Letter now Court case

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I'm glad to see you're a glass is half full kinda guy

I don't know what that means or how it relates to demand letters adding up to extortion. I have used demand letters and and so have millions. Its common practice and courts prefer that you use a demand letter before you file an action.



GS2

[Hannibalector]

Yes rumors are that they are on to nag 4 and I guess you think they purpoesly put out weak encryptions so they have the ability to go to court while probably dealing with big penalties and loss of potential business.



GS2

one added measure over N2 and that was suppose to be the lynch pin in securing the deal for Kudelski in a long term contract to secure Echo, Europe and North America had IKS going immediately, you tell me how that was to the benefit of DN, if N4 is in the works in no way can there be communication between ird and cam thats a fact, the only way thats possible is a card swap and or ird cam swap, if so I wish them luck with N4

[Hannibalector]

let me rephrase interceptable communication

[Nostradamus]

if so I wish them luck with N4

I guess that must be a tongue in cheek type of comment as I really don't believe you mean that after all what would you talk about then?

[alex70olds]

This is exactly what I was talking about.

ooooh such wit alex, I guess I'm tired of seeing people get rail roaded over things (yes it's there fault) with regards to extortion, I wonder what Nagra will say to the content providers at the Nab show convention next month with regards to being asked if there signal is secure and there answer is umm no the encrytpion pops out CW's like a vending machine but were doing everything we can to eliminate piracy by sending people over to direct after charging them 3500 dollars, wouldn't you think it's better to come out with a cam that has no way of being intercepted between card and ird ? wouldn't that be more inline with securing a signal ? isn't that Kudelski's / Nagra's job ? signal integrity ?

I know it's not viewed as extortion alex, but I'm asking things in a succession to find answers thats all, you never know what bright minds there are out there alex

Since you have read the docs, you know that in every, every single case that dish has filed in federal court contains verbiage to the effect:
HL.jpg

This is all they need to meet their burden of encryption according to the DMCA. Every case they have ever filed. They don't have to meet NSA standards, or even be good at decryption to meet the standard. To fill these peeps heads that got letters full of nonsensical gibberish is just wrong, and counter productive to the discussion at hand.

bingo the seeder is the one that actually DECRYPTED the signal


for once fifties I'm going to agree with you...lol, simply possesion or intent of purchase means squat of actual use of CW's without a box and a bin with a Nagra image on it those CW's can't do squat, CW's themselves are useless and have no means of decryption without a nagra image, as stated to GS2 the seeder is decrypting, yes it's parsing the obvious but nonetheless that takes place 1st, wheres the proof theres a bin involved to decrypt anything ? wouldn't that matter ? lol

Again the gibberish soap box. The seeder does not decrypting the encrypted content, if it did, who would need an STB? it would just be streaming the programming. You obviously know this because you go on to say the seeders CW are useless with out the STB.

Again in Civil court the burden of proof is only to show that it is more likely than not the enduser decrypted the encrypted content. Fact is, as stated numerous times in this thread, we dont know everything they have, but to crusade on crazy thoughts, does no one any good.

[Hannibalector]

This is exactly what I was talking about.



Since you have read the docs, you know that in every, every single case that dish has filed in federal court contains verbiage to the effect:
HL.jpg

This is all they need to meet their burden of encryption according to the DMCA. Every case they have ever filed. They don't have to meet NSA standards, or even be good at decryption to meet the standard. To fill these peeps heads that got letters full of nonsensical gibberish is just wrong, and counter productive to the discussion at hand.



Again the gibberish soap box. The seeder does not decrypting the encrypted content, if it did, who would need an STB? it would just be streaming the programming. You obviously know this because you go on to say the seeders CW are useless with out the STB.

Again in Civil court the burden of proof is only to show that it is more likely than not the enduser decrypted the encrypted content. Fact is, as stated numerous times in this thread, we dont know everything they have, but to crusade on crazy thoughts, does no one any good.

where the hell do you get off suggesting I'm filling peoples heads with nonsensicle information ? I have told people to seek legal council and ask for all information they have before hand, don't ever suggest a low blow like that again to suit you and your ego alex, how many people did it take to go through the gibberish during DTV days before it was finally determined lack of proof or other means of use.

the seeder does so decrypt the CW's ffs, how else is it done ? smoke and mirrors ? you can't get sh*t from an STB alone alex but you know that and fail to answer that because the presents of a BIN is required as well, at least one that has N2 or Nagra on it right ? am I right alex ? tell everyone right now to fold there tents and go away wheres that going to leave things ?

[alex70olds]

where the hell do you get off suggesting I'm filling peoples heads with nonsensicle information ? I have told people to seek legal council and ask for all information they have before hand, don't ever suggest a low blow like that again to suit you and your ego alex, how many people did it take to go through the gibberish during DTV days before it was finally determined lack of proof or other means of use.

the seeder does so decrypt the CW's ffs, how else is it done ? smoke and mirrors ? you can't get sh*t from an STB alone alex but you know that and fail to answer that because the presents of a BIN is required as well, at least one that has N2 or Nagra on it right ? am I right alex ? tell everyone right now to fold there tents and go away wheres that going to leave things ?

No, you are not right. Not right at all.

[torpainter]

You might not agree with each others opinions but I will not allow this thread to digress into name calling
Lets all agree to that!!!
Thank you

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

where the hell do you get off suggesting I'm filling peoples heads with nonsensicle information ? I have told people to seek legal council and ask for all information they have before hand, don't ever suggest a low blow like that again to suit you and your ego alex, how many people did it take to go through the gibberish during DTV days before it was finally determined lack of proof or other means of use.

the seeder does so decrypt the CW's ffs, how else is it done ? smoke and mirrors ? you can't get sh*t from an STB alone alex but you know that and fail to answer that because the presents of a BIN is required as well, at least one that has N2 or Nagra on it right ? am I right alex ? tell everyone right now to fold there tents and go away wheres that going to leave things ?

A bin is not required. There is nothing in law that talks about a bin or that it is needed. If your watching their encrypted programming without their authorization than your circumventing their encryption. I don't think a court cares all that much how you did it. The only purpose of subscribing to that server was to do that and that is where the problem is. What it more likely than not. Again as mention by several people the proof required in Civil is a low standard.


The problem is these types of legal situations have been going on for a long time. Many now see things differently because of what has happened in court. So here we are again with people offering defenses like I didn't order it my sister did. They don't work. Go look back at threads like ones from DA with suggestions for defense. These are not lawyer thought up defenses and if any viable defense comes up it will be from a lawyer. I don't have to be a lawyer to say what I did. I hope there is some defense based on law but unlikely anyone is going to take it to trial to find out. Now if there are some technical problem like you were not served properly you can try that. That is a defense. If they don't have proper jurisdiction or you don't think so you can try that. These are based on law. Fifties mentions the court decision about purchase or possession not being interpretated as sufficient enough as a violation. That is based on law.




GS2

[dishuser]

are you forgetting about ird's?lol

where the hell do you get off suggesting I'm filling peoples heads with nonsensicle information ? I have told people to seek legal council and ask for all information they have before hand, don't ever suggest a low blow like that again to suit you and your ego alex, how many people did it take to go through the gibberish during DTV days before it was finally determined lack of proof or other means of use.

the seeder does so decrypt the CW's ffs, how else is it done ? smoke and mirrors ? you can't get sh*t from an STB alone alex but you know that and fail to answer that because the presents of a BIN is required as well, at least one that has N2 or Nagra on it right ? am I right alex ? tell everyone right now to fold there tents and go away wheres that going to leave things ?

[fifties]

Originally Posted by fifties
"I was going to use it with an IKS server, but never got around to purchasing a receiver. I also bought one later on for my girlfriend to use, but she then decided against it".

Remember, as long as they can show no proof of either a receiver, or connection to the server, all they have is/are code purchase(s). We haven't seen where it has been established that ownership of the codes has been determined to be illegal.

Cases (wisely) settled out of court in the DA situation -where the plaintiff had server information, can't be displayed as an example because of that reason.

Before you would say it was not illegal to have bins but then you saw a ruling that it was illegal. You really don't need a specific ruling that says ownership of codes is illegal therefore making legal without one. We rarely get rulings certaintly not from trial.


As far as not proving there is a receiver you have to go back and see where that applied as to what law. They allege violation of three separate acts in their claim.



GS2

Decryption bins, per se, were never declared illegal until the trial of TDG, wherein the judgment against him, some 55 million or so dollars, was based on how many times the bins he had provided were D/L from certain "FTA" sites.

Sites based in the U.S. that were directly hosting the bins would have been in violation of the law, had this ruling appeared before, so I would have to disagree with you that they were illegal, before being specifically adjudicated as such from a trial.

I believe that the DMCA does in fact refer in so many words to any device that can decrypt an encoded system, but apparently, given that laws are supposed to be construed in the broadest possible context, it seems that such devices have to be specified.
A case in point was where the RIAA sued a woman because she had a device (I can't remember what it was, H/W or S/W) that could have been used for D/L music, and they lost, because they couldn't prove that although she owned it, whether she actually used it for D/L music.

This specific type of evidence is important, because sans their proof that a defendant actually owns a satellite receiver, how do they prove that he used IKS codes? You stated that they allege three separate violations in their claim; all well and good for them, but can they prove their allegations? That's where evidence comes into play, and so far, all I've seen is a paper trail for purchase of codes, which by themselves do nothing.

If I buy bullets, does that mean that I killed someone with them, if you can't prove that I also own a firearm?

[Nostradamus]

If I buy bullets, does that mean that I killed someone with them, if you can't prove that I also own a firearm?

you are still mixing up criminal with civil so maybe I can make it easier for you. All you need in civil is circumstantial evidence you do not need absolute proof!

So here we go! yes you bought bullets, and then you and someone you despise are locked in a room together with your bullets and there just happens to be a gun there. A day later they unlock the room and you are sitting there and the other guy is laying in a heap with a hole in his head. Are you guilty? Not criminally without proof you pulled the trigger. But how do you look as far as police and everybody else is concerned? GUILTY! The odds are not very high that the guy offed himself just to frame you. You need to get over that hurdle of absolute proof in a civil suit and then you will see you really have no defense

[fifties]

All you need in civil is circumstantial evidence you do not need absolute proof!

News to me. Circumstantial is hardly, "a preponderance of the evidence"...The operative word here, is "evidence"...

When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ce+of+Evidence

You need to get over that hurdle of absolute proof in a civil suit and then you will see you really have no defense

See the above, "clear and convincing evidence" standard...

Ownership of codes to an IKS server, by themselves, prove absolutely nothing beyond possible intent. And intent, by itself, isn't enough to garner a judgment.

[Nostradamus]

well I am done dealing with you simply because you are unable to comprehend a simple concept. Here read your own definition and see if that sinks in ....

A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true

so I guess the real question is what do you have for evidence to refute the fact you bought a code? back to the law books there perry mason. Read those court docs really close. I haven't seen anywhere in them where they have accused anybody of using those codes. They do state what the codes are used for though but the way I interpret them is that they are accusing the defendants of buying the codes and not using them. So re-read a few and see if you can see where they actually accuse anybody who got that letter of using the code. Remember that is a legal document and the wording is very precise so it is not open to your off the wall speculation and assumptions. Ok fifties go for it! The ball is in your court

[Condor]

I usually dont get "tangled" in these discussions... But in civil cases there are many factors involved.... Here is another little quote from the "standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action"

"For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence......The majority of civil claims are subjected to a preponderance of evidence standard. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence."

So it's basically up to the judge as to how easy or difficult he wants to make it for the claimant..Of course if there is no jury involved..