before that defense is presented ...i would wait to see what evidence they trot out at deposition... I.E any proof you actually connected and do you own a STB with the required bin installed?
Member
before that defense is presented ...i would wait to see what evidence they trot out at deposition... I.E any proof you actually connected and do you own a STB with the required bin installed?
Visiting Dignitary
Originally Posted by fifties
I posted it before you but you keep making comments like this regarding evidence so it is confusing. There always is more evidence than what the complaint says.
I know that you know what this procedure is, but for the benefit of those who don't, it is the process wherein each side presents to the other all of their evidence, the purpose being that no surprises surface at the actual trial, and additionally the potential to settle and avoid trial, if one side sees an unavoidable defeat.
Now in this particular type of situation, IF Charlie's lawyer displays ISP logs showing a connection between the defendants ISP and the IKS server addy, and IF defense council advises against a claim that his client's WiFi must have been hacked, then the two pieces of evidence -the purchase of the code and the ISP logs- should be sufficient.
Don't forget, although Dave often won, he also lost cases where he tried to argue in court that folks purchasing items that could hack his service, actually did so with them. In fact, I believe at least one U.S. Circuit Court developed a backlash toward his tactics, after a period of time.
I still maintain that a D of "I bought the code, but never used it, because I never bought a receiver", is valid, and especially so if they can produce no logs.
But that's just my opinion.
A court will decide if it merits a win for the defendant so we are all speculating with our opinions. I am speculating that if logs are not produced it does not mean a win for the defendant automatically. If they have or obtained other circumstantial evidence like something incriminating the defewnant wrote in an email to wufman it won't matter if they have logs or not.It seems some people feel no logs case over without considering other possible circumstantial that may or may not come. You yourself seem to indicate no logs its especially valid. Its valid if he told the truth. Myself I can't understand why someone would buy a subscription to an illegal service especially if they claim they never owned a receiver. I think that will be open for question but if he told the truth than the plaintiff won't be able to find un truth.
GS2
Visiting Dignitary
No bin does not mean no go. This is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Its the preponderance of the evidence. Your concept that they have show bins in a civil case is wrong.
GS2
Visiting Dignitary
So he is going to bring his friend in and name him. Next thing you know they could both have lawsuits and some conspiracy allegation to defend against. Of course the conspiracy allegation could/would be bulchit but than as you say it will cost to defend.
GS2
Senior Member
As has already been said a thousand times here and elsewhere.....its all speculative but the difference now is the defendant gets to see what Dick has on him, can't do without his own legal action.
Server logs would be big but i doubt they have those....ISP logs would be easier to obtain but one would have to ask....if he connected and had pm's or e-mails that could be traced back than why would he bother fighting?
Visiting Dignitary
This what they say in the complaint.
The allegations made by DISH Network concerning the whereabouts and wrongful conduct of Defendant are based on the investigation completed to date, and with the reasonable belief that further investigation and discovery in this action will lead to additional factual support. Therefore, DISH Network reserves the right to supplement or amend its claims and the basis for those claims, with leave of court if necessary, as additional investigation and discovery is conducted.
The problem is we know from the past they send out their investigation goons and very often to come up with more factual evidence. Now that this defendant answered with a defense they will. So if he told the truth its a valid defense to try. Whether its successful will be up to the court. But if they find some un truth than it will be quite harmful to his creditibility and logs won't be necesarry. It might only be necessary or would have been necesaarry if the court says there is not enough proof that he did intercepted the signal with the court interpretating it as necesarry.
GS2
Visiting Dignitary
Some people and even lawyers are not always familar with what they do so they don't anticipate what could be possibly coming. Sometimes clients don't disclose everything to their lawyer so the lawyer might not know about emails or Pm's till it might be brought out.
This is why its importment that his defense statement is truthful. If it is than he'll have a defense to try all the way till the end. If not than likely will not make it to the end for a possible successful decision in his favor.
GS2
Senior Member
Nope, that does not wash....
Its not a murder or child porn case so chances are he will tell his lawyer everything, he has no reason not to. Full disclosure should not be an issue unless he's guilty or an idiot.
Member
That is correct. And looking at his attorney's profile:
hXXp://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Customsource/MemberDirectory/MemberDirectoryDetail.cfm&ContactID=151535
He lists his practice to business, taxation and property matters. Hardly someone you would want to be involved in a highly specialized copyright case.
It appears that he did some research on the issue and has turned up the DTV case.
In that case the court held that simply being in possession of two devices (ISO programmer and unlooper) that could be used to hack an access card was not enough proof. The court struggled with their ruling even saying it was tempting to find for DTV but since those two devices could be used for something other than hacking they had to find against DTV.
The court went on to say that if DTV had provided some proof that the defendant had satellite equipment that may have tipped the scales to them.
So this lawyer reads the DTV case and almost verbatim claims that DN has no actual proof that their signal was hacked.
The big difference between this case and the DTV case is that subscribing to an IKS service only has one purpose.
Member
^ maybe he sent the donation to support the servers endeavors but never meant to receive a code/never wanted one. Unless he specified in emails/pms exactly what he wanted, they can't prove he meant to receive the codes. After all if you sent 20$ to the red cross and they email you child porn, are you really to blame for receiving it? Of course not, unless they can prove you asked for the porn to be sent to you
Last edited by budyyy; 02-23-2013 at 11:43 PM.
pgp key in my profile under "biography". Use it if possible.
VIP
Yes, and it comes out in the DISCOVERY phase. That would be when the defendant must decide if he wants to take it to trial or not.
I maintain that W/O logs, they simply can't prove that he used the codes. And to get those logs, I would speculate, would require a subpoena. I can see a judge signing one on a dealer, but for an end-user, it just might be considered an unreasonable invasion of his privacy, given the lesser weight of the alleged offense.
Now this idea of yours (and some others) that, because he purchased the codes, he must have used them, or why did he buy them in the first place doesn't completely hold water, and here's why;
Almost everyone, at some time, has bought something or other and just put it away, unopened. So why would this behavior be any different? In fact, it carries more weight in this situation, because the codes are dependent on the ownership of both a satellite receiver and dish antenna. They are of no use, all by themselves.
Last edited by fifties; 02-24-2013 at 12:06 AM.
Visiting Dignitary
His reason not to is because he might not think or anticipate some possible email or Pm is going to fall into the Plaintiffs or there will be some possible court order to his ISP or PayPal or whoever to turn over records. He may not think or anticipate that the Plaintiff could go to one of his neighbors in hope of gathering information that we have just recently seen in a case so in his mind he could be possibly saying to himself why tell his lawyer I am not going to be caught.
I say this because it is so unlikely someone decided to buy a subscription to that service without being able to use it. I don't think in reality people do that.
GS2
Visiting Dignitary
Wufman is not the Red Cross. He was running an illegal service.
GS2
Visiting Dignitary
He was ?? Which one ?
Visiting Dignitary
Heres the problem you think they must prove he used it. I don't agree with that. If they pick up an incriminating email from the defendant why would they have to prove he used it or have server logs. This is civil court where the decision goes to where the preponderance of the evidence has more weight. If the defenant says in an email to wufman just as an example, why is it in the last two days the PPV's are not working do you think they have to actually prove he used it.
I don't agree with your therory that people buy some illegal service and just put it away. People buy things and can just put it away but we are talking about buying something that is illegal. People don't just buy illegal things in my opinion. I think most people will stay away from purchasing illegal things to avoid trouble. Why would anyone put themselves at risk like that unless they wanted to participate seems more logical to me.
GS2
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote