E-mail & letter from satscams!!! WTF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rogitts

Guy lives in DR......Ain't no American legal pressure in DR....All done for the US dollar

---

I wonder if he still has his facebook page? Tinie, class act lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

I wonder if he still has his facebook page? Tinie, class act lol.

---

The guy you are referring to is not him....That guy never owned NFPS back in 2012

Think again

Oh yeah....And he does have a facebook page

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jvvh5897

There is a 3 year statute of limitations on this type of pirate activity so check the date closely--it could be past that limit if 2012.

1. File complaint w/ BBB.
2 Sue the company for invasion of privacy--this is to let you take out a restraint order against them and to put the ball in your court by filing first. Do step 1 first or you can't complain to BBB.
3. Report the letter to state attorney general as fraud. You have never done business with the provider.
4. Take the letter to local News--TV or otherwise--any you can get interested.
5. Do get an attorney. You can do the prev steps without, but you should have one on retainer.

---

The courts have consistently found that the statute of limitations is from the time the plaintiff becomes aware of the alleged violation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rogitts

The guy you are referring to is not him....That guy never owned NFPS back in 2012

Think again

Oh yeah....And he does have a facebook page

---

lol thanks, and not surprising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

lol thanks, and not surprising.

---

Looks like you know who the rat is now..
Most people who purchased codes back in 2012 im sure are going to be getting letters
All resellers had to buy from this guy using 95epay in 2012...He has all the fuxxing CC info
The only people who might get away are the ones who used prepay or gift card with fake names or addresses
That SOB should be shot
His facebook profile pic is smiling from ear to ear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rogitts

Looks like you know who the rat is now..
Most people who purchased codes back in 2012 im sure are going to be getting letters
All resellers had to buy from this guy using 95epay in 2012...He has all the fuxxing CC info
The only people who might get away are the ones who used prepay or gift card with fake names or addresses
That SOB should be shot
His facebook profile pic is smiling from ear to ear

---

Who you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1boxman

Who is to say .. they person didn't work for them .

---

And who are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rogitts

All the letters that I have seen have 2012 transactions...And 95epay was used then..... Was not used in 2015....So I believe the author edited the letter before he posted it here....They have been using Trustpay and PayEase for years now...So I believe the author changed the year of the transaction for some reason....95epay has not been used for years now

---

It was PayEase.
I just made a mistake in posting is all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

In the email posted by the author of this thread it says this.









Looks like it is more current than 2012 if I am reading that right ?



GS2

---

It was PayEase.

that had to be typed out by hand as you can see with the XXXXXX stuff I didnt want any address to be posted

however if you look at the person who got paid, you will see that matches


PURCHASE INTL AUTHORIZED ON XX/XX CHANG KUN XIAMEN CN SXXXXXXXXXX CARD XXXX $XX.XX

Thats the PayEase payee....

Thats the name that is shown in your debit card online activity.

Trust me... it was PayEase.

If you want I can post a picture from the bank card online activity.

Yes, the guy that own NFPS now is different than before infact the owner of all the IKS servers is one person now compared to the multi owners before; hence the reason why IKS is so easily targeted now and does go down for days not hours as before.

It has nothing to do with the merchant company for the merchant company never sees the donation numbers which used to be sent to you from NFPS in an email. Now it seems they have a different process where the transaction has an ID but is not the same as the donation number.

yes, the statue of limitations does not start until they find out about the even or should of know about it

If you remember years ago there was an incident with NFPS where some of the owners had codes and there was this big thing about not buying donations for they could be stolen this could be related. Yes someone that access to the NFPS emails could have sold the transactions to Charlie.

Now the big question is would the information be accepted in a court of law? Meaning the way they got the information is it legal?

The higher demand amount of $7500 could be due to the multiple donations these people bought or is it because Charlie feels they are guaranteed a nice return on their time and effort

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redemption

Yes, the guy that own NFPS now is different than before infact the owner of all the IKS servers is one person now compared to the multi owners before; hence the reason why IKS is so easily targeted now and does go down for days not hours as before.

It has nothing to do with the merchant company for the merchant company never sees the donation numbers which used to be sent to you from NFPS in an email. Now it seems they have a different process where the transaction has an ID but is not the same as the donation number.

yes, the statue of limitations does not start until they find out about the even or should of know about it

If you remember years ago there was an incident with NFPS where some of the owners had codes and there was this big thing about not buying donations for they could be stolen this could be related. Yes someone that access to the NFPS emails could have sold the transactions to Charlie.

Now the big question is would the information be accepted in a court of law? Meaning the way they got the information is it legal?

The higher demand amount of $7500 could be due to the multiple donations these people bought or is it because Charlie feels they are guaranteed a nice return on their time and effort

---

How did they get the information that would lead to a question the way they got it was maybe illegal ?

Quote:

---

NagraStar has obtained business records from an individual who sold IKS passcodes to the Nfusion Private Server (“NFPS”) and IKS Rocket pirate television services

---

GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dslchome

It was PayEase.

that had to be typed out by hand as you can see with the XXXXXX stuff I didnt want any address to be posted

however if you look at the person who got paid, you will see that matches


PURCHASE INTL AUTHORIZED ON XX/XX CHANG KUN XIAMEN CN SXXXXXXXXXX CARD XXXX $XX.XX

Thats the PayEase payee....

Thats the name that is shown in your debit card online activity.

Trust me... it was PayEase.

If you want I can post a picture from the bank card online activity.

---

I am a bit confused. Do they than have transactions records from both 95epay & Payease ? And are they from 2012 or 2015 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dslchome

They have my current 95epay transactions!!! WTF?”

---

GS2

Interesting thread..... Is this issue pertaining to 1 person? or is it wide spread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChillyWilly

Interesting thread..... Is this issue pertaining to 1 person? or is it wide spread?

---

I see you have not recovered well from last nights party!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChillyWilly

Interesting thread..... Is this issue pertaining to 1 person? or is it wide spread?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benney

I see you have not recovered well from last nights party!

---

So obviously my ? wasn't clear...... is the pay-ease 2015 case a single case, or are there more cases? And this is NOT in regard to any old wuffman, nokia and other paypal reseller cases

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dslchome

“Hey people. I just got a letter and email from NagraStar via Satscams. But this has me really worried. They have my current 95epay transactions!!! WTF?”

This is crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The letter came then the email came later.... Never seen anything like this.
I dunno whom to trust now.
any info would be nice.


How did they get email???? How did they get all this?

They even had proof in the letter and email.

PURCHASE INTL AUTHORIZED ON XX/XX CHANG KUN XIAMEN CN SXXXXXXXXXX CARD XXXX $XX.XX







August XXth, 2015

VIA CMRRR and EMAIL

XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX

Email: XXXXXXXXXX

ID#: EU XXXXXXXXXX



Re: DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v XXXXXXXXXX, U.S. District Court, Case No. TBD



Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXX



This correspondence is sent on behalf DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., and NagraStar LLC (collectively “NagraStar”) to individuals who receive DISH Network pay-television programming without authorization. The illegal reception of DISH Network pay-television programming occurs through the use of signal theft devices and pirate Internet Key Sharing (“IKS”) servers accessible via the internet.



NagraStar has obtained business records from an individual who sold IKS passcodes to the Nfusion Private Server (“NFPS”) and IKS Rocket pirate television services. These business records establish that you purchased multiple IKS passcodes, which provided you with unauthorized access to DISH Network television programming and decryption codes needed to descramble that programming without payment of a subscription fee to DISH Network. Enclosed for your reference is a small portion of the evidence that has been gathered, including the third party payment transaction information for your NFPS purchase and some of the IKS passcodes you received.

PayEase Order #


XXXXXXXXXX

Merchant Order #


XXXXXXXXXX

Transaction Date


2015

Transaction Status


Successful

Amount


XXXXXXXXXX

IKS Donation Codes


XXXXXXXXXX

The circumvention of NagraStar’s security system and unauthorized interception of DISH Network’s programming violated several federal statutes including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(a), 2520. Statutory damages provided under these laws extend to $110,000 for each violation and provide for additional recovery of attorney’s fees and costs Furthermore, the number of codes purchased indicate your involvement in the sale and distribution of IKS passcodes to third-parties. The provision of IKS passcodes to others in order to facilitate the illicit acquisition of DISH Network programming violates a variety of federal statutes including 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) and 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4). Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37, you must preserve all documents, electronically stored information including emails, and equipment concerning this matter.



NagraStar is making an effort to resolve its legal claims against individuals who illegally obtained access to its pay-television programming via the NFPS and IKS Rocket pirate television services. NagraStar is prepared to release its claims against you arising from your unlawful accessing of DISH Network programming through the NFPS or IKS Rocket service in return for your agreement to: (1) pay the sum of $7,500 to NagraStar for your past wrongful conduct; and (2) enter into a formal settlement agreement that includes an agreed permanent injunction.



To accept this offer, you must contact NagraStar at 1-844-728-7226,

HTML Code:

---

[email protected]

---

, or the following address within 14 days of the date of this letter:



NagraStar LLC

Attn: Bert Eichhorn

90 Inverness Circle East

Englewood, CO, 80112



If you fail to contact NagraStar LLC within 14 days from receipt of this letter, your file will be sent to outside legal counsel for further action. We look forward to your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,



NAGRASTAR LLC





See 47 U.S.C. §§ 605(e)(3)(C)(i)-(ii) and 605(e)(3)(B)(iii); 17 U.S.C. §§ 1203(c)(2), 1203(c)(3)(A), 1203(b)(4)-(5); 18 U.S.C. §§ 2520(c)(2) and 2520(b)(3); see also DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Khachik Bagdasaryan, Case No. CV09-03351RMB (C.D. Cal. 2010), Dkt. No. 62 (Order granting summary judgment and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $151,767,600 related to piracy software that facilitated the theft of DISH Network programming); DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Jeffrey Hardison, Case No. 4:11-CV-178-D, Dkt. No. 26 (E.D.N.C. 2012) (Order granting summary judgment against a user of the Dark Angel pirate television service and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $10,000 plus DISH Network’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $17,608.50 and costs in the amount of $2,706.78); DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Elvis Perry, Case No. 3:11-CV-0427-M (N.D. Tex. 2011), Dkt. No. 19 (Order granting summary judgment against a user of the Dark Angel pirate television service and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $10,000 plus DISH Network’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,471 and costs in the amount of $2,118.24); DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Bill Williamson, Case No. 3:13-cv-50-TAV-CCS (E.D. Tenn. 2013), Dkt. No. 14 (Order granting summary judgment against a user of the IKS Rocket pirate television service and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $10,000 plus DISH Network’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,312.50 and costs in the amount of $815.00); and DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Clayton Hoggard, Case No. 1:14-cv-331-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. 2014), Dkt. Nos. 10-11 (Orders granting default judgment against a user of the NFPS and IKS Rocket pirate television services and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $10,000).


See DISH Network L.L.C., et al. v. Troy McIntyre, Case No. 8:13-cv-02327-MSS-MAP (M.D. Fla. 2014), Dkt. No. 31 (Order granting judgment against a user and reseller of passcodes to the NFPS pirate television service and entering statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of $20,000 plus DISH Network’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $16,268 and costs in the amount of $1,402); DISH Network L.L.C., et al. v. Joshua Lamaack, Case No. 0:12-cv-02416-DWF-FLN (D. Minn. 2013), Dkt. 51 (Order granting default judgment against Defendant in the amount of $350,000 for distributing or otherwise trafficking in IKS server passcodes primarily designed and used for stealing DISH Network’s programming.

---

Regardless of how old this post is, the fact of the matter remains that ANYONE that purchases a code, either directly from the NFPS website or via a reseller, IS INNOCENT UNTIL DISH OR NAGRASTAR CAN PROVE THAT YOU USED THAT CODE.

Anyone can buy a code and NOT use it. What if you bought one and gave it away as a gift? Are you guilty of circumnavigating the security of DISH? Not at all.

They have to PROVE that you actually used this code to watch "illegally obtained signal". That, frankly, is impossible to do.

wd

Hey WillyDilly,

I totally agree with you,
But the constitution is broke.

You are guilty before proven so in the USA.
I'm trying to fight a red light camera ticket..
Yes Judge, that my car, but am I driving it???
Prove to the court that it WAS me behind the wheel... they can't do that, but fine me anyway..
Who is running that court of Law, the red light camera people...that donated $$$ to the judges and congressmen.
GOOD LUCK TUBBS!

But its the principle of the thing..
thats why I am fighting it..


the USA is going to hell...SO...
Don't be a chump, you vote for TRUMP!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willydilly

Regardless of how old this post is, the fact of the matter remains that ANYONE that purchases a code, either directly from the NFPS website or via a reseller, IS INNOCENT UNTIL DISH OR NAGRASTAR CAN PROVE THAT YOU USED THAT CODE.

Anyone can buy a code and NOT use it. What if you bought one and gave it away as a gift? Are you guilty of circumnavigating the security of DISH? Not at all.

They have to PROVE that you actually used this code to watch "illegally obtained signal". That, frankly, is impossible to do.

wd

---

Because its a Civil matter it comes down to what is more likely with the evidence. I don't see that the plaintiff has to necessarily prove you used the code in this Civil action. The circumstantial evidence might be enough to weigh in favor of the plaintiff as the plaintiff needs only to be slightly more convincing.



GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willydilly

Regardless of how old this post is, the fact of the matter remains that ANYONE that purchases a code, either directly from the NFPS website or via a reseller, IS INNOCENT UNTIL DISH OR NAGRASTAR CAN PROVE THAT YOU USED THAT CODE.

Anyone can buy a code and NOT use it. What if you bought one and gave it away as a gift? Are you guilty of circumnavigating the security of DISH? Not at all.

They have to PROVE that you actually used this code to watch "illegally obtained signal". That, frankly, is impossible to do.

wd

---

Most of us here probabably aren't lawyers and are only guessing if it is legal or illegal.
In Canada I think most of the claims are filed through the Superior Court of Justince (Commercial List) because ordinary courts and judges don't fully understand these types of cases.

Back in the old days when everyone was buying illegal programmers - I think DirecTV and/or Dishnet used to sue people just for purchasing, selling, operating or possessing and device, or components thereof, without lawful excuse which are or were intended to be used for ...... illegal TV reception.

So they weren't necessarily suing you for "using" it to obtaining illegal TV - they were suing you for merely purchasing these devices or for owning one of these devices.
I don't know how successful they were in these proceedings - but proably a lot of people settled out of Court to avoid the hefty legal fees of defending a claim through the Superior Court of Justice.

Perhaps they are suing for just purchasing a code???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rogitts

All the letters that I have seen have 2012 transactions...And 95epay was used then..... Was not used in 2015....So I believe the author edited the letter before he posted it here....They have been using Trustpay and PayEase for years now...So I believe the author changed the year of the transaction for some reason....95epay has not been used for years now

---

I think the author is working for dish? and using scare tactics.... He was on the zeta site posting pics of people getting their cars and motorcycle taken to settle a dish judgment.... supposedly.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

I wonder if he still has his facebook page? Tinie, class act lol.

---

Didn't he steal from nfps? got fired? has a grudge? maybe the records he turned over are the accounts he stole from???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willydilly

Regardless of how old this post is, the fact of the matter remains that ANYONE that purchases a code, either directly from the NFPS website or via a reseller, IS INNOCENT UNTIL DISH OR NAGRASTAR CAN PROVE THAT YOU USED THAT CODE.

Anyone can buy a code and NOT use it. What if you bought one and gave it away as a gift? Are you guilty of circumnavigating the security of DISH? Not at all.

They have to PROVE that you actually used this code to watch "illegally obtained signal". That, frankly, is impossible to do.

wd

---

actually you would still be guilty because you know what the code is for and if you gave it away then you are helping somebody else steal tv... same thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rogitts

Let me put all this to rest...Dish never contacted 95Epay....It was the guy who owned NFPS way back in 2012....He is no longer affiliated with NFPS......They gave him money and he ratted out a ton of people....If you notice all the letters that people are getting now are people who purchased from 95epay ack in 2012....That was the gateway that he used...And he saw all the CC transactions....Thats how they know what codes you purchased at that time.. ur address and name...Because he had all that info...95epay does not have that info....They are also sending some of the codes you purchased included in the letter....

---

Really, I am of the belief that no names or addys are included in these transactions... only the CC number
However it may be possible for dish to get your info from the card issuer.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

actually you would still be guilty because you know what the code is for and if you gave it away then you are helping somebody else steal tv... same thing

---

WRONG. Let's say Billy Bob wanted to borrow your CC for a purchase because he doesn't have one. You let him purchase online the code, then he promptly gives you the cash for the purchase. Dish chases you but you never had the code, even to give it away. Onus is still on Dish to prove that YOU used the code, which you didn't. Simply buying something doesn't constitute guilt.

The ONLY way they could prove use of illegal codes would be to see the STB in operation, receiving signal at your residence. Even posting in open forums that you are watching such and such doesn't mean that you are watching at your place. Once again, prove it first, then charge them. If what you say is true, then it would be a case of bring the GUILTY party in, we'll give them a fair trial.

wd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willydilly

WRONG. Let's say Billy Bob wanted to borrow your CC for a purchase because he doesn't have one. You let him purchase online the code, then he promptly gives you the cash for the purchase. Dish chases you but you never had the code, even to give it away. Onus is still on Dish to prove that YOU used the code, which you didn't. Simply buying something doesn't constitute guilt.

The ONLY way they could prove use of illegal codes would be to see the STB in operation, receiving signal at your residence. Even posting in open forums that you are watching such and such doesn't mean that you are watching at your place. Once again, prove it first, then charge them. If what you say is true, then it would be a case of bring the GUILTY party in, we'll give them a fair trial.

wd

---

Again your forgetting what is required to be successful in Civil court. The requirement is not that high. There is strong circumstantial evidence as it is without having to prove you actually used the code.

Quote:

---

Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way).

---

What you are suggesting is that the plaintiffs have to actually film you using the code or something like that.


That simply is not the case in a Civil action. If the Court concludes with the evidence that it is more likely than not something occurred than that is enough. Courts know that people come up with stories like I bought it for a gift and they simply can choose not to believe you.


Just think if you are correct than why is there not one case where an end user won. I wish you were correct because than everyone who defended the action would win but I think you are missing the fact that the proof is the preponderance of the evidence meaning what is more likely than not.



GS2

also if you read the fine print on your credit card you are not supposed to loan it out and if you do you are liable. Now you can grasp at straws all day and maybe in a criminal court with a $5000 an hour lawyer you might get away with it. In civil court you are going to be hung out to dry and twisting in the breeze.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

also if you read the fine print on your credit card you are not supposed to loan it out and if you do you are liable. Now you can grasp at straws all day and maybe in a criminal court with a $5000 an hour lawyer you might get away with it. In civil court you are going to be hung out to dry and twisting in the breeze.

---

Let 'em come at me.................don't care. North of the border...........didn't pay for any code.............still enjoying TV.

wd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willydilly

Let 'em come at me.................don't care. North of the border...........didn't pay for any code.............still enjoying TV.

wd

---

Be careful what you wish for. Does not matter if you paid or not, you are still pirating the signal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willydilly

Let 'em come at me.................don't care. North of the border...........didn't pay for any code.............still enjoying TV.

wd

---

still enjoying tv you LEGALLY paid for? lol.......I wouldn't be so smug....really.

I think somebody needs to read up on how the Cdn law is written. In Canada, it is not what you are watching but how you are watching it that determines signal theft. Any time you decrypt a signal without proper authorization you are in violation of CRTC regulations. In fact, you don't have to really be doing anything at all but if you have the capabilities to do so then you are considered in vilation under the law. That means if they can link your IP to a server streaming keys or a payment to a seller then they could nail you criminally. Fortunately for you, police have more important things to do than worry about what you are watching on tv but at the same time if someone was to file a complaint they are obligated to investigate.

So really the only thing saving you at the moment is the fact you are low priority criminal activity as far as the police are concerned and DN can not file a suit against you for lost revenue due to stolen programming. At the same time, there is nothing preventing BEV from filing a suit even if you didn't have a dish pointed in their direction because under the current Cdn law you would have the capabilities to do so and that is all the judge could base his decision in the case of a Cdn civil suit.

Now i don't write those laws but I have read enough of it to know how it works and yes it is convoluted but at the same time you have to take into consideration of who wrote that law.

Actually you would be in violation of the Canadian Radio Communication Act that says the following.

Quote:

---

9 (1) No person shall

(c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;

10 (1) Every person who
(b) without lawful excuse, manufactures, imports, distributes, leases, offers for sale, sells, installs, modifies, operates or possesses any equipment or device, or any component thereof, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the equipment, device or component has been used, or is or was intended to be used, for the purpose of contravening section 9,

---

You can be in possession of equipment, device, or any component thereof under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that is intended to be used. You don't have to be using it, intended to be used is a violation.


And your right law enforcement does not have the resources to go after end users but if they catch you while investigating you for something else they can charge you.


In Civil the typical fines handed out is very small so likely that won't happen either but you can never rule it out completely just say its very unlikely..



GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Actually you would be in violation of the Canadian Radio Communication Act that says the following.





You can be in possession of equipment, device, or any component thereof under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that is intended to be used. You don't have to be using it, intended to be used is a violation.


And your right law enforcement does not have the resources to go after end users but if they catch you while investigating you for something else they can charge you.


In Civil the typical fines handed out is very small so likely that won't happen either but you can never rule it out completely just say its very unlikely..



GS2

---

I believe somewhere in those pages it also says fines up to $5000.00 max. That's for a criminal charge.
Civil suits are another thing altogether.

DN is sending out emails and demanding cash. It is real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arms

DN is sending out emails and demanding cash. It is real.

---

Why don't you read this thread and then say something?

If it an e-mail how can they prove you received it. Only way this works is if you get a certified letter in the mail and even then if you don't sign for it they can't prove a thing, so I've been told...no worries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jazzman

If it an e-mail how can they prove you received it. Only way this works is if you get a certified letter in the mail and even then if you don't sign for it they can't prove a thing, so I've been told...no worries.

---

outlook my friend ;x

eg: below

Code:

---

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Secure-email-messages-by-using-a-digital-signature-65dd1ea9-7741-4afd-b44d-9243ce107c50

---

:innocent:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jazzman

If it an e-mail how can they prove you received it. Only way this works is if you get a certified letter in the mail and even then if you don't sign for it they can't prove a thing, so I've been told...no worries.

---

It may not matter if you signed for a certified/registered letter or not - or even if you did not accept it.
In most cases the Courts mandate that you serve the notice at the last known address of the defendant - so even if you do not accept the letter the plaintiff can show the court that they tried to deliver it to the last known registered address and the Court could consider it delivered and the Plaintiff could move for default judgment if you do not file to defend against the action.
If they can not serve the defendant personally or by registered/certified mail the Courts could allow other means of service such as posting the claim in a local paper or a national paper - so if they are trying to serve you do NOT think you are safe because you did not accept their papers - they could end up getting default judgment agains you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

I think somebody needs to read up on how the Cdn law is written. In Canada, it is not what you are watching but how you are watching it that determines signal theft. Any time you decrypt a signal without proper authorization you are in violation of CRTC regulations. In fact, you don't have to really be doing anything at all but if you have the capabilities to do so then you are considered in vilation under the law. That means if they can link your IP to a server streaming keys or a payment to a seller then they could nail you criminally. Fortunately for you, police have more important things to do than worry about what you are watching on tv but at the same time if someone was to file a complaint they are obligated to investigate.

So really the only thing saving you at the moment is the fact you are low priority criminal activity as far as the police are concerned and DN can not file a suit against you for lost revenue due to stolen programming. At the same time, there is nothing preventing BEV from filing a suit even if you didn't have a dish pointed in their direction because under the current Cdn law you would have the capabilities to do so and that is all the judge could base his decision in the case of a Cdn civil suit.

Now i don't write those laws but I have read enough of it to know how it works and yes it is convoluted but at the same time you have to take into consideration of who wrote that law.

---

Interesting. So, if I have a computer, I don't have to download anything that is copyrighted material, the fact that I have a computer means that I can do so, and so I am guilty of a crime.

I guess so, LOL if your computer falls under the CRTC act, which it doesn't other than the fact it might generate harmonics that interfere with other transmissions.

If you are downloading software or other copyright material then that would fall under the copyright act and not CRTC regulations regarding satellite reception and encryption.

or if you are downloading encrypted material and then unencrypting it without proper authorization it might.

you are as bad as my ex-wife reading too much into things LOL!

in Canada as far as satellite reception goes it is the act of decryption that is in violation of the law and not the reception itself

In Canada the criminal conviction of illegal regarding satellite reception and encryption carries a fine up to $5000.
DN, BV and Nagra team up when up here.

Not sure if they have ever gone after end users but the have gone after resellers and services.

In a civil suit anything over $50,000 has to be treated almost like a criminal case with evidence etc. but under $50,000. if it even looks like you might have and have the means to do it you just might lose out.

I know this was fact a year or so ago. Totals might have changed since then but I don't think so.