Letter now Court case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

You can most like count on that if he wins.

I noticed that he is going to make DN prove that he has a satellite receiver, and that he connected to the server (just as I had suggested as a defense).

---

Was going to say Think he was reading? Lol

Looks like the 'yeah, that's me, I bought it but never used it' defense. Let's hope he kept his mouth shut in forums, PM's and emails. Something tells me he just lent his PayPal acct. for a friend who didn't have one and they picked him because he's a Texas homeboy.

Go Kailas!

Nice find, Alex.

if i remember correctly..
Kailas case was one of the 1st several posted and someone(turd other site) posted a street view of his home(300k ish value?).
IMO it appears he has money and or good credit and can afford to challenge dn instead of roll over.
now if i'm wrong about the person or picture connection this post was just wasted bandwidth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

You can most like count on that if he wins.

I noticed that he is going to make DN prove that he has a satellite receiver, and that he connected to the server (just as I had suggested as a defense).

---

He denies anything is what I read. That's his defense. That is pretty standard when you file a defense answer. That doesn't mean they are going to have to prove he had a sat receiver and connected to the server. He'll have to explain why he bought codes that only have one purpose but to access plaintiff's signals without legal authorization when deposed especially if he says he never owned a sat system. Why buy them than. The plaintiff might have server logs. They might have posts or private messages if they connected his name to an nick. They could go to his house and see if there is a dish pointing to their signals. They could go to his neighbor and and ask if he ever had a dish on his roof. If they find anything that would hurt his defense. Remember in civil if its more likely than not then you could lose. His defense can possibly work if its true and there is nothing incriminating that is found and if he doesn't make a mistake while being deposed, also explaning why he bought a subscription to an illegal service that makes sense. People just don't look to buy a subscription like that if they never own a sat receiver. What brought him to even go there. He doesn't deny the purchase. While these things might or might be proved what I am saying is that it might not be necessary as other factors could or could not come into play.


If anyone wins it will be quite some time from now. Unless they send out letters or file lawsuits over a year from now and longer defendants might not be in a position to wait.



GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

If anyone wins it will be quite some time from now.
GS2

---

At this point the only one who is a sure winner is the defendant's attorney.

Yep the attorneys always get paid.

One other point, has it been shown that prov is acting for the owners of the copyrights? If not then they can only file for damages that they incurred on stuff that they do have copyrights on--a tiny fraction of the total content, and the damages claimed for copyright violations are the bulk of the $3500 from what I can tell. And can it be shown that prov has ever payed copyright holders anything and how did they partition the recovered amounts--they could be in violation of copyright laws themselves though users can't do anything about that it could be something to use in court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

He denies anything is what I read. That's his defense. That is pretty standard when you file a defense answer. That doesn't mean they are going to have to prove he had a sat receiver and connected to the server. He'll have to explain why he bought codes that only have one purpose but to access plaintiff's signals without legal authorization when deposed especially if he says he never owned a sat system. Why buy them than. The plaintiff might have server logs. They might have posts or private messages if they connected his name to an nick. They could go to his house and see if there is a dish pointing to their signals. They could go to his neighbor and and ask if he ever had a dish on his roof. If they find anything that would hurt his defense. Remember in civil if its more likely than not then you could lose. His defense can possibly work if its true and there is nothing incriminating that is found and if he doesn't make a mistake while being deposed, also explaning why he bought a subscription to an illegal service that makes sense. People just don't look to buy a subscription like that if they never own a sat receiver. What brought him to even go there. He doesn't deny the purchase. While these things might or might be proved what I am saying is that it might not be necessary as other factors could or could not come into play.


If anyone wins it will be quite some time from now. Unless they send out letters or file lawsuits over a year from now and longer defendants might not be in a position to wait.

---

Quote:

---

He doesn't deny the purchase.

---

Of course not; they've got those goods on him.

But so far, that appears to be all they have. Now if, during the discovery phase, they bring out his ISP logs, showing connection to the IKS server's addy, I would say he's toast.

They will most likely never be able to prove that he owns a satellite receiver, unless they also have posts from a nic they can tie to him, discussing setting it up.

If there is evidence showing a dish on his roof, the D can simply be, "it was there when we moved into the house". There's no way they can disprove that.

His D testimony can simply be, "I had heard about this IKS thing from a friend, and bought the code since it was cheap enough, but never endeavored beyond that, to acquire a satellite receiver. It just all seemed too complicated for me". Remember, intent in a civil proceeding of this type, without showing actual evidence of mis-doing, is gonna be tough to get a judgment on.

AFA other cases, a request for continuance, based on the outcome of this trial, might work.

Guess we will see if the server info and real proof that his receiver was receiving .

and I mean by server info ...if they did get the code from wuf (all his data)...they could have tested it themselves..to verified it worked .

But still have to proof he used it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

Of course not; they've got those goods on him.

But so far, that appears to be all they have. Now if, during the discovery phase, they bring out his ISP logs, showing connection to the IKS server's addy, I would say he's toast.

They will most likely never be able to prove that he owns a satellite receiver, unless they also have posts from a nic they can tie to him, discussing setting it up.

If there is evidence showing a dish on his roof, the D can simply be, "it was there when we moved into the house". There's no way they can disprove that.

His D testimony can simply be, "I had heard about this IKS thing from a friend, and bought the code since it was cheap enough, but never endeavored beyond that, to acquire a satellite receiver. It just all seemed too complicated for me". Remember, intent in a civil proceeding of this type, without showing actual evidence of mis-doing, is gonna be tough to get a judgment on.

AFA other cases, a request for continuance, based on the outcome of this trial, might work.

---

To say that is all they appear to have is not the way to look at it in my opinion. They don't state what evidence they may or may not have to support their claim in the complaint. They can also pick up evidence after filling the complaint. I think your missing the requirement for civil whether its more likely than not. Those stories rarely work like I just bought this code because it was cheap but I never had a satellite receiver and did not know what it was for just it was cheap enough so why not buy it. The mis doing is buying a subcription to an illegal service that has only one purpose and you claiming you did not know what is for but you just buy things that are cheap as a matter of something you like to do is not too believable I would think.


I can't see any court saying lets stop the proceedings because of this other case. Never heard of that myself. It would really prejudice a Plaintiff.



GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1boxman

Guess we will see if the server info and real proof that his receiver was receiving .

and I mean by server info ...if they did get the code from wuf (all his data)...they could have tested it themselves..to verified it worked .

But still have to proof he used it .

---

Do you think they have to be in house to have witnessed he used it. They can produce logs if they have any and than the defendant says well it was a shared computer in the house and it was not me. I could be wrong but don't think they have to prove he actually used it. Don't think they would be filling lawsuits if that was the case that law in civil required that. Its the preponderance of evidence giving weight to what side is morely likely or not.



GS2

Courts can use circumstantial evidence without direct evidence so it would be up to a court to determine if the circumstantial evidence was strong enough without having actually prove the use.

Quote:

---

Circumstantial evidence can support a finding that a communication was intercepted, even absent direct evidence

---

Quote:

---

("[D]irect evidence of a fact is not required. Circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence.").

---

GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex70olds

You just might get your wish.

Attachment 17711

---

Good For him.... I wish him the VERY best of luck !

BPG~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPG

Good For him.... I wish him the VERY best of luck !

BPG~

---

Well the only thing left would be a subpoena of IP records ... If his home IP was conecting to an IKS server combined with the PP evidence his goose is cooked.. Even if he says his network was hacked..

Plenty to be said about a Wifi antenna ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

His D testimony can simply be, "I had heard about this IKS thing from a friend, and bought the code since it was cheap enough, but never endeavored beyond that, to acquire a satellite receiver. It just all seemed too complicated for me".

---

That would be like saying "I bought a barrel of gasoline but then decided I did not want to go through the process of studying for my driver's license and then purchase a car. It turns out the test was too hard and car prices are beyond my finances".

Buying an IKS subscription would be your final step not your first step.

Your argument might fly in Mickey Mouse court but not in Federal court.

If Oscar Pistorius can get bail, im sure we've got a fighting chance.. The courts aren't bound by logic aparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by budyyy

If Oscar Pistorius can get bail, im sure we've got a fighting chance.. The courts aren't bound by logic aparently.

---

That is an interesting perception...hmmmm.:innocent:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by budyyy

If Oscar Pistorius can get bail, im sure we've got a fighting chance.. The courts aren't bound by logic aparently.

---

Well not all courts are South African..LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

He denies anything is what I read. That's his defense. That is pretty standard when you file a defense answer. That doesn't mean they are going to have to prove he had a sat receiver and connected to the server. He'll have to explain why he bought codes that only have one purpose but to access plaintiff's signals without legal authorization when deposed especially if he says he never owned a sat system. Why buy them than. The plaintiff might have server logs. They might have posts or private messages if they connected his name to an nick. They could go to his house and see if there is a dish pointing to their signals. They could go to his neighbor and and ask if he ever had a dish on his roof. If they find anything that would hurt his defense. Remember in civil if its more likely than not then you could lose. His defense can possibly work if its true and there is nothing incriminating that is found and if he doesn't make a mistake while being deposed, also explaning why he bought a subscription to an illegal service that makes sense. People just don't look to buy a subscription like that if they never own a sat receiver. What brought him to even go there. He doesn't deny the purchase. While these things might or might be proved what I am saying is that it might not be necessary as other factors could or could not come into play.


If anyone wins it will be quite some time from now. Unless they send out letters or file lawsuits over a year from now and longer defendants might not be in a position to wait.



GS2

---

remember he did not buy a code, he sent a donation to an old man and used PP, no server logs or isp logs, no case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iq180

remember he did not buy a code, he sent a donation to an old man and used PP, no server logs or isp logs, no case.

---

donation?
really?
and you know this how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iq180

remember he did not buy a code, he sent a donation to an old man and used PP, no server logs or isp logs, no case.

---

Don't think the donation idea will be effective. I can't agree there is no case unless if they have server or ISP logs. Circumstantial evidence if good can be sufficient without having that direct evidence. We don't know what circumstantial evidence they may or may not have or what they will be able to get or not get. ISP's have cooperated before and if they say we need a court order courts usually issue one to plaintiff. If they have some incriminating message or email they won't need logs. At this point we don't know. With now having a defense from a defendant they will start looking for evidence to counter that defense. With no defense answer they don't have to bother with investigation. If this defendant is telling the truth than he could possibly have success but if hes not and they find something than not having server logs won't dictate that there is no case.




GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

To say that is all they appear to have is not the way to look at it in my opinion. They don't state what evidence they may or may not have to support their claim in the complaint. They can also pick up evidence after filling the complaint. I think your missing the requirement for civil whether its more likely than not. Those stories rarely work like I just bought this code because it was cheap but I never had a satellite receiver

---

You continue to miss -or ignore- something I have continually posted, so I am going to isolate it for you; the term is...................................

"discovery".

I know that you know what this procedure is, but for the benefit of those who don't, it is the process wherein each side presents to the other all of their evidence, the purpose being that no surprises surface at the actual trial, and additionally the potential to settle and avoid trial, if one side sees an unavoidable defeat.

Now in this particular type of situation, IF Charlie's lawyer displays ISP logs showing a connection between the defendants ISP and the IKS server addy, and IF defense council advises against a claim that his client's WiFi must have been hacked, then the two pieces of evidence -the purchase of the code and the ISP logs- should be sufficient.

Don't forget, although Dave often won, he also lost cases where he tried to argue in court that folks purchasing items that could hack his service, actually did so with them. In fact, I believe at least one U.S. Circuit Court developed a backlash toward his tactics, after a period of time.

I still maintain that a D of "I bought the code, but never used it, because I never bought a receiver", is valid, and especially so if they can produce no logs.

But that's just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

You continue to miss -or ignore- something I have continually posted, so I am going to isolate it for you; the term is...................................

"discovery".

I know that you know what this procedure is, but for the benefit of those who don't, it is the process wherein each side presents to the other all of their evidence, the purpose being that no surprises surface at the actual trial, and additionally the potential to settle and avoid trial, if one side sees an unavoidable defeat.

Now in this particular type of situation, IF Charlie's lawyer displays ISP logs showing a connection between the defendants ISP and the IKS server addy, and IF defense council advises against a claim that his client's WiFi must have been hacked, then the two pieces of evidence -the purchase of the code and the ISP logs- should be sufficient.

Don't forget, although Dave often won, he also lost cases where he tried to argue in court that folks purchasing items that could hack his service, actually did so with them. In fact, I believe at least one U.S. Circuit Court developed a backlash toward his tactics, after a period of time.

I still maintain that a D of "I bought the code, but never used it, because I never bought a receiver", is valid, and especially so if they can produce no logs. But that's just my opinion.

---

don't forget the bin, no bin or RQCS no go, nothing happens in IKS without the bins, factory bins and avr/computer connections alone won't do squat either, ergo the ISP record, ergo proof of a bin, dish and reciever are all legal equipment to own, evidence sure, but that equipment won't do anything unless tampered with

ok guys lets hope that kailas magi win his case that way a lot of hobbyist that got letter had a fighting chance to win.

What about someone who bought the code on his PayPal acct. for a friend who had bad credit. He couldn't possibly be guilty of decrypting signals. Then again, it would cost more to defend.

before that defense is presented ...i would wait to see what evidence they trot out at deposition... I.E any proof you actually connected and do you own a STB with the required bin installed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

You continue to miss -or ignore- something I have continually posted, so I am going to isolate it for you; the term is...................................

"discovery".

---

I posted it before you but you keep making comments like this regarding evidence so it is confusing. There always is more evidence than what the complaint says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

But so far, that appears to be all they have

---

Quote:

---

I know that you know what this procedure is, but for the benefit of those who don't, it is the process wherein each side presents to the other all of their evidence, the purpose being that no surprises surface at the actual trial, and additionally the potential to settle and avoid trial, if one side sees an unavoidable defeat.

Now in this particular type of situation, IF Charlie's lawyer displays ISP logs showing a connection between the defendants ISP and the IKS server addy, and IF defense council advises against a claim that his client's WiFi must have been hacked, then the two pieces of evidence -the purchase of the code and the ISP logs- should be sufficient.

Don't forget, although Dave often won, he also lost cases where he tried to argue in court that folks purchasing items that could hack his service, actually did so with them. In fact, I believe at least one U.S. Circuit Court developed a backlash toward his tactics, after a period of time.

I still maintain that a D of "I bought the code, but never used it, because I never bought a receiver", is valid, and especially so if they can produce no logs.

But that's just my opinion.

---

A court will decide if it merits a win for the defendant so we are all speculating with our opinions. I am speculating that if logs are not produced it does not mean a win for the defendant automatically. If they have or obtained other circumstantial evidence like something incriminating the defewnant wrote in an email to wufman it won't matter if they have logs or not.It seems some people feel no logs case over without considering other possible circumstantial that may or may not come. You yourself seem to indicate no logs its especially valid. Its valid if he told the truth. Myself I can't understand why someone would buy a subscription to an illegal service especially if they claim they never owned a receiver. I think that will be open for question but if he told the truth than the plaintiff won't be able to find un truth.



GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibalector

don't forget the bin, no bin or RQCS no go, nothing happens in IKS without the bins, factory bins and avr/computer connections alone won't do squat either, ergo the ISP record, ergo proof of a bin, dish and reciever are all legal equipment to own, evidence sure, but that equipment won't do anything unless tampered with

---

No bin does not mean no go. This is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Its the preponderance of the evidence. Your concept that they have show bins in a civil case is wrong.



GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hondoharry

What about someone who bought the code on his PayPal acct. for a friend who had bad credit. He couldn't possibly be guilty of decrypting signals. Then again, it would cost more to defend.

---

So he is going to bring his friend in and name him. Next thing you know they could both have lawsuits and some conspiracy allegation to defend against. Of course the conspiracy allegation could/would be bulchit but than as you say it will cost to defend.




GS2

As has already been said a thousand times here and elsewhere.....its all speculative but the difference now is the defendant gets to see what Dick has on him, can't do without his own legal action.

Server logs would be big but i doubt they have those....ISP logs would be easier to obtain but one would have to ask....if he connected and had pm's or e-mails that could be traced back than why would he bother fighting?

This what they say in the complaint.

Quote:

---

The allegations made by DISH Network concerning the whereabouts and wrongful conduct of Defendant are based on the investigation completed to date, and with the reasonable belief that further investigation and discovery in this action will lead to additional factual support. Therefore, DISH Network reserves the right to supplement or amend its claims and the basis for those claims, with leave of court if necessary, as additional investigation and discovery is conducted.

---

The problem is we know from the past they send out their investigation goons and very often to come up with more factual evidence. Now that this defendant answered with a defense they will. So if he told the truth its a valid defense to try. Whether its successful will be up to the court. But if they find some un truth than it will be quite harmful to his creditibility and logs won't be necesarry. It might only be necessary or would have been necesaarry if the court says there is not enough proof that he did intercepted the signal with the court interpretating it as necesarry.




GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surfinisfun

As has already been said a thousand times here and elsewhere.....its all speculative but the difference now is the defendant gets to see what Dick has on him, can't do without his own legal action.

Server logs would be big but i doubt they have those....ISP logs would be easier to obtain but one would have to ask....if he connected and had pm's or e-mails that could be traced back than why would he bother fighting?

---

Some people and even lawyers are not always familar with what they do so they don't anticipate what could be possibly coming. Sometimes clients don't disclose everything to their lawyer so the lawyer might not know about emails or Pm's till it might be brought out.


This is why its importment that his defense statement is truthful. If it is than he'll have a defense to try all the way till the end. If not than likely will not make it to the end for a possible successful decision in his favor.



GS2

Nope, that does not wash....

Its not a murder or child porn case so chances are he will tell his lawyer everything, he has no reason not to. Full disclosure should not be an issue unless he's guilty or an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Some people and even lawyers are not always familar with what they do so they don't anticipate what could be possibly coming. Sometimes clients don't disclose everything to their lawyer so the lawyer might not know about emails or Pm's till it might be brought out.
GS2

---

That is correct. And looking at his attorney's profile:

hXXp://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Customsource/MemberDirectory/MemberDirectoryDetail.cfm&ContactID=151535

He lists his practice to business, taxation and property matters. Hardly someone you would want to be involved in a highly specialized copyright case.

It appears that he did some research on the issue and has turned up the DTV case.

In that case the court held that simply being in possession of two devices (ISO programmer and unlooper) that could be used to hack an access card was not enough proof. The court struggled with their ruling even saying it was tempting to find for DTV but since those two devices could be used for something other than hacking they had to find against DTV.

The court went on to say that if DTV had provided some proof that the defendant had satellite equipment that may have tipped the scales to them.

So this lawyer reads the DTV case and almost verbatim claims that DN has no actual proof that their signal was hacked.

The big difference between this case and the DTV case is that subscribing to an IKS service only has one purpose.

^ maybe he sent the donation to support the servers endeavors but never meant to receive a code/never wanted one. Unless he specified in emails/pms exactly what he wanted, they can't prove he meant to receive the codes. After all if you sent 20$ to the red cross and they email you child porn, are you really to blame for receiving it? Of course not, unless they can prove you asked for the porn to be sent to you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

I posted it before you but you keep making comments like this regarding evidence so it is confusing. There always is more evidence than what the complaint says.

---

Yes, and it comes out in the DISCOVERY phase. That would be when the defendant must decide if he wants to take it to trial or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

A court will decide if it merits a win for the defendant so we are all speculating with our opinions. I am speculating that if logs are not produced it does not mean a win for the defendant automatically. If they have or obtained other circumstantial evidence like something incriminating the defewnant wrote in an email to wufman it won't matter if they have logs or not.It seems some people feel no logs case over without considering other possible circumstantial that may or may not come. You yourself seem to indicate no logs its especially valid. Its valid if he told the truth. Myself I can't understand why someone would buy a subscription to an illegal service especially if they claim they never owned a receiver. I think that will be open for question but if he told the truth than the plaintiff won't be able to find un truth.

---

I maintain that W/O logs, they simply can't prove that he used the codes. And to get those logs, I would speculate, would require a subpoena. I can see a judge signing one on a dealer, but for an end-user, it just might be considered an unreasonable invasion of his privacy, given the lesser weight of the alleged offense.

Now this idea of yours (and some others) that, because he purchased the codes, he must have used them, or why did he buy them in the first place doesn't completely hold water, and here's why;

Almost everyone, at some time, has bought something or other and just put it away, unopened. So why would this behavior be any different? In fact, it carries more weight in this situation, because the codes are dependent on the ownership of both a satellite receiver and dish antenna. They are of no use, all by themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surfinisfun

Nope, that does not wash....

Its not a murder or child porn case so chances are he will tell his lawyer everything, he has no reason not to. Full disclosure should not be an issue unless he's guilty or an idiot.

---

His reason not to is because he might not think or anticipate some possible email or Pm is going to fall into the Plaintiffs or there will be some possible court order to his ISP or PayPal or whoever to turn over records. He may not think or anticipate that the Plaintiff could go to one of his neighbors in hope of gathering information that we have just recently seen in a case so in his mind he could be possibly saying to himself why tell his lawyer I am not going to be caught.



I say this because it is so unlikely someone decided to buy a subscription to that service without being able to use it. I don't think in reality people do that.



GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by budyyy

^ maybe he sent the donation to support the servers endeavors but never meant to receive a code/never wanted one. Unless he specified in emails/pms exactly what he wanted, they can't prove he meant to receive the codes. After all if you sent 20$ to the red cross and they email you child porn, are you really to blame for receiving it? Of course not, unless they can prove you asked for the porn to be sent to you

---

Wufman is not the Red Cross. He was running an illegal service.



GS2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Wufman is not the Red Cross. He was running an illegal service.



GS2

---

He was ?? Which one ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fifties

Yes, and it comes out in the DISCOVERY phase. That would be when the defendant must decide if he wants to take it to trial or not.


I maintain that W/O logs, they simply can't prove that he used the codes. And to get those logs, I would speculate, would require a subpoena. I can see a judge signing one on a dealer, but for an end-user, it just might be considered an unreasonable invasion of his privacy, given the lesser weight of the alleged offense.

Now this idea of yours (and some others) that, because he purchased the codes, he must have used them, or why did he buy them in the first place doesn't completely hold water, and here's why;

Almost everyone, at some time, has bought something or other and just put it away, unopened. So why would this behavior be any different? In fact, it carries more weight in this situation, because the codes are dependent on the ownership of both a satellite receiver and dish antenna. They are of no use, all by themselves.

---

Heres the problem you think they must prove he used it. I don't agree with that. If they pick up an incriminating email from the defendant why would they have to prove he used it or have server logs. This is civil court where the decision goes to where the preponderance of the evidence has more weight. If the defenant says in an email to wufman just as an example, why is it in the last two days the PPV's are not working do you think they have to actually prove he used it.


I don't agree with your therory that people buy some illegal service and just put it away. People buy things and can just put it away but we are talking about buying something that is illegal. People don't just buy illegal things in my opinion. I think most people will stay away from purchasing illegal things to avoid trouble. Why would anyone put themselves at risk like that unless they wanted to participate seems more logical to me.




GS2