Letter now Court case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iq180

i would like to see one go to court just to see what info they do have other than PP.

---

You just might get your wish.

Attachment 17711

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

You just might get your wish.

Attachment 17711

---

There we go!!!!!!... About time....... http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28.../big-balls.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

You just might get your wish.

Attachment 17711

---

Well good for Kailas. Hope he comes out of this unscathed. I see he's asking for his costs back. Everyone here says you can't do that.

c/p
Defendant prays that the Plaintiff take nothing and the Defendant have judgment against the Plaintiff and recover the costs of suit herein, and such other relief the court may deem proper.

It will be interesting to see if others will follow with their own filings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bkr™

It will be interesting to see if others will follow with their own filings.

---

You can most like count on that if he wins.

I noticed that he is going to make DN prove that he has a satellite receiver, and that he connected to the server (just as I had suggested as a defense).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

You can most like count on that if he wins.

I noticed that he is going to make DN prove that he has a satellite receiver, and that he connected to the server (just as I had suggested as a defense).

---

Was going to say Think he was reading? Lol

Looks like the 'yeah, that's me, I bought it but never used it' defense. Let's hope he kept his mouth shut in forums, PM's and emails. Something tells me he just lent his PayPal acct. for a friend who didn't have one and they picked him because he's a Texas homeboy.

Go Kailas!

Nice find, Alex.

if i remember correctly..
Kailas case was one of the 1st several posted and someone(turd other site) posted a street view of his home(300k ish value?).
IMO it appears he has money and or good credit and can afford to challenge dn instead of roll over.
now if i'm wrong about the person or picture connection this post was just wasted bandwidth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

You can most like count on that if he wins.

I noticed that he is going to make DN prove that he has a satellite receiver, and that he connected to the server (just as I had suggested as a defense).

---

He denies anything is what I read. That's his defense. That is pretty standard when you file a defense answer. That doesn't mean they are going to have to prove he had a sat receiver and connected to the server. He'll have to explain why he bought codes that only have one purpose but to access plaintiff's signals without legal authorization when deposed especially if he says he never owned a sat system. Why buy them than. The plaintiff might have server logs. They might have posts or private messages if they connected his name to an nick. They could go to his house and see if there is a dish pointing to their signals. They could go to his neighbor and and ask if he ever had a dish on his roof. If they find anything that would hurt his defense. Remember in civil if its more likely than not then you could lose. His defense can possibly work if its true and there is nothing incriminating that is found and if he doesn't make a mistake while being deposed, also explaning why he bought a subscription to an illegal service that makes sense. People just don't look to buy a subscription like that if they never own a sat receiver. What brought him to even go there. He doesn't deny the purchase. While these things might or might be proved what I am saying is that it might not be necessary as other factors could or could not come into play.


If anyone wins it will be quite some time from now. Unless they send out letters or file lawsuits over a year from now and longer defendants might not be in a position to wait.



GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

If anyone wins it will be quite some time from now.
GS2

---

At this point the only one who is a sure winner is the defendant's attorney.

Yep the attorneys always get paid.

One other point, has it been shown that prov is acting for the owners of the copyrights? If not then they can only file for damages that they incurred on stuff that they do have copyrights on--a tiny fraction of the total content, and the damages claimed for copyright violations are the bulk of the $3500 from what I can tell. And can it be shown that prov has ever payed copyright holders anything and how did they partition the recovered amounts--they could be in violation of copyright laws themselves though users can't do anything about that it could be something to use in court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

He denies anything is what I read. That's his defense. That is pretty standard when you file a defense answer. That doesn't mean they are going to have to prove he had a sat receiver and connected to the server. He'll have to explain why he bought codes that only have one purpose but to access plaintiff's signals without legal authorization when deposed especially if he says he never owned a sat system. Why buy them than. The plaintiff might have server logs. They might have posts or private messages if they connected his name to an nick. They could go to his house and see if there is a dish pointing to their signals. They could go to his neighbor and and ask if he ever had a dish on his roof. If they find anything that would hurt his defense. Remember in civil if its more likely than not then you could lose. His defense can possibly work if its true and there is nothing incriminating that is found and if he doesn't make a mistake while being deposed, also explaning why he bought a subscription to an illegal service that makes sense. People just don't look to buy a subscription like that if they never own a sat receiver. What brought him to even go there. He doesn't deny the purchase. While these things might or might be proved what I am saying is that it might not be necessary as other factors could or could not come into play.


If anyone wins it will be quite some time from now. Unless they send out letters or file lawsuits over a year from now and longer defendants might not be in a position to wait.

---

Quote:

---

He doesn't deny the purchase.

---

Of course not; they've got those goods on him.

But so far, that appears to be all they have. Now if, during the discovery phase, they bring out his ISP logs, showing connection to the IKS server's addy, I would say he's toast.

They will most likely never be able to prove that he owns a satellite receiver, unless they also have posts from a nic they can tie to him, discussing setting it up.

If there is evidence showing a dish on his roof, the D can simply be, "it was there when we moved into the house". There's no way they can disprove that.

His D testimony can simply be, "I had heard about this IKS thing from a friend, and bought the code since it was cheap enough, but never endeavored beyond that, to acquire a satellite receiver. It just all seemed too complicated for me". Remember, intent in a civil proceeding of this type, without showing actual evidence of mis-doing, is gonna be tough to get a judgment on.

AFA other cases, a request for continuance, based on the outcome of this trial, might work.

Guess we will see if the server info and real proof that his receiver was receiving .

and I mean by server info ...if they did get the code from wuf (all his data)...they could have tested it themselves..to verified it worked .

But still have to proof he used it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

Of course not; they've got those goods on him.

But so far, that appears to be all they have. Now if, during the discovery phase, they bring out his ISP logs, showing connection to the IKS server's addy, I would say he's toast.

They will most likely never be able to prove that he owns a satellite receiver, unless they also have posts from a nic they can tie to him, discussing setting it up.

If there is evidence showing a dish on his roof, the D can simply be, "it was there when we moved into the house". There's no way they can disprove that.

His D testimony can simply be, "I had heard about this IKS thing from a friend, and bought the code since it was cheap enough, but never endeavored beyond that, to acquire a satellite receiver. It just all seemed too complicated for me". Remember, intent in a civil proceeding of this type, without showing actual evidence of mis-doing, is gonna be tough to get a judgment on.

AFA other cases, a request for continuance, based on the outcome of this trial, might work.

---

To say that is all they appear to have is not the way to look at it in my opinion. They don't state what evidence they may or may not have to support their claim in the complaint. They can also pick up evidence after filling the complaint. I think your missing the requirement for civil whether its more likely than not. Those stories rarely work like I just bought this code because it was cheap but I never had a satellite receiver and did not know what it was for just it was cheap enough so why not buy it. The mis doing is buying a subcription to an illegal service that has only one purpose and you claiming you did not know what is for but you just buy things that are cheap as a matter of something you like to do is not too believable I would think.


I can't see any court saying lets stop the proceedings because of this other case. Never heard of that myself. It would really prejudice a Plaintiff.



GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1boxman

Guess we will see if the server info and real proof that his receiver was receiving .

and I mean by server info ...if they did get the code from wuf (all his data)...they could have tested it themselves..to verified it worked .

But still have to proof he used it .

---

Do you think they have to be in house to have witnessed he used it. They can produce logs if they have any and than the defendant says well it was a shared computer in the house and it was not me. I could be wrong but don't think they have to prove he actually used it. Don't think they would be filling lawsuits if that was the case that law in civil required that. Its the preponderance of evidence giving weight to what side is morely likely or not.



GS2