Letter now Court case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

The Nfusion Privare server known as NFPS. Now if you want to get technical maybe wufman was not running it I don't know, but it seems he was selling subscriptions to it according to what I have read. If he wasn't then there would be no case as they rely on his records they obtained.



GS2

---

So you are assuming ?
Being a salesman or selling is illegal ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dishuser

why not email them?
since they are the only people who can answer

---

stop trying to play smart because you play better then you appear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibalector

stop trying to play smart because you play better then you appear

---

you ask for seconds from that stick?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dishuser

you ask for seconds from that stick?

---

you lost the crowd with that one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibalector

you lost the crowd with that one

---

that means you got seconds...lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dishuser

you ask for seconds from that stick?

---

why is it that you can be a wealth of info for sat set up and turn the other cheak when you get nailed to the cross on morality and evidentury

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibalector

why is it that you can be a wealth of info for sat set up and turn the other cheak when you get nailed to the cross on morality and evidentury

---

excuse me?
who is nailing me?

Okay, back on topic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1boxman

So you are assuming ?
Being a salesman or selling is illegal ?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surfinisfun

Yes you did GS,

I guess some will look at it from the offensive side, others defensive.

Hopefully one wins.lol

---

I hope someone wins and if this defendant is not found to be not telling truth then the court will have to weight the evidence if its persuasive enough. If its not than the ruling can help others. I hope hes telling the truth because than it would make sense to support him even with donations if requested. I like that his defense is not that you have the wrong person strategy, its I did not have the ingredients to intercept, circumvent, so it could come down to a matter of law for a court to interpretate. I do think the purchasing of these codes is harmful more than purchasing an unlooper because its hard or almost impossible to come up with an alternative reason what you were going to do with these codes while its more possible with an unlooper to come up with something. I believe that alone is a difficult barrier to over come by itself. This is civil not criminal where you do need much more compelling evidence.




GS2

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!