Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 117

Thread: E-mail & letter from satscams!!! WTF

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    W3ARPA
    Posts
    77
    Satfix Buxs
    238
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 176x in 53 Posts

    Default

    you could not of purchased from them directly ...ahemm as no one has heard of a raid @ IKSprivateserver and as you show in an earlier post in this thread


    NagraStar has obtained business records from an individual who sold IKS passcodes to the Nfusion Private Server (“NFPS”) and IKS Rocket pirate television services. These business records establish that you purchased multiple IKS passcodes

    individual being the key here ,

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    21
    Satfix Buxs
    57
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 5x in 3 Posts

    Default

    I read online that several months ago NFPS and Rocket had been served papers and taken to court and to be leary of using them.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    W3ARPA
    Posts
    77
    Satfix Buxs
    238
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 176x in 53 Posts

    Default

    by no means am I suggesting the use of either or any private server , NFPS was served and shut down in the US a couple of years ago.. @ which time they moved there operation

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Midnight Rider For This Useful Post:


  5. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    I think people should be aware that DN can go to countries off shore to petition courts to make parties turn over records. Many people are not aware that DN and Bev went to court in Hong Kong in the Tomico case where they petition the court to order the ISP there to turn over records of users. They were successful.


    Here is the case. Zentek International is the ISP in Hong Kong



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

    HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

    MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1357 OF 2008

    ----------------------

    IN THE MATTER of Section 275 of the Copyright Ordinance, Cap. 528
    and
    IN THE MATTER of the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court
    and
    IN THE MATTER of discovery of the identity of infringers of the Broadcasting Rights of the Plaintiffs

    ----------------------

    BETWEEN
    DISH NETWORK LLC 1st Plaintiff
    ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC 2nd Plaintiff
    BELL EXPRESS VU LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 3rd Plaintiff
    and
    ZENTEK INTERNATIONAL CO. LIMITED 1st Defendant
    JASON CASTLE LIM 2nd Defendant

    ----------------------

    Before: Deputy High Court Judge L. Chan in Chambers

    Date of Hearing: 9 October 2008

    Date of Judgment: 16 October 2008



    ----------------------

    J U D G M E N T

    ----------------------



    1. This is an application for Norwich Pharmacal relief. The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are US satellite broadcasters. They provide encrypted programming services to subscribers for a fee. The 3rd plaintiff is a Canadian satellite broadcaster and is in a similar business as the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs but operates in Canada. All the plaintiffs use the same encryption technology supplied by a NagraStar LLC.

    2. The plaintiffs provide an access card to their subscribers for access to the encrypted programmes. The access card has the hardware and software to descramble the encrypted signals from the plaintiffs so that the encrypted programmes can be viewed by the subscribers. There are however various types of equipment and devices in the market which can descramble the plaintiffs’ encrypted programmes by various means. Such descrambling is without the plaintiffs’ authorisation and is illegal.

    3. In order to prevent illegal descrambling, the plaintiffs have revised and updated their encryption technology and descrambling hardware and software. However, those in the business of providing illegal descrambling equipment and devices also updated their products to continue their business. This has been going on and on and there are a number of versions of encryption hardware and software with corresponding piratical descrambling equipment and devices.

    4. Pirate software is an essential component of most pirate devices. Some of the software are available from some piracy websites. These websites often restrict access to those who pay fees to become their members or subscribers.

    5. Through various investigations, the plaintiffs have identified a number of websites which have been used for or involved in the sale of pirate hardware and software. The domain names of these sites are www.tomico-satellites.com, www.tomico-satellites.net, www.nagra2-software.com, www.nagra2elite.com, www.nagra3.com and www.anton-pillar.com (hereinafter called “the Websites”).

    6. The Websites used to be hosted in servers in North America. In 2006, they were moved to a server or servers of the 1st defendant located in Hong Kong. When the Websites were in Hong Kong, those who control them continued to sell the pirate hardware and software from them. With the exception of www.anton-pillar.com, the Websites had in them pirate software available for downloading by their members and subscribers. The Websites have now suspended their operations, but they can be revived at anytime.

    7. The plaintiffs apply for Norwich Pharmacal relief against the defendants. The 1st defendant is the company that owns the relevant server or servers in Hong Kong. The 2nd defendant is its director. The plaintiffs want disclosure by the defendants of the names, identities and some other information of the owners of the Websites as well as their members and subscribers who have taken part in the sale and purchase of the pirate hardware and software.

    8. In order to succeed, the plaintiffs must show cogent and compelling evidence to demonstrate that serious tortious activities have taken place against them in Hong Kong (see A Co. v B Co. [2002] 3 HKLRD 111 at 117G-H). The plaintiffs rely on section 275(2)(b) of the Copyright Ordinance, Cap. 528. They say that their position is the same as copyright owners whose rights have been infringed by the owners, members and subscribers of the Websites. Sections 275(1) and (2)(b) provide:


    “(1) a person who-


    (a) makes charges for the reception of programmes included in a broadcasting or cable programme service provided from a place in Hong Kong or elsewhere; or

    (b) sends encrypted transmissions of any other description from a place in Hong Kong or elsewhere, is entitled to the following rights and remedies.

    (2) He has the same rights and remedies against a person who-


    (a) …; or

    (b) publishes any information which is calculated to enable or assist persons to receive the programmes or other transmissions when they are not entitled to do so.

    as a copyright owner has in respect of an infringement of copyright.”

    9. The plaintiffs say that the owners of the Websites, in making available the pirate software for downloading by their members and subscribers, have published such software in terms of section 275(2)(b). The plaintiffs thereby have the rights and remedies against them as infringers of the plaintiffs’ copyright.

    10. The defendants disagree. They say that there is no publishing unless and until a member or subscriber has clicked on the link on the pirate webpage shown on his computer monitor to initiate the streaming of signal of the pirate software from the 1st defendant’s server in Hong Kong to the sever of the member or subscriber. The defendants say that this act of clinking on the link invariably takes places in North America as the plaintiffs’ programmes are only broadcast in North America. They thus argue that the infringement by publishing only takes place in North America and not in Hong Kong.

    11. Leading counsel for the defendants also refer to BBC Enterprises Ltd v Hi-Tech Xtravision Ltd [1992] RPC 167 at 202 lines 11 to 19 and submits that the act of publishing (like the manufacture of unauthorized decoders in the BBC Enterprises Ltd case) must be completed in Hong Kong before section 275(2)(b) can apply. Since publishing only takes place in North America, no action under section 275(2)(b) is constituted against the owners of the Websites.

    12. I refer to the Oxford English Dictionary. The word “publish” is defined to mean, among others:


    “(1) to make public, to make publicly or generally known, … (4)(a) to issue or cause to be issued for sale to the public (copies of a book, writing, engraving, piece of music, or the like); said of an author, editor, or spec. of a professional publisher, (b) to make generally accessible or available for acceptance or use; to place before or offer to the public, now spec. by the medium of a book, journal, or the like.”

    13. I prefer the meaning of “publish” as defined in the Oxford Dictionary and disagree with the defendants on their interpretation of section 275(2)(b). I find that the mere availability of the software on the Websites, except the www.anton-pillar.com website, amounts to publishing and constitutes an infringement of the plaintiffs’ rights as copyright owners. I therefore find in favour of the plaintiffs that there is cogent and compelling evidence that serious tortious activities against the plaintiffs have taken place in Hong Kong.

    14. The next matter raised by the defendants is on the propriety of requiring the disclosure of data contained in the www.anton-pillar.com website. The evidence suggests that this website is just a chatroom where people discuss about matters relating to piracy descrambling. Those who take part in the discussions may or may not be operators or members of the other websites grouped under the Websites. This website also has nothing available for downloading or for sale. I agree with the defendants that there is no cogent evidence that tortious activities against the plaintiffs have taken place in this website. I would not require disclosure of any data in or relating to this website.

    15. The defendants have also submitted that the data to be disclosed should not include those of the users of the Websites as some of them are mere visitors. I agree and will not require the disclosure of data of mere visitors or mere users. I will only require disclosure of data of those who have offered or accepted pirate software or hardware whether for a price or otherwise and those who have given instructions for the use of pirate hardware or software.

    16. To avoid prejudice to innocent users of the Websites, the plaintiffs also undertake that if they should obtain information from the defendants which contains information of innocent users, they will not use such information for any purpose. Upon this undertaking of the plaintiffs, I make the following order:







    GS2
    Last edited by Gunsmoke2 - GS2; 08-07-2015 at 12:01 AM.

  6. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    Continued.


    (1) The 1st and 2nd defendants do within 7 days of the date of the order herein disclose to the solicitors for the plaintiffs (in documentary form) the full names, postal addresses, e-mail addresses, and proof of identity documents (if available) of the owners and/or operators of the websites www.tomico-satellites.com, www.tomico-satellites.net, www.nagra2-software.com, www.nagra2elite.com and www.nagra3.com which have been hosted by the 1st defendant’s computer servers in Hong Kong (hereinafter called “the Infringing Websites”);


    (2) The 1st and 2nd defendants do within 7 days of the date of the order herein disclose to the solicitors for the plaintiffs (in documentary form) the registration information, billing and payment information and other communications between the 1st and/or 2nd defendants and the owners and/or operators of the Infringing Websites;


    (3) The 1st and 2nd defendants do within 7 days of the date of the order herein disclose to the solicitors for the plaintiffs (in documentary or computer readable form) the records of the names, usernames, nicknames, pseudonyms, postal addresses, e-mail addresses and internet protocol addresses of the members and subscribers of the Infringing Websites and the dates and times such internet protocol addresses were used to access the Infringing Websites;


    (4) The 1st and 2nd defendants do within 7 days of the date of the order herein disclose to the solicitors for the plaintiffs (in documentary or computer readable form) the electronic data of messages and “posts” or private messages that contain information of the identities of the members and subscribers of the Infringing Websites preserved in the servers in which the Infringing Websites reside;


    (5) The members and subscribers of the Infringing Websites as referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this order are limited to those who have offered or accepted pirate hardware or software for a price or otherwise or those who have given instructions for the use of pirate hardware or software.


    (6) The plaintiffs be at liberty to use the documents and information disclosed pursuant to this order for the purpose of enforcing their broadcasting and related rights against any and all persons so disclosed;


    (7) The 1st and 2nd defendants do within 7 days of their compliance of this order make and file an affidavit or affirmation verifying that they have duly complied with this order and serve a copy of the same on the solicitors for the plaintiffs;

    Pursuant to an agreement of the parties, I also order:


    (8) The costs of these proceedings be to the 1st and 2nd defendants; and


    (9) The plaintiffs do pay the 1st and 2nd defendants reasonable costs for their compliance with this order.





    (L. Chan)
    Deputy High Court Judge



    GS2

  7. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    16,241
    Satfix Buxs
    2,380,488,878,337
    Thanks
    23,716
    Thanked 27,831x in 10,218 Posts
    Items DevilBeef
Gift received at 01-24-2014, 04:26 PM from swanner
Message: Thanks for Your Input, with all the Hot Heads around.. Should be cooked in No Time..LOLDish
Gift received at 12-15-2013, 09:10 PM from holly2012
Message: From an Old FriendDog
Gift received at 10-30-2013, 12:15 AM from Just_angel
Message: love chloe xoxoxWhiskey
Gift received at 03-27-2013, 03:33 PM from thebeav
Message: found this behind the dumpster at the casino when i was looking for W H :)Heart
Gift received at 11-20-2012, 12:22 PM from Just_angel
Message: x0x0A Beer
Gift received at 11-06-2012, 03:58 AM from Styx_N_Stones
Message: I seem to have accumulated too many beers... LOL!Crown Royal
Gift received at 10-11-2012, 03:49 PM from Just_angel

    Default

    and most know what happened after that
    unless they're stupid or new
    that was before n3 and why most of us said iks was foolish

    DODGE the father

    RAM the daughter



    “Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.”

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dishuser For This Useful Post:


  9. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    68
    Satfix Buxs
    3,220
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 46x in 20 Posts
    Items CashMartini

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hondoharry View Post
    Simple. Because they have the best value in plug and play IPTV at the moment. Better channels and much cheaper than Voodoo or IPguys.
    Not cheaper when they come to your door with a letter....

  10. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    68
    Satfix Buxs
    3,220
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 46x in 20 Posts
    Items CashMartini

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluejay682 View Post
    I read online that several months ago NFPS and Rocket had been served papers and taken to court and to be leary of using them.
    I thought PayEase or them offshore payment methods were safe....

    I guess nothing is safe anymore unless its

    word to mouth......

    and thats probably not safe anymore.
    Last edited by dslchome; 08-11-2015 at 01:12 PM.

  11. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    68
    Satfix Buxs
    3,220
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 46x in 20 Posts
    Items CashMartini

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2 View Post
    Went and saw this posted.





    That is the typical BS statement that you are safe and your information will never be disclosed. The information was probably disclosed through this payment processor Epay95 who appear to be off shore.


    Off shore does not guarantee safety. Payment processors including offshore other than PayPal will co-operate probably if they get hassled with a court order. They don't need the headache so badly.


    Now if I was to start something on that site about this I probably would get booted with time.



    GS2
    None of them payment places are safe!!!

    NONE.....

    This is no game anymore.....

    Its not safe to use NFPS or ROCKET or any online place.


    I can tell you this is no game anymore.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dslchome For This Useful Post:


  13. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9
    Satfix Buxs
    32
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7x in 5 Posts

    Default

    Let me put all this to rest...Dish never contacted 95Epay....It was the guy who owned NFPS way back in 2012....He is no longer affiliated with NFPS......They gave him money and he ratted out a ton of people....If you notice all the letters that people are getting now are people who purchased from 95epay ack in 2012....That was the gateway that he used...And he saw all the CC transactions....Thats how they know what codes you purchased at that time.. ur address and name...Because he had all that info...95epay does not have that info....They are also sending some of the codes you purchased included in the letter....
    WHAT GOES AROUND
    ALWAYS
    COMES BACK AROUND

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rogitts For This Useful Post:


  15. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dslchome View Post
    None of them payment places are safe!!!

    NONE.....

    This is no game anymore.....

    Its not safe to use NFPS or ROCKET or any online place.


    I can tell you this is no game anymore.


    First sorry about your situation. Second it was never safe. This type of thing has been happening for so many years where people claim they are safe because they are off shore. Being off shore might be more challenging for the providers but not insurmountable.


    No matter how times I or others post warnings people still tend to buy into the notion its another country and they don't have jurisdiction. Well there is nothing stopping them if they want to go to the trouble of pursing action in other countries. I posted a case where they went to court in Hong Kong to try to compel the ISP there to turn over records in a case where they had been frustrated by the defendant. Not only did they, they were successful. You can file lawsuits in most countries.


    But even if someone uses a country that is off shore where its almost impossible for the provider if they people who own the business or web site reside in North America than being off shore is not a safe haven. The defendants in North America could be facing court orders to turn over records and passwords regardless where hosted or face contempt of court charges.


    So what is safe ? maybe a face to face cash transaction but no seller can operate that way.



    GS2

  16. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9
    Satfix Buxs
    32
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7x in 5 Posts

    Default

    Nowhere is safe anymore because that SOB does not reside in the US and still ratted on a ton of people...All for the US dollar...And anyone would do the same once the price is right...
    WHAT GOES AROUND
    ALWAYS
    COMES BACK AROUND

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to rogitts For This Useful Post:


  18. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rogitts View Post
    Let me put all this to rest...Dish never contacted 95Epay....It was the guy who owned NFPS way back in 2012....He is no longer affiliated with NFPS......They gave him money and he ratted out a ton of people....If you notice all the letters that people are getting now are people who purchased from 95epay ack in 2012....That was the gateway that he used...And he saw all the CC transactions....Thats how they know what codes you purchased at that time.. ur address and name...Because he had all that info...95epay does not have that info....They are also sending some of the codes you purchased included in the letter....

    I don't know myself but if the previous owner of NFPS lived in North America he probably faced a court order compelling him to turn over records.


    In the case I posted from Hong Kong the defendant was facing court orders to turn over records. He did not and was sentenced to jail for contempt of court but than the providers went to Hong Kong to try to get the information that the defendant refused to turn over.


    People need to know that if push came to shove the provider can attempt to go to court in some other country where 95Epay is from to try to get a court to compel 95Epay to co-operate.




    GS2

  19. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    641
    Satfix Buxs
    19,580
    Thanks
    449
    Thanked 557x in 268 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rogitts View Post
    Nowhere is safe anymore because that SOB does not reside in the US and still ratted on a ton of people...All for the US dollar...And anyone would do the same once the price is right...

    I think there is more to it speculation on my part. This person from NFPS would have been making good money so why accept money to turn over info when your making money.


    GS2

  20. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9
    Satfix Buxs
    32
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7x in 5 Posts

    Default

    He no longer is affiliated with NFPS
    Alot off things changed since 2012
    Thats when all those 95epay transactions were done
    WHAT GOES AROUND
    ALWAYS
    COMES BACK AROUND

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •