E-mail & letter from satscams!!! WTF

[nob0dy]

If it an e-mail how can they prove you received it. Only way this works is if you get a certified letter in the mail and even then if you don't sign for it they can't prove a thing, so I've been told...no worries.

outlook my friend ;x

eg: below

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Secure-email-messages-by-using-a-digital-signature-65dd1ea9-7741-4afd-b44d-9243ce107c50

[jedi]

If it an e-mail how can they prove you received it. Only way this works is if you get a certified letter in the mail and even then if you don't sign for it they can't prove a thing, so I've been told...no worries.

It may not matter if you signed for a certified/registered letter or not - or even if you did not accept it.
In most cases the Courts mandate that you serve the notice at the last known address of the defendant - so even if you do not accept the letter the plaintiff can show the court that they tried to deliver it to the last known registered address and the Court could consider it delivered and the Plaintiff could move for default judgment if you do not file to defend against the action.
If they can not serve the defendant personally or by registered/certified mail the Courts could allow other means of service such as posting the claim in a local paper or a national paper - so if they are trying to serve you do NOT think you are safe because you did not accept their papers - they could end up getting default judgment agains you.

[jvvh5897]

I think somebody needs to read up on how the Cdn law is written. In Canada, it is not what you are watching but how you are watching it that determines signal theft. Any time you decrypt a signal without proper authorization you are in violation of CRTC regulations. In fact, you don't have to really be doing anything at all but if you have the capabilities to do so then you are considered in vilation under the law. That means if they can link your IP to a server streaming keys or a payment to a seller then they could nail you criminally. Fortunately for you, police have more important things to do than worry about what you are watching on tv but at the same time if someone was to file a complaint they are obligated to investigate.

So really the only thing saving you at the moment is the fact you are low priority criminal activity as far as the police are concerned and DN can not file a suit against you for lost revenue due to stolen programming. At the same time, there is nothing preventing BEV from filing a suit even if you didn't have a dish pointed in their direction because under the current Cdn law you would have the capabilities to do so and that is all the judge could base his decision in the case of a Cdn civil suit.

Now i don't write those laws but I have read enough of it to know how it works and yes it is convoluted but at the same time you have to take into consideration of who wrote that law.

Interesting. So, if I have a computer, I don't have to download anything that is copyrighted material, the fact that I have a computer means that I can do so, and so I am guilty of a crime.

[Nostradamus]

I guess so, LOL if your computer falls under the CRTC act, which it doesn't other than the fact it might generate harmonics that interfere with other transmissions.

If you are downloading software or other copyright material then that would fall under the copyright act and not CRTC regulations regarding satellite reception and encryption.

or if you are downloading encrypted material and then unencrypting it without proper authorization it might.

you are as bad as my ex-wife reading too much into things LOL!

in Canada as far as satellite reception goes it is the act of decryption that is in violation of the law and not the reception itself

[Benney]

In Canada the criminal conviction of illegal regarding satellite reception and encryption carries a fine up to $5000.
DN, BV and Nagra team up when up here.

Not sure if they have ever gone after end users but the have gone after resellers and services.

In a civil suit anything over $50,000 has to be treated almost like a criminal case with evidence etc. but under $50,000. if it even looks like you might have and have the means to do it you just might lose out.

I know this was fact a year or so ago. Totals might have changed since then but I don't think so.

[thunder bird]

Beam me up.

[kutter]

It may not matter if you signed for a certified/registered letter or not - or even if you did not accept it.
In most cases the Courts mandate that you serve the notice at the last known address of the defendant - so even if you do not accept the letter the plaintiff can show the court that they tried to deliver it to the last known registered address and the Court could consider it delivered and the Plaintiff could move for default judgment if you do not file to defend against the action.
If they can not serve the defendant personally or by registered/certified mail the Courts could allow other means of service such as posting the claim in a local paper or a national paper - so if they are trying to serve you do NOT think you are safe because you did not accept their papers - they could end up getting default judgment agains you.

you're right ... your Post Office has an obligation to deliver that letter to you ... that's why they put the little card in your box ...

if you bring the card in, and refuse to sign for it, the fact that you refused to sign for it is recorded and the letter is returned to the sender with an explanation as to why it was returned ... so they know you refused to accept it ...

[TLG]

All the examples included here are attempted answers for those who seem to want to deny "use" of the "purchased" code ...

What about "agreeing" to the purchase but "denying" it was ever used ....

The defense would sound something like this,,

I was surfing the net for satellite services to compare providers, services, packages and costs
I typed sattelite in Google which brought me to multiple pages, I navigated to a page where I noticed free tv.....
After reading through multiple free tv announcements including kodi and other such free streaming ads I came
Across an nfps offer,,,, after a few more clicks I unwittingly purchased an offer mistaking thinking it came with
A player or an app which would allow me to watch TV or movies on my computer or tablet "legally" because in
Fact I did "purchase" the service

Upon receiving the "code" I realized it was nothing as I perceived and realized the site was another internet scam
which sold me nothing and I got taken. I have never used this "code" and I don't even know the meaning of "circumvent"

I am a victim of Internet fraud and it's the website that mislead me that is in fact the person's you need to be chasing ...........

(for those who have a legal subscription) and to prove my innocence and to further add credibilty in the matter, here is
proof of my tv subscription. .......



Let's keep an opened mind about this ,,,, all the wanna be lawyers and debaters here ,, yes I am aware that ignorance is not
a defence ,,,,, however at the very least, admitting to the "purchase" but denying the "use" puts the ball in the court of the prosecuter
to prove "use" ............... as it has been stated many times , one need only "sway the preponderance of evidence" and "sound a bit
more convincing"

I believe, taking this defence avenue,,,,, win or lose ,, the fine would be considerably weekend

Comments ??

[Benney]

So did the OP ever end up paying out?

Or did I miss the end results of this somewhere in all these posts?

[arms]

I guess the question remains. Does anyone know of a court that has ruled against an end user using DN and IKS? Not Direct.

[kutter]

All the examples included here are attempted answers for those who seem to want to deny "use" of the "purchased" code ...

What about "agreeing" to the purchase but "denying" it was ever used ....

The defense would sound something like this,,

I was surfing the net for satellite services to compare providers, services, packages and costs
I typed sattelite in Google which brought me to multiple pages, I navigated to a page where I noticed free tv.....
After reading through multiple free tv announcements including kodi and other such free streaming ads I came
Across an nfps offer,,,, after a few more clicks I unwittingly purchased an offer mistaking thinking it came with
A player or an app which would allow me to watch TV or movies on my computer or tablet "legally" because in
Fact I did "purchase" the service

Upon receiving the "code" I realized it was nothing as I perceived and realized the site was another internet scam
which sold me nothing and I got taken. I have never used this "code" and I don't even know the meaning of "circumvent"

I am a victim of Internet fraud and it's the website that mislead me that is in fact the person's you need to be chasing ...........

(for those who have a legal subscription) and to prove my innocence and to further add credibilty in the matter, here is
proof of my tv subscription. .......



Let's keep an opened mind about this ,,,, all the wanna be lawyers and debaters here ,, yes I am aware that ignorance is not
a defence ,,,,, however at the very least, admitting to the "purchase" but denying the "use" puts the ball in the court of the prosecuter
to prove "use" ............... as it has been stated many times , one need only "sway the preponderance of evidence" and "sound a bit
more convincing"

I believe, taking this defence avenue,,,,, win or lose ,, the fine would be considerably weekend

Comments ??

I believe a couple of end users attempted to use similar arguments in their defense and it ended up costing them in the end.

The original demand is pretty much off the table when you force them to take you to court. At that point it`s highly unlikely that it will cost you less than simply paying the original demand. I mean let`s face it, you are now costing them money.

Granted there have been a few cases that yielded unusual outcomes, confidential settlements or voluntary dismissals, but the reasons for those results are usually confidential.

[kutter]

I guess the question remains. Does anyone know of a court that has ruled against an end user using DN and IKS? Not Direct.

of course ... there are hundreds of cases against end users by DN.

[abouttosnap]

So did the OP ever end up paying out?

Or did I miss the end results of this somewhere in all these posts?

Always wondered if what the op posted was authentic on this one or was it just bs to stir the pot. By what was said through this thread in regards to the op it does call it into question. At any rate seems someone felt the need to stir it up again. Here any more a lot of what I read and see makes me go hmmm.

[jedi]

All the examples included here are attempted answers for those who seem to want to deny "use" of the "purchased" code ...

What about "agreeing" to the purchase but "denying" it was ever used ....

The defense would sound something like this,,

I was surfing the net for satellite services to compare providers, services, packages and costs
I typed sattelite in Google which brought me to multiple pages, I navigated to a page where I noticed free tv.....
After reading through multiple free tv announcements including kodi and other such free streaming ads I came
Across an nfps offer,,,, after a few more clicks I unwittingly purchased an offer mistaking thinking it came with
A player or an app which would allow me to watch TV or movies on my computer or tablet "legally" because in
Fact I did "purchase" the service

Upon receiving the "code" I realized it was nothing as I perceived and realized the site was another internet scam
which sold me nothing and I got taken. I have never used this "code" and I don't even know the meaning of "circumvent"

I am a victim of Internet fraud and it's the website that mislead me that is in fact the person's you need to be chasing ...........

(for those who have a legal subscription) and to prove my innocence and to further add credibilty in the matter, here is
proof of my tv subscription. .......



Let's keep an opened mind about this ,,,, all the wanna be lawyers and debaters here ,, yes I am aware that ignorance is not
a defence ,,,,, however at the very least, admitting to the "purchase" but denying the "use" puts the ball in the court of the prosecuter
to prove "use" ............... as it has been stated many times , one need only "sway the preponderance of evidence" and "sound a bit
more convincing"

I believe, taking this defence avenue,,,,, win or lose ,, the fine would be considerably weekend

Comments ??

Sounds like it may have a chance of winning if you only purchased one time and never again.

[jeldf]

Sounds like it may have a chance of winning if you only purchased one time and never again.

My two cents.....wouldn't they have to put that in the letter? That you purchased multiple times? A simple pay up, cease and desist might make the above doable. And I would say I was a victim of a satscam.