Remember also in US civil cases only need 50% evidence . The only option is to settle as it appears they are not only demand letters but proof of civil action. It will cost more to litigate and Dick knows it so ur had if u got a letter. :innocent:
Printable View
Remember also in US civil cases only need 50% evidence . The only option is to settle as it appears they are not only demand letters but proof of civil action. It will cost more to litigate and Dick knows it so ur had if u got a letter. :innocent:
why is it purchased?Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
to steal tv?
or to look at some digits?
the only reason I tossed a time frame in there as that I believe unless you could prove it wasn't you that purchased or used it. Ie. military deployment or maybe doing time in a state pen from the date of purchase to the date of the original demand letter you have absolutely no defense.
It doesn't matter why it was purchased; you equated purchasing Cocaine as being the same, in jest of course, but it's not, just as purchasing a firearm doesn't label one as automatically a murderer.Quote:
Originally Posted by dishuser
I saw no citation in their lawsuit of a legal code violation, in the purchase of the IKS code, and you can bet the farm that they certainly would have cited it if one existed in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which by itself, would be their slam dunk.
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
The burden is not on you to prove that you didn't use it, but on them, to prove that you did. They can't prove ownership of a satellite receiver in most cases, nor a satellite dish (unless they trespass to photograph one not visible from the street), both being necessary components to "complete the crime". Perhaps ISP logs displaying connection to the server addy would put them over the top, but again, that evidence has not been included in their suits, to date.
Edit; this is what they cite; 17 USC § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems. (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
(1)
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Buying the code by itself doesn't violate the law, prove that he used it, nor prove that he had the other equipment necessary.
All of this being discussed, however, given that one receives the first letter, payment of the 35 hundred is going to be the cheapest, least nerve-wracking, and easiest escape, no question.
paper trail just like the DA cases
I can't see DN losing
It seems to me people get confused as to burden of proof - Civil VS Criminal.
Quote:
In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. Both are lower burdens of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact by a high probability. Criminal trials employ a higher standard of proof because criminal defendants often face the deprivation of life or liberty if convicted while civil defendants generally only face an order to pay money damages if the plaintiff prevails.
I think in these cases... cocaine and codes are pretty much the same intent .
Meaning they only have one use and both are illegal .
In the one letter ..dn proved how and what the code did .
Sense it is civil ... I do not think a prove of use will be necessary ..or isp records .
They where buying a code for one purpose ...not a donation to anything and than received a code .
They have a paper trial .
There purchase.
What the code does.
wuf Paypal records.
and will speculate ....wufs testimony on everything .
Just a few ...and sure there are more .
Now what we do not know ..is wuf confirming any of these transaction personally ???
If so ...that makes a witness .
Exactly..... there is no difference between these codes and and the shat Justin from DarkAngel sold those that were busted.Quote:
Originally Posted by dishuser
The paper trail for these codes are Damning Evidence and I also can't see DN losing.
Didnt they also get DA's server logs with the ip's??Quote:
Originally Posted by kenkell1
It will be interesting to see exactly what evidence they'll be presenting at trial. The letters have revealed the paper trail but will they bother to get more? I don't think it's so hard to get ISP logs given what they have already and forum posts are easy. Many dishes are visible from the street or Google Earth.
If so (and most likely), that would prove usage, and therefore violation of the DMCA's circumvention rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCO
There is no such similar evidence here. Just because they bought the code doesn't prove that they used it. A preponderance of the evidence would include proof of ownership of a dish and receiver, and/or an ISP log showing connection to the server.
well proving he had a dish is not a problem. Stand in the street and snap a picture or even easier google earth it. fairly easy to see sat dishes using those sat pics and that is what anybody has access to. What DN would have access to in a court case could be quite a bit better and more high res that those images. US & Russian spy satellites can read road signs and license plates from outer space and that technology is over 20 years old.
point is DN is not going to drag anybody into court to lose. No judge in those courts is going to give the benefit of a doubt to the defendant. I am sure the judge is going to sit there and mull over the fact that the guy bought a code, the intent was there but he didn't have a dish or a receiver so he did nothing wrong.
Uh-UH he is going to slam his gavel down and find in favor of the plaintiff and then holler "Next!"
Most Google Earth overhead images are aerial photography from airplanes, not satellite images. They only use lower res satellite for areas where no aerial images are available. Street view shows even higher detail.
I've yet to see proof that they can read a number plate from a satellite. More likely an urban legend.
"The dish was mounted there when I moved in".
We are still innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
The purchase of the codes may prove intent, but they don't indicate usage. Whether that alone is enough remains to be seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
They state you ( defendant ) used the server to illegally descramble their signal. The onus now shifts to the defendant to say he did not and say why he purchased the subscription to the server.
Your hung up that they have to prove you used it but if its morely likely than not than the defendant can lose without them proving you use it.
GS2
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
Again why are you saying they have to prove useage for it to be more likely than not. Is it more likely than not that you subscribed to private server that provided the control words to decrypt their signal to access their signals illegally ? or its more likely not that you didn't. ?
I think preponderance of the evidence tilts their way.
GS2
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
When DTV lost their early court cases it was because the court did not accept DTV's claim that simply owning an unlooper or ISO programmer was convincing evidence that there was illegal access to their signals.
That's because the court said that unlooper's and ISO programmers could have a use that is not illegal.
The court further said that if DTV could show that the person also owned a sat dish and receiver then that would have convinced the court.
Here being in possession of access codes to an IKS server only has one purpose. DN does not have to prove anything else.
there was a satellite tracking station about 25 miles from where I used to live and I had 2 different neighbors that worked there. They both told me the same story at different times about how they locked on to a Russian sat one night going over and decided to have a look at what the Russians were looking at. Well the story was the same from both of them and they said the Ruskies were looking at the girls on a beach in Florida and you could easily read the signs there. Well had one said it, or both of them had been together I might have doubted it but I heard the same story twice. Whether it is true or not I can't testify to it because it is only heresay but I tend to believe it. Especially a Russian sat buzzing over Cape Canaveral area would have been quite high tech cutting edge stuff as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by hondoharry
Well I can vouch for the high res capacity of satelite images.. Just look at what they had as images in the 70's from an sSR71 and that was on film.. with older optics..Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
The russians were probably able to see the non died roots in the blonds hair..ROFLMAO
No, I don't think that the purchase of the codes shows anything more than intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarvinGardens
It certainly does not prove that the defendant actually used the codes.
Now if DN supplied ISP logs showing lengthy connections to the IKS server (at least an hour, daily), then I would agree that the scale is certainly tipped.
Dave lost a case when he couldn't prove to the court that the defendant actually owned a satellite dish antenna. I think that case is an excellent reference for a defense, especially because during discovery, the plaintiff has to show what his evidence is. If he has nothing to prove there is a dish at the defendants house...And beyond that, proof of ownership of a satellite receiver.
There are four components at play here; ownership of the codes, usage of the IKS server via internet connection, a satellite dish antenna, and a satellite or other capable receiver. The dish antenna could be explained away as, "it was already there when I moved in". I think if Charlie can prove two of the others, however, he gets his judgment.
The RIAA wins case after case for simply downloading music from a file sharer. They never have to prove that you actually listened to the music you illegally downloaded.Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
There is no viable defense to asking for and accepting IKS server access codes.
There is a strong inference that you actually used the codes that cannot be overcome by any rational explanation to the alternative.
Downloading music from a file sharer would be akin to proof -ISP logs, for example- that one connected to an IKS server, and in that case, the plaintiff wins, no argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarvinGardens
Paying for and receiving IKS codes all by itself proves nothing, beyond possible intent.
well maybe purchasing codes would show more than intent. what would happen if the ones getting the letters had made more than one purchase on different dates? Now that would look like a little more than intent
"I was going to use it with an IKS server, but never got around to purchasing a receiver. I also bought one later on for my girlfriend to use, but she then decided against it".Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
Remember, as long as they can show no proof of either a receiver, or connection to the server, all they have is/are code purchase(s). We haven't seen where it has been established that ownership of the codes has been determined to be illegal.
Cases (wisely) settled out of court in the DA situation -where the plaintiff had server information, can't be displayed as an example because of that reason.
what server info was used in the DA cases?they showed the paper trailQuote:
Originally Posted by fifties
I never saw the complaint, nor the evidence, used in the DA cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by dishuser
Do you know what the paper trail consisted of?
sure that is going to fly with a judge, yeah I bought one for me I never used and then I bought one for the old lady and never used that etc. etc. There are some things in this world that possession of will get you in trouble whether you have used it or not. Is a username and a password to a site offering up illegal codes one? I don't know and neither do you. But as same time this isn't criminal court. Not like getting caught with break and enter tools in the trunk of your car. A smart lawyer will get you off on those charges unless they can prove you did do a B&E but that is criminal and beyond a reasonable doubt. These charges are civil, you have no lawyer to back you up in a court room and it is a preponderance of the evidence. In other words tip the scales and they are already leaning the wrong way as some judge seen their side of things and granted an injunction against you. BS & feigning ignorance won't get you too far in the court system. Good luck with that!Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
Lol, where do you get that? Anyone actually going to court would be crazy not to be represented by an attorney, because they are gonna have one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
And as I had posted, in case you missed it;
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
it showed the transactions between clients and justinQuote:
Originally Posted by fifties
bingo the seeder is the one that actually DECRYPTED the signalQuote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
for once fifties I'm going to agree with you...lol, simply possesion or intent of purchase means squat of actual use of CW's without a box and a bin with a Nagra image on it those CW's can't do squat, CW's themselves are useless and have no means of decryption without a nagra image, as stated to GS2 the seeder is decrypting, yes it's parsing the obvious but nonetheless that takes place 1st, wheres the proof theres a bin involved to decrypt anything ? wouldn't that matter ? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by fifties
in the DA case they did not need a paper trail, they dont need to prove how you got the code, all they need to do is prove you used
a code and that was done with server logs, this case is not the same, they dont have the server logs, if they did this case would be
over and i would say its time to pay the man, i still think without the server logs they dont have good case, time will tell all,JMO.
well how do you know they do not have server logs? and they could have went to the IP instead and got those logs. Both would show the same thing
is the service still ongoing or is it shut down ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
then why did they show the records of purchase?Quote:
Originally Posted by iq180
yeah it is still running to the best of my knowledge but who is at the helm? Not the point! did you even read my post? they could go to the defendents internet provider and obtain their logs instead. That would show connections as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
yes I read your whole post...... lol, if the service is still running it's not Nagra at the helm, so I would stop guessing on that one, even if they had insiders and left it running that wouldn't fare to well in court, so that would leave it up to the ISP, damned ambulance chasers anyways....lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
in any of the letters or from the people that recieved them did they have any evidence showing that records were obtained from there ISP ? was it in the court doc's
thats is my point, we dont know and want know untill the case goes to court, then we will know what they have or dont have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
I dont understand how you can come here and argue a point, one way or another, without knowing any of the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
just asking a few questions alex that's all ....you ok this morning you sound a bit irritable ?Quote:
Originally Posted by alex70olds