 3 years statute of limitation. Criminal can be more.

---

The statute of limitation clock begins to run when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that they were wronged by your actions.

In other words, DN has up to three years to file a lawsuit against you from the time when they first discovered that you violated their copyright.

The statute of limitations has no relationship with whether you have an active IKS subscription.

It is never wise to get your legal advise from forums. Statute of Limitations usually starts with last activity. If you were violating DMCA laws, and are still doing it, then statute hasn't started yet. Also 3 years is not always the case, as it varies from state to state. Civil statute in my state is 6 years, and is the same for misdemeanors here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ypmug

It is never wise to get your legal advise from forums. Statute of Limitations usually starts with last activity. If you were violating DMCA laws, and are still doing it, then statute hasn't started yet. Also 3 years is not always the case, as it varies from state to state. Civil statute in my state is 6 years, and is the same for misdemeanors here.

---

The DMCA is Federal law and your reference to state law is meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarvinGardens

The statute of limitation clock begins to run when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that they were wronged by your actions.

In other words, DN has up to three years to file a lawsuit against you from the time when they first discovered that you violated their copyright.

The statute of limitations has no relationship with whether you have an active IKS subscription.

---

I agree with YPMUG that the statute of limitation runs from the last date of the defendant's violation and not from the date of discovery. The duration on the statute of limitation would depend upon the rule of the governing court that the litigation is brought fourth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarvinGardens

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ypmug
It is never wise to get your legal advise from forums. Statute of Limitations usually starts with last activity. If you were violating DMCA laws, and are still doing it, then statute hasn't started yet. Also 3 years is not always the case, as it varies from state to state. Civil statute in my state is 6 years, and is the same for misdemeanors here.

---

The DMCA is Federal law and your reference to state law is meaningless.

---

Yes, the DMCA is a federal law, but would be relevant only if a criminal charge were lodged against the defendant, by the government (the only ones that can do it). Then that statute would come into play.

DN can only sue in civil court, the venue for private citizens and corporations. That being the case, state law regarding the statute of limitations would hold sway.

BTW, getting a preliminary feel for what to do from forum members is not a bad thing, but one then needs to get the real readout from a GOOD attorney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

Yes, the DMCA is a federal law, but would be relevant only if a criminal charge were lodged against the defendant, by the government (the only ones that can do it). Then that statute would come into play.

DN can only sue in civil court, the venue for private citizens and corporations. That being the case, state law regarding the statute of limitations would hold sway.

BTW, getting a preliminary feel for what to do from forum members is not a bad thing, but one then needs to get the real readout from a GOOD attorney.

---

You are very very wrong. See Federal statute 17 USC section 507.

Federal copyright law states a three year statute of limitations on civil actions.

Federal law is the supreme law of the land and always trumps state law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fputs

I agree with YPMUG that the statute of limitation runs from the last date of the defendant's violation and not from the date of discovery. The duration on the statute of limitation would depend upon the rule of the governing court that the litigation is brought fourth.

---

The statute of limitations is "tolled" for the period when the copyright holder (DN) did not have knowledge of the infringement or could not have had knowledge of the infringement through reasonable means. The three year clock starts when the copyright holder gains knowledge of the infringement.

So in the case of IKS infringement, the statute of limitations clock started when DN was able to identify the person committing infringement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarvinGardens

You are very very wrong. See Federal statute 17 USC section 507.

Federal copyright law states a three year statute of limitations on civil actions.

Federal law is the supreme law of the land and always trumps state law.

---

You are wrong. By law, DMCA violations have a 5 year statute of limitations.

Quote:

---

§507(a). The five-year limitations period was first established by the NET Act, Pub. L. No. 105-147 §2(c), 111 Stat. 2678 (1997).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ypmug

You are wrong. By law, DMCA violations have a 5 year statute of limitations.

---

It is THREE years for civil actions, read subsection (b) below:


§ 507. Limitations on actions

(a) Criminal Proceedings. — Except as expressly provided otherwise in this title, no criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose.

(b) Civil Actions. — No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.