Letter now Court case

[fifties]

Originally Posted by ypmug
It is never wise to get your legal advise from forums. Statute of Limitations usually starts with last activity. If you were violating DMCA laws, and are still doing it, then statute hasn't started yet. Also 3 years is not always the case, as it varies from state to state. Civil statute in my state is 6 years, and is the same for misdemeanors here.

The DMCA is Federal law and your reference to state law is meaningless.

Yes, the DMCA is a federal law, but would be relevant only if a criminal charge were lodged against the defendant, by the government (the only ones that can do it). Then that statute would come into play.

DN can only sue in civil court, the venue for private citizens and corporations. That being the case, state law regarding the statute of limitations would hold sway.

BTW, getting a preliminary feel for what to do from forum members is not a bad thing, but one then needs to get the real readout from a GOOD attorney.

[MarvinGardens]

Yes, the DMCA is a federal law, but would be relevant only if a criminal charge were lodged against the defendant, by the government (the only ones that can do it). Then that statute would come into play.

DN can only sue in civil court, the venue for private citizens and corporations. That being the case, state law regarding the statute of limitations would hold sway.

BTW, getting a preliminary feel for what to do from forum members is not a bad thing, but one then needs to get the real readout from a GOOD attorney.

You are very very wrong. See Federal statute 17 USC section 507.

Federal copyright law states a three year statute of limitations on civil actions.

Federal law is the supreme law of the land and always trumps state law.

[MarvinGardens]

I agree with YPMUG that the statute of limitation runs from the last date of the defendant's violation and not from the date of discovery. The duration on the statute of limitation would depend upon the rule of the governing court that the litigation is brought fourth.

The statute of limitations is "tolled" for the period when the copyright holder (DN) did not have knowledge of the infringement or could not have had knowledge of the infringement through reasonable means. The three year clock starts when the copyright holder gains knowledge of the infringement.

So in the case of IKS infringement, the statute of limitations clock started when DN was able to identify the person committing infringement.

[ypmug]

You are very very wrong. See Federal statute 17 USC section 507.

Federal copyright law states a three year statute of limitations on civil actions.

Federal law is the supreme law of the land and always trumps state law.

You are wrong. By law, DMCA violations have a 5 year statute of limitations.

§507(a). The five-year limitations period was first established by the NET Act, Pub. L. No. 105-147 §2(c), 111 Stat. 2678 (1997).

[MarvinGardens]

You are wrong. By law, DMCA violations have a 5 year statute of limitations.

It is THREE years for civil actions, read subsection (b) below:


§ 507. Limitations on actions

(a) Criminal Proceedings. — Except as expressly provided otherwise in this title, no criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose.

(b) Civil Actions. — No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

[fputs]

The statute of limitations is "tolled" for the period when the copyright holder (DN) did not have knowledge of the infringement or could not have had knowledge of the infringement through reasonable means. The three year clock starts when the copyright holder gains knowledge of the infringement.

So in the case of IKS infringement, the statute of limitations clock started when DN was able to identify the person committing infringement.

You are so stubborn, you're driving us all crazy. First of all you need to take note the difference of being sued civilly by an entity such as DN or being prosecuted criminally by the government. You need to understand the difference before citing statutes.

Secondly, I don't think you have ever sued someone or been involved in a lawsuit, because if you had you would know the difference. The court to which a suit is filed is the governing body and the laws to be applied in the case. For example, you can't sue someone in state Superior Court and use statutes, RCWs, or case laws of the Federal court and vice versa. Just because as you quote the Federal law is the law of the land and that overules everything shows everyone just how ignorant you are.

Lastly, in regards to Statute of limitation you should understand the logic of it all. Let's say 20 years following the last time you used $P IKS, DN discovers that fact and sues you. According to your definition of Statute of Limitation, this would still be applicable. How could you defend yourself if you no longer have access to any resources or records to defend yourself and prove that what they are accusing you of is completely false. My friend, in civil cases the statute of limitation runs from the time that the harm and damage was last done to the plaintiffs from the defendant.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen and been involved in my share of lawsuits from both the plaintiff and defendant side.

[MarvinGardens]

You are so stubborn, you're driving us all crazy. First of all you need to take note the difference of being sued civilly by an entity such as DN or being prosecuted criminally by the government. You need to understand the difference before citing statutes.

I never ever mentioned criminal prosecution in any of my posts. Why do you keep bringing this up?

DN is suing people under CIVIL statutes not CRIMINAL. Don't you get that???

Only the US Attorney can bring a CRIMINAL complaint against someone.

The court to which a suit is filed is the governing body and the laws to be applied in the case. For example, you can't sue someone in state Superior Court and use statutes, RCWs, or case laws of the Federal court and vice versa. Just because as you quote the Federal law is the law of the land and that overules everything shows everyone just how ignorant you are.

You are completely ignorant of the US Constitution and the Supremacy Clause. The DMCA is a FEDERAL statute. DN is suing under the DMCA and EVERY court in the US has to follow this FEDERAL statute.

Read this and learn about your Constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Lastly, in regards to Statute of limitation you should understand the logic of it all. Let's say 20 years following the last time you used $P IKS, DN discovers that fact and sues you. According to your definition of Statute of Limitation, this would still be applicable. How could you defend yourself if you no longer have access to any resources or records to defend yourself and prove that what they are accusing you of is completely false. My friend, in civil cases the statute of limitation runs from the time that the harm and damage was last done to the plaintiffs from the defendant.

I never said that the Statute runs indefinitely, it runs for THREE years.

[fifties]

The DMCA is a FEDERAL statute. DN is suing under the DMCA.

DN is suing people who have "stolen" their signal, and using the DMCA as their legal reference for the theft violation. That reference protects them from ppl intercepting and decrypting an encoded signal without authorization.

In most cases, the litigation has and will likely continue to be, well within any statute of limitations, since their pattern has been to instigate proceedings very soon after discovering the ID's of IKS customers.

Based on that, all of this fuss about the statute of limitations seems rather ludicrous.

[alandcin]

keep your whining at pros
they don't care about truth...lol

ill pass this post along for ya.

[burnsy]

ill pass this post along for ya.

ahhhhh who cares is that supposed to be a threat LOL are ya scared DU

[dishuser]

ill pass this post along for ya.

really?
you're not too bright are ya?
the mod who banned me there is a mod here...lol

[alandcin]

hahahahaha!!!!!!! my humblest apologies for noticing you've been banned. and your right, i guess im not too bright to think you would still be a member there ..never knew till now. lmfao....good!!
btw, how many user names do you have now?? pfft

[dishuser]

hahahahaha!!!!!!! my humblest apologies for noticing you've been banned. and your right, i guess im not too bright to think you would still be a member there ..never knew till now. lmfao....good!!
btw, how many user names do you have now?? pfft

two
have had them both for over a decade
pffft...lol

[burnsy]

OK let's keep the crap from other sites at the other site

[alex70olds]

Marvin is exactly right, no matter what people want to believe.

http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=echostar&search=Search&stateorcourt=&judge=&lawsuittype=&documentfilter=allcases&after=&before=

All Federal law suits, federal statutes and limitations apply.