Letter now Court case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarvinGardens

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.

---

You are so stubborn, you're driving us all crazy. First of all you need to take note the difference of being sued civilly by an entity such as DN or being prosecuted criminally by the government. You need to understand the difference before citing statutes.

Secondly, I don't think you have ever sued someone or been involved in a lawsuit, because if you had you would know the difference. The court to which a suit is filed is the governing body and the laws to be applied in the case. For example, you can't sue someone in state Superior Court and use statutes, RCWs, or case laws of the Federal court and vice versa. Just because as you quote the Federal law is the law of the land and that overules everything shows everyone just how ignorant you are.

Lastly, in regards to Statute of limitation you should understand the logic of it all. Let's say 20 years following the last time you used $P IKS, DN discovers that fact and sues you. According to your definition of Statute of Limitation, this would still be applicable. How could you defend yourself if you no longer have access to any resources or records to defend yourself and prove that what they are accusing you of is completely false. My friend, in civil cases the statute of limitation runs from the time that the harm and damage was last done to the plaintiffs from the defendant.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen and been involved in my share of lawsuits from both the plaintiff and defendant side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fputs

You are so stubborn, you're driving us all crazy. First of all you need to take note the difference of being sued civilly by an entity such as DN or being prosecuted criminally by the government. You need to understand the difference before citing statutes.

---

I never ever mentioned criminal prosecution in any of my posts. Why do you keep bringing this up?

DN is suing people under CIVIL statutes not CRIMINAL. Don't you get that???

Only the US Attorney can bring a CRIMINAL complaint against someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fputs

The court to which a suit is filed is the governing body and the laws to be applied in the case. For example, you can't sue someone in state Superior Court and use statutes, RCWs, or case laws of the Federal court and vice versa. Just because as you quote the Federal law is the law of the land and that overules everything shows everyone just how ignorant you are.

---

You are completely ignorant of the US Constitution and the Supremacy Clause. The DMCA is a FEDERAL statute. DN is suing under the DMCA and EVERY court in the US has to follow this FEDERAL statute.

Read this and learn about your Constitution:

Code:

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fputs

Lastly, in regards to Statute of limitation you should understand the logic of it all. Let's say 20 years following the last time you used $P IKS, DN discovers that fact and sues you. According to your definition of Statute of Limitation, this would still be applicable. How could you defend yourself if you no longer have access to any resources or records to defend yourself and prove that what they are accusing you of is completely false. My friend, in civil cases the statute of limitation runs from the time that the harm and damage was last done to the plaintiffs from the defendant.

---

I never said that the Statute runs indefinitely, it runs for THREE years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarvinGardens

The DMCA is a FEDERAL statute. DN is suing under the DMCA.

---

DN is suing people who have "stolen" their signal, and using the DMCA as their legal reference for the theft violation. That reference protects them from ppl intercepting and decrypting an encoded signal without authorization.

In most cases, the litigation has and will likely continue to be, well within any statute of limitations, since their pattern has been to instigate proceedings very soon after discovering the ID's of IKS customers.

Based on that, all of this fuss about the statute of limitations seems rather ludicrous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dishuser

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

---

ill pass this post along for ya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alandcin

ill pass this post along for ya.

---

ahhhhh who cares is that supposed to be a threat LOL are ya scared DU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alandcin

ill pass this post along for ya.

---

really?
you're not too bright are ya?
the mod who banned me there is a mod here...lol

hahahahaha!!!!!!! my humblest apologies for noticing you've been banned. and your right, i guess im not too bright to think you would still be a member there ..never knew till now. lmfao....good!!
btw, how many user names do you have now?? pfft

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alandcin

hahahahaha!!!!!!! my humblest apologies for noticing you've been banned. and your right, i guess im not too bright to think you would still be a member there ..never knew till now. lmfao....good!!
btw, how many user names do you have now?? pfft

---

two
have had them both for over a decade
pffft...lol

OK let's keep the crap from other sites at the other site

Marvin is exactly right, no matter what people want to believe.

Code:

---

http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=echostar&search=Search&stateorcourt=&judge=&lawsuittype=&documentfilter=allcases&after=&before=

---

All Federal law suits, federal statutes and limitations apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChillyWilly

The first wolfman case just filed

---

i notice that on the first page of this complaint there is no case # in the designated area ... just at the top as if it was faxed...was this pulled from pacer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallyjohnson

i notice that on the first page of this complaint there is no case # in the designated area ... just at the top as if it was faxed...was this pulled from pacer?

---

Got to first page of this thread and read post 13 and 14. It may be an idea to read the whole thread as a lot of info has been posted and may answer any future questions you have.

9 cases filed now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

9 cases filed now.

---

Shall we start a pool as to total number???? :tehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anubis

Shall we start a pool as to total number???? :tehe:

---

i say there will be about 50, one for each state in the us, looks like they are testing the court system in each state,JMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds
9 cases filed now.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iq180

i say there will be about 50, one for each state in the us, looks like they are testing the court system in each state,JMO.

---

Are these nine filed cases each in different states?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

Are these nine filed cases each in different states?

---

from what i have seen they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

Are these nine filed cases each in different states?

---

Texas, Kentucky, Florida, Mississippi, 2 in Indiana, 2 in California. D@mn I cant count, actually only 8 filed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

Texas, Kentucky, Florida, Mississippi, 2 in Indiana, 2 in California. D@mn I cant count, actually only 8 filed.

---

Geez there going after Southern States only so far..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCO

Geez there going after Southern States only so far..

---

I cant count, and you need a geograghy lesson lmao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCO

Geez there going after Southern States only so far..

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

I cant count, and you need a geograghy lesson lmao.

---

OMG. frick and frack need schooling bad! :tehe:

If these suits are against wufmans customers, I would have to believe that for the length of time he was selling codes, eight seems to be a pitifully small fraction.

Yes, there are prolly more coming down the pike, but one would think that a flurry of them would have already occurred.

Maybe they aren't totally sure yet of a slam dunk...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

If these suits are against wufmans customers, I would have to believe that for the length of time he was selling codes, eight seems to be a pitifully small fraction.

Yes, there are prolly more coming down the pike, but one would think that a flurry of them would have already occurred.

Maybe they aren't totally sure yet of a slam dunk...

---

it takes time to file
before they file it takes time to find an attorney to represent them in each state
my guess since it was asked earlier is 1,000 or better
then watch the sheeple run
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/2518/5v7n0n.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anubis

Got to first page of this thread and read post 13 and 14. It may be an idea to read the whole thread as a lot of info has been posted and may answer any future questions you have.

---

not trying to start a argument here ...however I have read each and every post in thread ...and the question remains ...was it posted on pacer? or was the OP with one post only just putting it up there for us to see.....i have a freind who lives in IL and they sent him 3 different demand letters .one asking for 3500 and a admission of guilt...the next..was another demanding 5000....the next was a complaint such as the one posted...with the SAME as the OP and no atty filled in AND a improper court juristiction listed ... again just asking.... i also read alex70olds post about 9 so far i assume they are listed on pacer ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallyjohnson

not trying to start a argument here ...however I have read each and every post in thread ...and the question remains ...was it posted on pacer? or was the OP with one post only just putting it up there for us to see.....i have a freind who lives in IL and they sent him 3 different demand letters .one asking for 3500 and a admission of guilt...the next..was another demanding 5000....the next was a complaint such as the one posted...with the SAME as the OP and no atty filled in AND a improper court juristiction listed ... again just asking.... i also read alex70olds post about 9 so far i assume they are listed on pacer ....

---

The 8 cases I mentioned are all on PACER. It is possible they are sending a copy of the complaint before it is filed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallyjohnson

not trying to start a argument here ...however I have read each and every post in thread ...and the question remains ...was it posted on pacer? or was the OP with one post only just putting it up there for us to see.....i have a freind who lives in IL and they sent him 3 different demand letters .one asking for 3500 and a admission of guilt...the next..was another demanding 5000....the next was a complaint such as the one posted...with the SAME as the OP and no atty filled in AND a improper court juristiction listed ... again just asking.... i also read alex70olds post about 9 so far i assume they are listed on pacer ....

---

Here is new one today (#9, unless I miscounted again, running out of fingers lol) Notice case # is hand written in.

Attachment 17536

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

I cant count, and you need a geograghy lesson lmao.

---

Umm I thought the only Northern State was Alaska..LOL

thank you for the clarification

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCO

Umm I thought the only Northern State was Alaska..LOL

---

Nope; anything north of Santa Barbara would constitute a northern state, eh eh. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

Here is new one today (#9, unless I miscounted again, running out of fingers lol) Notice case # is hand written in.

Attachment 17536

---

Same suit, just with a different defendant.

The only thing they have on him, is his purchase of a sub to an IKS server. That's it.

Paragraphs 26, "defendant used a pirate satellite receiver", and 34, "defendant engaged in the unauthorized reception of DN's satellite programming" are speculation; they show no evidence of his ownership of a receiver, nor his actual viewing of their programming.

The defendant could simply say, "I was going to try it, but decided not to", and they would have no way of refuting that, unless they went to the trouble of accessing his ISP records, and locating his connections to the server IP. So far, we have not heard of them going to that length. They have simply been using a purchase paper trail for their extortion basis.

I think their game plan is a hope that they can get one or more judgments in their favor, using this limited "evidence", and then use those as precedents to go after the thousand that DU suggested may happen, and I would believe that that's what's gonna take place.

I still do not think they have enough to get a court order ..for isp records...and some do not keep them long either .
Even government has a hard enough time to get them ...unless is pidos or as bad or worse . But lets not go there .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

Same suit, just with a different defendant.

The only thing they have on him, is his purchase of a sub to an IKS server. That's it.

Paragraphs 26, "defendant used a pirate satellite receiver", and 34, "defendant engaged in the unauthorized reception of DN's satellite programming" are speculation; they show no evidence of his ownership of a receiver, nor his actual viewing of their programming.

The defendant could simply say, "I was going to try it, but decided not to", and they would have no way of refuting that, unless they went to the trouble of accessing his ISP records, and locating his connections to the server IP. So far, we have not heard of them going to that length. They have simply been using a purchase paper trail for their extortion basis.

I think their game plan is a hope that they can get one or more judgments in their favor, using this limited "evidence", and then use those as precedents to go after the thousand that DU suggested may happen, and I would believe that that's what's gonna take place.

---

Unless they paid the said defendants a visit and confiscated a sat receiver then yes you're right pure speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anubis

Unless they paid the said defendants a visit and confiscated a sat receiver then yes you're right pure speculation.

---

not really!

say John Doe bought a code from Wufman. before he did that he was on here wanting to know how to contact him. After the purchase he was on here thanking wuf for the quick service or looking for help on how to configure his NFPS code. All that info is public domain and would be enough to hang somebody out to dry once they are already cornered. Now it might not be enough evidence for DN to get an award but it is certainly enough circumstantial evidence to make a defense lawyer squirm and rack up a big bill for the defendant. DN is hoping you just settle rather than get saddled with a large lawyer bill is what is going on. The other thing to take into consideration is that this is civil and not criminal proceedings so all DN has to do is have enough evidence to "make" you look guilty to win the case. Anybody going into court and intending on using ignorance, stupidity, or some other half baked idea like yes I bought a code but I never got it to work may as well save their breath. Unless you have some real proof like you were in Afghanistan when the code was purchased and only returned home after the demand letter showed up then you are better off just to pay the extortion fee because what else could you possibly use for proof over a time period of that length?

Yup, overlooked the posting in public thing which would be tightening the noose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

not really!

say John Doe bought a code from Wufman. before he did that he was on here wanting to know how to contact him. After the purchase he was on here thanking wuf for the quick service or looking for help on how to configure his NFPS code. All that info is public domain and would be enough to hang somebody out to dry once they are already cornered. Now it might not be enough evidence for DN to get an award but it is certainly enough circumstantial evidence to make a defense lawyer squirm and rack up a big bill for the defendant.

---

I would certainly agree that it's damning evidence, and may just be enough to push the scale balance slightly in their favor, which is all they need in civil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

hoping you just settle rather than get saddled with a large lawyer bill is what is going on.

---

That's it exactly, and the same way Dave did it, a dozen years ago. The $3500 first letter settlement figure wasn't just dreamed up; it's purposely below what a defense attorney would charge. The $5000 second letter settlement is prolly close to what the attorney's fee would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

The other thing to take into consideration is that this is civil and not criminal proceedings so all DN has to do is have enough evidence to "make" you look guilty to win the case. Anybody going into court and intending on using ignorance, stupidity, or some other half baked idea like yes I bought a code but I never got it to work may as well save their breath. Unless you have some real proof like you were in Afghanistan when the code was purchased and only returned home after the demand letter showed up then you are better off just to pay the extortion fee because what else could you possibly use for proof over a time period of that length?

---

What does the timeframe have to do with anything? Purchasing a code to an IKS server is not illegal, AFAIK. DN would attempt to tie that with ownership of a receiver and dish, but have offered no evidence of that in their suit. The main damage is in their causing a legal defense cost, large to the average person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

I would certainly agree that it's damning evidence, and may just be enough to push the scale balance slightly in their favor, which is all they need in civil.


That's it exactly, and the same way Dave did it, a dozen years ago. The $3500 first letter settlement figure wasn't just dreamed up; it's purposely below what a defense attorney would charge. The $5000 second letter settlement is prolly close to what the attorney's fee would be.


What does the timeframe have to do with anything? Purchasing a code to an IKS server is not illegal, AFAIK. DN would attempt to tie that with ownership of a receiver and dish, but have offered no evidence of that in their suit. The main damage is in their causing a legal defense cost, large to the average person.

---

so I bought a gram of cocaine just to see what it looked like should get me off if caught?lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dishuser

so I bought a gram of cocaine just to see what it looked like should get me off if caught?lol

---

How about I bought it to give it as a gift to someone that has a numbers habit..LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCO

How about I bought it to give it as a gift to someone that has a numbers habit..LOL

---

I'm good with that..lol
but these guys who are being sued cause of wuf are screwed
looks like they might finally realize it's illegal to steal
remember the chocolate bar commercial?lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dishuser

I'm good with that..lol
but these guys who are being sued cause of wuf are screwed
looks like they might finally realize it's illegal to steal
remember the chocolate bar commercial?lol

---

Ya I heard about your adiction to the number 69..LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dishuser

so I bought a gram of cocaine just to see what it looked like should get me off if caught?lol

---

Do we know that purchasing a code to an IKS server is against the law? If so, I stand corrected.