Letter now Court case

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

02-11-2013, 03:53 AM
JCO

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarvinGardens

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.

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.

You dont have to be driving just being in possesion of a vehicle over the limit gets you convicted... Same as if your ridding your bycycle over the legal limit and have a valid drivers licence you get convicted and loose your driving license.. HAppened to a giod friend of mine..
02-11-2013, 04:08 AM
Nostradamus

or any motorized vehicle and that includes boats and lawnmowers LOL

back to the case in point I am not ignoring the hardware issue but I don't think anybody is going to have the balls to try that defense for a couple of reasons. One is there probably isn't anybody that bought the codes and had the letter that didn't have a box and an ulterior motive and secondly the way those complaints are filed it looks like Dn is going more for possession of the code itself as being an offense and would probably try to have that defense tossed out since they are not suing on those grounds. The thing is nobody knows how much info they have or how they obtained most of it and unless somebody really challenges them nobody will either so it will be the same old story when the next wave of letters hit whenever that may be
02-11-2013, 04:11 AM
Condor

Quote:

Originally Posted by fifties

With THOSE dentures, nobody would believe it! ;)

LMAO.... They would find Plants growing in them.....Heheheheheeee
02-11-2013, 04:37 AM
Hannibalector

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

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

please try to respect someone other then yourself ?
02-11-2013, 04:39 AM
Hannibalector

Quote:

Originally Posted by torpainter

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

no name calling and understand I respect alex if you have the need to thrust bs onto this as an Admin fly at it
02-11-2013, 04:41 AM
Hannibalector

Quote:

Originally Posted by dishuser

are you forgetting about ird's?lol

not at all.........
02-11-2013, 05:03 AM
fifties

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

back to the case in point I am not ignoring the hardware issue but I don't think anybody is going to have the balls to try that defense for a couple of reasons. One is there probably isn't anybody that bought the codes and had the letter that didn't have a box and an ulterior motive

There's no question of the motive, which is proven from their purchase of the codes, and that would be a supporting issue.

The problem for them is, that they won't be able to prove that the defendant owns a "box".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

and secondly the way those complaints are filed it looks like Dn is going more for possession of the code itself as being an offense and would probably try to have that defense tossed out since they are not suing on those grounds.

OK, NOW we are getting to the meat of the bone.

DN needs to have a case wherein the code is ID'd by a judge as being illegal to possess. Will that be enough for them to get a judgment, W/O showing any evidence that the defendant (1) had the means to de-scramble and receive their signal -such as ownership of a satellite receiver- and (2) connected to their server as proven by ISP or server logs? We have no court case(s) to go by, so far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

The thing is nobody knows how much info they have or how they obtained most of it and unless somebody really challenges them nobody will either

And we don't know how much they really need, as offered in the paragraph above.
02-11-2013, 05:12 AM
Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Quote:

Originally Posted by fifties

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.

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?

They were only ruled illegal only then because the issue went before a court but I think it was illegal from before. Its like saying it was not legal because no court ruled it was legal.

They don't go after every site and any site they did unfortunately they were successful.

As far as that case with the woman and music you have mentioned it before but I could not find it. Not saying it does not exist. Really all I found was defendants losing.

Its my view they don't have to prove the defendant used the codes. We don't agree on that. I feel if its more likely than not that the person bought the codes with the intent to access signals illegally than that is a problem. They don't show all their evidence until later. They could get evidence as a trial moves on if one does. If they have a case they will send out their goon investigators if need be to get evidence if they can find any. Defendants will be exposed during discovery. They don't know what questions will come. Some of them get caught lying. Anyone who has been through it will probably say I did not know they had what they did. We found out they went to neighbor's houses to get them to testify against their neighbor defendant. Defendant and probably anyone would not have forseen that. First time I saw that in a case. There is a factor of unknown.

Though if you argue your defense based on law they won't need to get investigators because your not saying you did not purchase the codes. Your saying its not illegal to buy codes which would support your position. I would not feel comfortable with that defense but its better I believe than saying your sister ordered it.

GS2
02-11-2013, 05:30 AM
fifties

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Its my view they don't have to prove the defendant used the codes.

Well I know that you've been through court trials in Canada in regards to satellite TV issues, so your opinion does carry some gravity.

I base my speculation about this on prior cases that Dave lost.

In addition to losing because he couldn't prove ownership of a dish, he also lost when, using the purchase of multiple boot boards as his evidence, the defendant displayed how he bought them to use in security doors, and purchased from a pirate satellite dealer because they offered the best price.

So there are defenses that will work, and the above examples might actually be useful as precedents in certain litigation.

Given that, paying the $3500 initially is going to be the cheapest way out, as I have posted several times before.
02-11-2013, 05:38 AM
Gunsmoke2 - GS2

What information would be in server logs. ?

GS2
02-11-2013, 06:56 AM
Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Quote:

Originally Posted by fifties

Well I know that you've been through court trials in Canada in regards to satellite TV issues, so your opinion does carry some gravity.

I base my speculation about this on prior cases that Dave lost.

In addition to losing because he couldn't prove ownership of a dish, he also lost when, using the purchase of multiple boot boards as his evidence, the defendant displayed how he bought them to use in security doors, and purchased from a pirate satellite dealer because they offered the best price.

So there are defenses that will work, and the above examples might actually be useful as precedents in certain litigation.

Given that, paying the $3500 initially is going to be the cheapest way out, as I have posted several times before.

Dave lost a case when they didn't show that defendant prossessed the necesarry equipment to intercept the signal. Perhaps that's the one your referring to with not proving ownership of a dish. ? That case was appealed and the defendant ended up settling after Dave made a motion to bring in 5 potential expert witnesses to testify plus supplying a CD- ROM to the defendant. It sounded like they had possibly had more evidence of sales of devices to the defendant on top of the unlooper they initially went after him for.

The defendant who was able to demonstrate that he bought devices for security doors did well. If you really can demonstrate you bought these code subcriptions for another purpose othen than the one they allege go for it. I don't know what other purpose there may be. But this is why the onus really shifts to the defendant to prove what he bought it for versus the Plaintiff proving it. They already allege what they say you bought the subscription for.

On the case where Dave lost on the mere possession on appeal it applies to 2512(1)(b). DN is alleging violation of 2511(1)(a) not 2512(1)(b)

They probably purposely stay away from citing that violation where the defendant won and remains in effect as the interpretation since there is no appeal from that decision. None of it reflects on the DMCA and the other violation they allege. It appears that Dave ruling loss is a non issue in the current cases although a lawyer would need to confirm that.

GS2
02-11-2013, 09:23 AM
fifties

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

What information would be in server logs. ?

GS2

I would assume that they would show user IP's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

The defendant who was able to demonstrate that he bought devices for security doors did well. If you really can demonstrate you bought these code subcriptions for another purpose othen than the one they allege go for it. I don't know what other purpose there may be. But this is why the onus really shifts to the defendant to prove what he bought it for versus the Plaintiff proving it. They already allege what they say you bought the subscription for.

Their case would appear to hinge solely on the purchase of the subscription.

The counter could simply be, "yes I bought it with the intention to use it, but I never did, because I never bought a satellite receiver".

If they don't have the defendants ISP logs to show that he connected to the server, nor any proof that he bought a receiver, it then simply becomes their allegation that he used it.

A synonym for the term, "allege" is, "suppose", and generally assumes no proof.

Now whether or not that would be enough to convince a judge, or a jury (if the defendant wisely asks for one), is another matter.

If they can tie the defendant to a user nic on an "FTA" forum, discussing his hardware, asking questions about hooking it up, etc, then all bets are off. He's toast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

On the case where Dave lost on the mere possession on appeal it applies to 2512(1)(b). DN is alleging violation of 2511(1)(a) not 2512(1)(b)

Quote:

(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

I think the term, "endeavor", would be key here. Is simply buying the code sufficient to satisfy that term fully, or would DN need to prove up an internet connection to the server, and/or proof that the defendant owned a satellite receiver, as well?

And I think we should charge the DN stooges who are peeping in on this powwow, lol. ;)
02-11-2013, 12:27 PM
dishuser

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hannibalector

not at all.........

really?
then why do you keep mentioning bins and stb's?
02-11-2013, 12:32 PM
dishuser

Quote:

Originally Posted by fifties

There's no question of the motive, which is proven from their purchase of the codes, and that would be a supporting issue.

The problem for them is, that they won't be able to prove that the defendant owns a "box".

OK, NOW we are getting to the meat of the bone.

DN needs to have a case wherein the code is ID'd by a judge as being illegal to possess. Will that be enough for them to get a judgment, W/O showing any evidence that the defendant (1) had the means to de-scramble and receive their signal -such as ownership of a satellite receiver- and (2) connected to their server as proven by ISP or server logs? We have no court case(s) to go by, so far.

And we don't know how much they really need, as offered in the paragraph above.

have you still not read the DA cases?
they lost because they subscribed
02-11-2013, 12:52 PM
Hannibalector

Quote:

Originally Posted by dishuser

really?
then why do you keep mentioning bins and stb's?

are you forgetting about ird's?lol
02-11-2013, 01:04 PM
torpainter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hannibalector

no name calling and understand I respect alex if you have the need to thrust bs onto this as an Admin fly at it

It was a comment directed to everyone so if you wish to continue this with me it'll be a short conversation
02-11-2013, 01:13 PM
hondoharry

Who said anything about 'buying codes'? Weren't they donating to a poor guy with family problems? Never received any 'codes'.
02-11-2013, 01:18 PM
dishuser

Quote:

Originally Posted by hondoharry

Who said anything about 'buying codes'? Weren't they donating to a poor guy with family problems? Never received any 'codes'.

good luck with that
wanna bet they have the emails and pm's with codes
02-11-2013, 05:33 PM
Hannibalector

Quote:

Originally Posted by torpainter

It was a comment directed to everyone so if you wish to continue this with me it'll be a short conversation

I'd much rather stick around and torment you for awhile if thats ok ?
02-11-2013, 05:44 PM
torpainter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hannibalector

I'd much rather stick around and torment you for awhile if thats ok ?

Lol I have no issues personally with anyone as long as they behave
02-11-2013, 06:07 PM
Just_angel

Quote:

Originally Posted by torpainter

Lol I have no issues personally with anyone as long as they behave

LOL me neither i'm just watching quietly waiting for the sparks to fly!!!

popcorn anyone?
02-11-2013, 06:09 PM
Hannibalector

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

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

the part in bold is the dumbest thing I've heard you say in along time and you're a pretty smart fella, of course it's required GS2 you can't circumvent without it there has to be a bin present with a Nagra image on it, it's needed ....lol
02-11-2013, 06:12 PM
Hannibalector

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just_angel

LOL me neither i'm just watching quietly waiting for the sparks to fly!!!

popcorn anyone?

no flying sparks J_a, I'm not here to cause anyone any grief, seriously ...lol
02-11-2013, 06:25 PM
MarvinGardens

2 Attachment(s)

I've attached a complaint and motion for default judgment from a DA case.

You will see that DN did not have to allege and prove ownership of satellite equipment to get their default judgment.

All that was needed was to prove subscription to an IKS service.
02-11-2013, 06:35 PM
Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Quote:

Originally Posted by fifties

I would assume that they would show user IP's.

Their case would appear to hinge solely on the purchase of the subscription.

The counter could simply be, "yes I bought it with the intention to use it, but I never did, because I never bought a satellite receiver".

If they don't have the defendants ISP logs to show that he connected to the server, nor any proof that he bought a receiver, it then simply becomes their allegation that he used it.

A synonym for the term, "allege" is, "suppose", and generally assumes no proof.

Now whether or not that would be enough to convince a judge, or a jury (if the defendant wisely asks for one), is another matter.

If they can tie the defendant to a user nic on an "FTA" forum, discussing his hardware, asking questions about hooking it up, etc, then all bets are off. He's toast.

Its just not a subscription its a subscription to an illegal service. If the defendant says he bought it to use it but never did than I don't think that would be good because hes saying he bought it with the intent of using it.

Quote:

I think the term, "endeavor", would be key here. Is simply buying the code sufficient to satisfy that term fully, or would DN need to prove up an internet connection to the server, and/or proof that the defendant owned a satellite receiver, as well?

And I think we should charge the DN stooges who are peeping in on this powwow, lol. ;)

Its extremely unlikely anyone bought the subscription without having an internet connection or receiver. I wouldn't think that exists. If you come to court and say you didn't and you did you better make sure they can't find out.

GS2
02-11-2013, 06:39 PM
surfinisfun

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarvinGardens

I've attached a complaint and motion for default judgment from a DA case.

You will see that DN did not have to allege and prove ownership of satellite equipment to get their default judgment.

All that was needed was to prove subscription to an IKS service.

They also had server logs to back them up so lets not distort what they had or didn't.
02-11-2013, 06:44 PM
Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hannibalector

the part in bold is the dumbest thing I've heard you say in along time and you're a pretty smart fella, of course it's required GS2 you can't circumvent without it there has to be a bin present with a Nagra image on it, it's needed ....lol

No its not required. Really you need to read the law. It doesn't matter how you circumvent the encryption. What your trying to say is I am innocent if they can't prove I had a bin. That is pretty dumb in my opinion. That really will not help any defendant.

GS2
02-11-2013, 06:50 PM
Hannibalector

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

No its not required. Really you need to read the law. It doesn't matter how you circumvent the encryption. What your trying to say is I am innocent if they can't prove I had a bin. That is pretty dumb in my opinion. That really will not help any defendant.

GS2

it is so required, jeez, you can't circumvent without it, what part of that don't you understand ?
02-11-2013, 06:52 PM
MarvinGardens

Quote:

Originally Posted by surfinisfun

They also had server logs to back them up so lets not distort what they had or didn't.

DN did not have to even allege or present any server logs to get their judgment from the court.
02-11-2013, 06:56 PM
surfinisfun

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarvinGardens

DN did not have to even allege or present any server logs to get their judgment from the court.

Gee,j...I wonder why.
02-11-2013, 06:56 PM
alex70olds

Great discussion. I did think DN had a slam dunk, but do they? Still only 9 cases filed, the last Jan 30. I cant imagine everyone else has settled. I also find it kind of funny a user in this thread (jacksonj) registered and made 13 posts, all in this thread urging people to settle. I am sure his username initials are just a coincidence. lol :P
02-11-2013, 06:59 PM
Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hannibalector

it is so required, jeez, you can't circumvent without it, what part of that don't you understand ?

If defendants are found guilty by preponderance of the evidence by puchasing codes do you think it was proved that the defendant had a bin or that they even tried.

So where is this requirement in law. I can not find it. Now you tell me what part of that you did not understand. This bin requirement according to you does not exist in law.

GS2
02-11-2013, 07:02 PM
Hannibalector

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarvinGardens

I've attached a complaint and motion for default judgment from a DA case.

You will see that DN did not have to allege and prove ownership of satellite equipment to get their default judgment.

All that was needed was to prove subscription to an IKS service.

hmm just read this part in the case file:

To access the IKS server, the defendent used a pirate sattelite reciever loaded with piracy software, which is a software device designed to circumvent.

number 26 in Defendents wrongful conduct
02-11-2013, 07:06 PM
Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hannibalector

hmm just read this part in the case file:

To access the IKS server, the defendent used a pirate sattelite reciever loaded with piracy software, which is a software device designed to circumvent

They alleged it. They did not prove the defendant owned a sat receiver. They did not have to for the default judgment. It went uncontested.

GS2
02-11-2013, 07:06 PM
surfinisfun

Let me pose a question: If a Grandmother in Florida went on line and bought a code,now keep in mind she is in a retirement housing facility with no dish's allowed.

Are they going to come after her for this purchase?......is it still illegal?
02-11-2013, 07:09 PM
alex70olds

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

They alleged it. They did not prove the defendant owned a sat receiver. They did not have to for the default judgment. It went uncontested.

GS2

Thanks, because I think everyone missed it was a default.
02-11-2013, 07:10 PM
Hannibalector

GS2 read the case file, it's necessary, allthough in the case file theres no evidence of a download to any bins or files, it simply makes the assertion, thats right default thanks for pointing that out
02-11-2013, 07:12 PM
Hannibalector

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

They alleged it. They did not prove the defendant owned a sat receiver. They did not have to for the default judgment. It went uncontested.

GS2

do you think it's necessary to prove it in court ? if not why allege it ?
02-11-2013, 07:20 PM
MarvinGardens

A court will not automatically grant a default judgment. If that were the situation everyone would be filing lawsuits in the hope that the defendant will not contest. Much better odds than playing the lottery.

The court still has to consider the evidence before it will grant the default. Motions for default judgment are regularly denied.

In the DA cases the court found that there was sufficient evidence before it (evidence that did not include ownership of sat equipment or server logs) to grant the judgment.

My point is that DN did not have to prove to the court that the defendant had the means to complete the copyright violation and that's why they will win with the current round of litigation.

Subscription to the IKS service is all the evidence they need.
02-11-2013, 07:20 PM
Hannibalector

just say you're right Hanni and we can get passed this little issue ....lol kidding

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page