Letter now Court case

[JCO]

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

Come on now its obvious the guy comited suicide..

[fifties]

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

Not my definition, that I posted here, but I agree with it.

so I guess the real question is what do you have for evidence to refute the fact you bought a code?

I never suggested denial of purchasing the code; if they have the paper trail, that is prima facie evidence, no question.

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.

What do you think they are suing for, then? "The defendant bought the codes, printed them out, and placed them on his mantel, so he could admire them?" Of course they are suggesting that the codes were used, by virtue of the fact that the defendant bought them. That's it...That's their case, short of ISP logs, and/or proof of ownership of a receiver. Is that, "a preponderance of the evidence"? If they could support the purchase of the codes, with one or both of the other items, then I would agree that they've tipped the scale enough.

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

Exactly! They are admitting that they cannot prove that the defendant used the codes; only that he purchased them. You are quite correct, legal documentation has to be exact and precise.

Too bad nothing has gone all the way to the courtroom, so we could all see what would be needed for one side to defeat the other.

You keep ignoring the lack of proof of hardware here. Dave lost a case when he was challenged to prove that the defendant owned a satellite dish, and couldn't, so don't be so quick to scoff at potential defenses.

[MarvinGardens]

Are you guilty? Not criminally without proof you pulled the trigger.

Actually with those facts you will also be found to be criminally guilty. Circumstantial evidence plays a big part in criminal trials. Criminal jurors can draw inferences from the facts and make a finding on those inferences.

For instance, you are sitting in your pickup on the side of a road miles from civilization. Engine is running and you are alone. A cop contacts you to see if you are ok and smells alcohol on your breath. Does a breath test and you have a 0.15% blood alcohol level. You are arrested for drunk driving and will be convicted of drunk driving.

Very strong inference that you drove the vehicle to that spot with at least a 0.08% blood alcohol level.

[JCO]

So I bought a pack of Zig Zag rolling papers, does that mean I rolled and smoked a doobie...LOL

[fifties]

So I bought a pack of Zig Zag rolling papers, does that mean I rolled and smoked a doobie...LOL

With THOSE dentures, nobody would believe it!

[JCO]

Actually with those facts you will also be found to be criminally guilty. Circumstantial evidence plays a big part in criminal trials. Criminal jurors can draw inferences from the facts and make a finding on those inferences.

For instance, you are sitting in your pickup on the side of a road miles from civilization. Engine is running and you are alone. A cop contacts you to see if you are ok and smells alcohol on your breath. Does a breath test and you have a 0.15% blood alcohol level. You are arrested for drunk driving and will be convicted of drunk driving.

Very strong inference that you drove the vehicle to that spot with at least a 0.08% blood alcohol level.

You dont have to be driving just being in possesion of a vehicle over the limit gets you convicted... Same as if your ridding your bycycle over the legal limit and have a valid drivers licence you get convicted and loose your driving license.. HAppened to a giod friend of mine..

[Nostradamus]

or any motorized vehicle and that includes boats and lawnmowers LOL

back to the case in point I am not ignoring the hardware issue but I don't think anybody is going to have the balls to try that defense for a couple of reasons. One is there probably isn't anybody that bought the codes and had the letter that didn't have a box and an ulterior motive and secondly the way those complaints are filed it looks like Dn is going more for possession of the code itself as being an offense and would probably try to have that defense tossed out since they are not suing on those grounds. The thing is nobody knows how much info they have or how they obtained most of it and unless somebody really challenges them nobody will either so it will be the same old story when the next wave of letters hit whenever that may be

[Condor]

With THOSE dentures, nobody would believe it!

LMAO.... They would find Plants growing in them.....Heheheheheeee

[Hannibalector]

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

please try to respect someone other then yourself ?

[Hannibalector]

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

no name calling and understand I respect alex if you have the need to thrust bs onto this as an Admin fly at it

[Hannibalector]

are you forgetting about ird's?lol

not at all.........

[fifties]

back to the case in point I am not ignoring the hardware issue but I don't think anybody is going to have the balls to try that defense for a couple of reasons. One is there probably isn't anybody that bought the codes and had the letter that didn't have a box and an ulterior motive

There's no question of the motive, which is proven from their purchase of the codes, and that would be a supporting issue.

The problem for them is, that they won't be able to prove that the defendant owns a "box".

and secondly the way those complaints are filed it looks like Dn is going more for possession of the code itself as being an offense and would probably try to have that defense tossed out since they are not suing on those grounds.

OK, NOW we are getting to the meat of the bone.

DN needs to have a case wherein the code is ID'd by a judge as being illegal to possess. Will that be enough for them to get a judgment, W/O showing any evidence that the defendant (1) had the means to de-scramble and receive their signal -such as ownership of a satellite receiver- and (2) connected to their server as proven by ISP or server logs? We have no court case(s) to go by, so far.

The thing is nobody knows how much info they have or how they obtained most of it and unless somebody really challenges them nobody will either

And we don't know how much they really need, as offered in the paragraph above.

[Gunsmoke2 - 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?

They were only ruled illegal only then because the issue went before a court but I think it was illegal from before. Its like saying it was not legal because no court ruled it was legal.


They don't go after every site and any site they did unfortunately they were successful.


As far as that case with the woman and music you have mentioned it before but I could not find it. Not saying it does not exist. Really all I found was defendants losing.


Its my view they don't have to prove the defendant used the codes. We don't agree on that. I feel if its more likely than not that the person bought the codes with the intent to access signals illegally than that is a problem. They don't show all their evidence until later. They could get evidence as a trial moves on if one does. If they have a case they will send out their goon investigators if need be to get evidence if they can find any. Defendants will be exposed during discovery. They don't know what questions will come. Some of them get caught lying. Anyone who has been through it will probably say I did not know they had what they did. We found out they went to neighbor's houses to get them to testify against their neighbor defendant. Defendant and probably anyone would not have forseen that. First time I saw that in a case. There is a factor of unknown.


Though if you argue your defense based on law they won't need to get investigators because your not saying you did not purchase the codes. Your saying its not illegal to buy codes which would support your position. I would not feel comfortable with that defense but its better I believe than saying your sister ordered it.




GS2

[fifties]

Its my view they don't have to prove the defendant used the codes.

Well I know that you've been through court trials in Canada in regards to satellite TV issues, so your opinion does carry some gravity.

I base my speculation about this on prior cases that Dave lost.

In addition to losing because he couldn't prove ownership of a dish, he also lost when, using the purchase of multiple boot boards as his evidence, the defendant displayed how he bought them to use in security doors, and purchased from a pirate satellite dealer because they offered the best price.

So there are defenses that will work, and the above examples might actually be useful as precedents in certain litigation.

Given that, paying the $3500 initially is going to be the cheapest way out, as I have posted several times before.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

What information would be in server logs. ?



GS2