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