Printable View
well then I guess you will never find out because there is somebody with a big stack of money to burn they will just settle out of court because that is the cheapest way out and then DN has to reveal nothing more than they already have but I am betting if it went to court any place that DN has more then one ace up their sleeveQuote:
Originally Posted by iq180
Ah you know, was just hoping we could maintain a certain level of intelligent conversation in here. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
ooooh such wit alex, I guess I'm tired of seeing people get rail roaded over things (yes it's there fault) with regards to extortion, I wonder what Nagra will say to the content providers at the Nab show convention next month with regards to being asked if there signal is secure and there answer is umm no the encrytpion pops out CW's like a vending machine but were doing everything we can to eliminate piracy by sending people over to direct after charging them 3500 dollars, wouldn't you think it's better to come out with a cam that has no way of being intercepted between card and ird ? wouldn't that be more inline with securing a signal ? isn't that Kudelski's / Nagra's job ? signal integrity ?Quote:
Originally Posted by alex70olds
I know it's not viewed as extortion alex, but I'm asking things in a succession to find answers thats all, you never know what bright minds there are out there alex
this has been ongoing for over 2 years now with no end in sight everything just gets shifted from one spot to another in a 3 card monty game and the results have not changed, IKS is still going and the signal has not changed one aiota.
Nagra has a chance to put an end to the IKS crap and they choose not to, instead they choose to chase ambulances
Ok HL, when you have something of value to add to the subject of this thread, please post it. The soap box routine may add to your self proclaimed celeb status, but adds nothing of value to the content of this thread.
Thanks for understanding,
@13X
never say never, lol, they mite piss off some one with money that will go all the way to court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
there is always that chance but like I said they would need to have more money than brains to spend $10 - 15K on court and lawyer fees on the chance of getting things dropped than to just pay $3500 and forget about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by iq180
i have been thinking about this for some time now but what if the server had some legal use other than iks, like a forum or somthing, would that not make it hard for DN to prove that an end user was useing it for iks, that way it would have a legal use.
I would think that it would be just the opposite as most legit sites have valid info in whois registration. That in itself would save the NCIS boys some legwork and they would approach that person asking about other services being offered on a different port. If the registrant is cloaked the way many of these sites are now it makes them look guilty again and you are back to where you are now.Quote:
Originally Posted by iq180
All this speculation;
in the DA case, we DO know that they had sales records, and that alone may have been sufficient enough to convince the defendants to settle. I have not seen anything stating as to whether or not they also used server logs, as additional evidence. Since they seized the DA server, they most likely would have had that information as well.
The wufman case is entirely different. They DO have sales records, but so far, no one knows what, if anything else, they possess. No one has been to court over this so far, so no discovery has been exhibited, which would display exactly what their evidence is. We do not know, for certain, as to whether or not they have subpoenas to obtain ISP logs, which would be the smoking guns. Getting a judge to issue a court order for something so menial might or might not fly.
Wuf, as I understand, had access to the mod panel at the Z site, but I can't see how that would be damaging to any of the NFPS server subs.
i would think that would depend on what country that server was in and you know as well as i do that if DN could take that serverQuote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
down they would have done so a long time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
Before you would say it was not illegal to have bins but then you saw a ruling that it was illegal. You really don't need a specific ruling that says ownership of codes is illegal therefore making legal without one. We rarely get rulings certaintly not from trial.
As far as not proving there is a receiver you have to go back and see where that applied as to what law. They allege violation of three separate acts in their claim.
GS2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
So you think its legal to view signals without their authorization or without payment because your defense is that the seeder decrypted the signal.
If it was that easy then why is that defense not being used in any of the DA cases.
I think I court can determine that the intent of the purchase of a subscription to a server that enabled you to view signals unlawfully being the only purpuse is damaging in itself what your intent was.
GS2
value ? really ? I would hope that anyone that has recieved one of these letters has had enough sense to obtain a lawyer and for that lawyer to ask exactly what evidence they have in order to proceed past a demand letter, I mean everything, right down to the meat of things as in the CW's the bin the box the decryption, evidence more then purchase and nics kept on a spreadsheet and (donations) made to saving the whales, thats called due dilligence before capitulating to demands of $3500, I've read the docs alex so to say I have no clue is ok by me, as for celeb status ? thats not me, allthough trying to bring light to the corrupt nature of the ambulance chasers and the board rooms by way of trying to get Alex Jones to accept a spot in his buzy agenda to take a look at the past corruption is the story not meQuote:
Originally Posted by alex70olds
it's two fold think about itQuote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
Right evidence would come out later during discovery if someone files a defense and it gets to that stage.
GS2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
Its not viewed as extortion because demand letters are not extortion. Actually they give an opportunity to a defendant to settle before an action is filled if they wish.
GS2
I'm glad to see you're a glass is half full kinda guyQuote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
Yes rumors are that they are on to nag 4 and I guess you think they purpoesly put out weak encryptions so they have the ability to go to court while probably dealing with big penalties and loss of potential business.
GS2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
So you think all a lawyer has to do is ask what evidence they have on a a demand letter and they will just say here it is. It does not work that way.
GS2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
I don't know what that means or how it relates to demand letters adding up to extortion. I have used demand letters and and so have millions. Its common practice and courts prefer that you use a demand letter before you file an action.
GS2
one added measure over N2 and that was suppose to be the lynch pin in securing the deal for Kudelski in a long term contract to secure Echo, Europe and North America had IKS going immediately, you tell me how that was to the benefit of DN, if N4 is in the works in no way can there be communication between ird and cam thats a fact, the only way thats possible is a card swap and or ird cam swap, if so I wish them luck with N4Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
let me rephrase interceptable communication
I guess that must be a tongue in cheek type of comment as I really don't believe you mean that :) after all what would you talk about then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
This is exactly what I was talking about.
Since you have read the docs, you know that in every, every single case that dish has filed in federal court contains verbiage to the effect:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
Attachment 17596
This is all they need to meet their burden of encryption according to the DMCA. Every case they have ever filed. They don't have to meet NSA standards, or even be good at decryption to meet the standard. To fill these peeps heads that got letters full of nonsensical gibberish is just wrong, and counter productive to the discussion at hand.
Again the gibberish soap box. The seeder does not decrypting the encrypted content, if it did, who would need an STB? it would just be streaming the programming. You obviously know this because you go on to say the seeders CW are useless with out the STB. :tehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
Again in Civil court the burden of proof is only to show that it is more likely than not the enduser decrypted the encrypted content. Fact is, as stated numerous times in this thread, we dont know everything they have, but to crusade on crazy thoughts, does no one any good.
where the hell do you get off suggesting I'm filling peoples heads with nonsensicle information ? I have told people to seek legal council and ask for all information they have before hand, don't ever suggest a low blow like that again to suit you and your ego alex, how many people did it take to go through the gibberish during DTV days before it was finally determined lack of proof or other means of use.Quote:
Originally Posted by alex70olds
the seeder does so decrypt the CW's ffs, how else is it done ? smoke and mirrors ? you can't get sh*t from an STB alone alex but you know that and fail to answer that because the presents of a BIN is required as well, at least one that has N2 or Nagra on it right ? am I right alex ? tell everyone right now to fold there tents and go away wheres that going to leave things ?
No, you are not right. Not right at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
You might not agree with each others opinions but I will not allow this thread to digress into name calling
Lets all agree to that!!!
Thank you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
A bin is not required. There is nothing in law that talks about a bin or that it is needed. If your watching their encrypted programming without their authorization than your circumventing their encryption. I don't think a court cares all that much how you did it. The only purpose of subscribing to that server was to do that and that is where the problem is. What it more likely than not. Again as mention by several people the proof required in Civil is a low standard.
The problem is these types of legal situations have been going on for a long time. Many now see things differently because of what has happened in court. So here we are again with people offering defenses like I didn't order it my sister did. They don't work. Go look back at threads like ones from DA with suggestions for defense. These are not lawyer thought up defenses and if any viable defense comes up it will be from a lawyer. I don't have to be a lawyer to say what I did. I hope there is some defense based on law but unlikely anyone is going to take it to trial to find out. Now if there are some technical problem like you were not served properly you can try that. That is a defense. If they don't have proper jurisdiction or you don't think so you can try that. These are based on law. Fifties mentions the court decision about purchase or possession not being interpretated as sufficient enough as a violation. That is based on law.
GS2
are you forgetting about ird's?lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
Decryption bins, per se, were never declared illegal until the trial of TDG, wherein the judgment against him, some 55 million or so dollars, was based on how many times the bins he had provided were D/L from certain "FTA" sites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2
Sites based in the U.S. that were directly hosting the bins would have been in violation of the law, had this ruling appeared before, so I would have to disagree with you that they were illegal, before being specifically adjudicated as such from a trial.
I believe that the DMCA does in fact refer in so many words to any device that can decrypt an encoded system, but apparently, given that laws are supposed to be construed in the broadest possible context, it seems that such devices have to be specified.
A case in point was where the RIAA sued a woman because she had a device (I can't remember what it was, H/W or S/W) that could have been used for D/L music, and they lost, because they couldn't prove that although she owned it, whether she actually used it for D/L music.
This specific type of evidence is important, because sans their proof that a defendant actually owns a satellite receiver, how do they prove that he used IKS codes? You stated that they allege three separate violations in their claim; all well and good for them, but can they prove their allegations? That's where evidence comes into play, and so far, all I've seen is a paper trail for purchase of codes, which by themselves do nothing.
If I buy bullets, does that mean that I killed someone with them, if you can't prove that I also own a firearm?
you are still mixing up criminal with civil so maybe I can make it easier for you. All you need in civil is circumstantial evidence you do not need absolute proof!Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
So here we go! yes you bought bullets, and then you and someone you despise are locked in a room together with your bullets and there just happens to be a gun there. A day later they unlock the room and you are sitting there and the other guy is laying in a heap with a hole in his head. Are you guilty? Not criminally without proof you pulled the trigger. But how do you look as far as police and everybody else is concerned? GUILTY! The odds are not very high that the guy offed himself just to frame you. You need to get over that hurdle of absolute proof in a civil suit and then you will see you really have no defense
News to me. Circumstantial is hardly, "a preponderance of the evidence"...The operative word here, is "evidence"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
Quote:
When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence.
See the above, "clear and convincing evidence" standard...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
Ownership of codes to an IKS server, by themselves, prove absolutely nothing beyond possible intent. And intent, by itself, isn't enough to garner a judgment.
well I am done dealing with you simply because you are unable to comprehend a simple concept. Here read your own definition and see if that sinks in ....
A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true
so I guess the real question is what do you have for evidence to refute the fact you bought a code? back to the law books there perry mason. Read those court docs really close. I haven't seen anywhere in them where they have accused anybody of using those codes. They do state what the codes are used for though but the way I interpret them is that they are accusing the defendants of buying the codes and not using them. So re-read a few and see if you can see where they actually accuse anybody who got that letter of using the code. Remember that is a legal document and the wording is very precise so it is not open to your off the wall speculation and assumptions. Ok fifties go for it! The ball is in your court
I usually dont get "tangled" in these discussions... But in civil cases there are many factors involved.... Here is another little quote from the "standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action"
"For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence......The majority of civil claims are subjected to a preponderance of evidence standard. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence."
So it's basically up to the judge as to how easy or difficult he wants to make it for the claimant..Of course if there is no jury involved..
Come on now its obvious the guy comited suicide..Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
Not my definition, that I posted here, but I agree with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
I never suggested denial of purchasing the code; if they have the paper trail, that is prima facie evidence, no question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
What do you think they are suing for, then? "The defendant bought the codes, printed them out, and placed them on his mantel, so he could admire them?" Of course they are suggesting that the codes were used, by virtue of the fact that the defendant bought them. That's it...That's their case, short of ISP logs, and/or proof of ownership of a receiver. Is that, "a preponderance of the evidence"? If they could support the purchase of the codes, with one or both of the other items, then I would agree that they've tipped the scale enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
Exactly! They are admitting that they cannot prove that the defendant used the codes; only that he purchased them. You are quite correct, legal documentation has to be exact and precise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
Too bad nothing has gone all the way to the courtroom, so we could all see what would be needed for one side to defeat the other.
You keep ignoring the lack of proof of hardware here. Dave lost a case when he was challenged to prove that the defendant owned a satellite dish, and couldn't, so don't be so quick to scoff at potential defenses.
Actually with those facts you will also be found to be criminally guilty. Circumstantial evidence plays a big part in criminal trials. Criminal jurors can draw inferences from the facts and make a finding on those inferences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostradamus
For instance, you are sitting in your pickup on the side of a road miles from civilization. Engine is running and you are alone. A cop contacts you to see if you are ok and smells alcohol on your breath. Does a breath test and you have a 0.15% blood alcohol level. You are arrested for drunk driving and will be convicted of drunk driving.
Very strong inference that you drove the vehicle to that spot with at least a 0.08% blood alcohol level.
So I bought a pack of Zig Zag rolling papers, does that mean I rolled and smoked a doobie...LOL
With THOSE dentures, nobody would believe it! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JCO