Letter now Court case

[kutter]

Welcome to satFIX kutter.......glad you joined to give your opinion!

I'm not good at detecting sarcasm ... so I'll take that as a genuine welcome

[iq180]

there i a way to stop all this court crap, give the server 1 legal use, like a news CH you could seream from the internet or any thing
like that would work, then it would have a legal use and that would put an end to the court case.

[hondoharry]

I can think of good reasons for buying codes without intending to use them - resell them, Christmas/birthday gift to a loved one/friend, for a friend with no PP. Evidently reselling is not illegal, otherwise they'd be suing Wuf. lol

[hondoharry]

there i a way to stop all this court crap, give the server 1 legal use, like a news CH you could seream from the internet or any thing
like that would work, then it would have a legal use and that would put an end to the court case.

Wasn't that tried with a weather map somewhere?

[hondoharry]

If they can follow the money trail from end user to Wuf and he's singing like a bird, why can't they follow the money trail from Wuf to NFPS/Rocket?

[DualTest]

Wasn't that tried with a weather map somewhere?

I believe that was the "official" reason for the Nfusions having an ethernet port. And was included in the factory software.

[iq180]

If they can follow the money trail from end user to Wuf and he's singing like a bird, why can't they follow the money trail from Wuf to NFPS/Rocket?

they can, but it want do them any good, the server is not in the U.S.
i say if the server had a legal use then you could say thats why i have a code and thats all i use it for, and all this crap would be over, end of case.

[fifties]

Interesting argument Fifties, isn't intent covered by the DMCA though. The fact that the defendant admitted to buying the codes, shows that he intended to use it, or why bother purchasing. They only have to demonstrate that you knew what the code was for. To argue that you purchased it, knowing full well what it was for, simply puts the nail in the coffin. Haven't you given them the evidence they need.

IDK if the term, "intent", is covered in the DMCA. AFAIK, "intent" is normally used in criminal cases, which this is not.

Of course we are all just speculating at this point. If we see several court cases emerge, a pattern may be developed, determining if purchase by itself with no corroborating additional evidence, is sufficient to tilt the justice scale.

I would like to think that a somewhat more convincing set of circumstances exists, before a plaintiff can get awarded a money judgment.

Posts discussing setup in a forum, PM's discussing usage of the code, proof of the ownership of a satellite receiver, and/or proof of the existence of a satellite dish, and of course logs obtained from the ISP showing multiple connections to the server IP would seem not all that hard to get, and IMHO at least one should be required, to support the notion that the defendant followed through and actually did purloin DN's signal.

Just because there is proof that one bought bullets, doesn't prove that he either has a gun, or fired any.

they can, but it want do them any good, the server is not in the U.S.
i say if the server had a legal use then you could say thats why i have a code and thats all i use it for, and all this crap would be over, end of case.

Well, the Viewsat Weather Forecaster scheme apparently didn't work, so why would this be any different?

And it really doesn't matter about where the server is located, as much as the country of residence of it's owner(s), given that they would be bound by their countries laws.

[iq180]

IDK if the term, "intent", is covered in the DMCA. AFAIK, "intent" is normally used in criminal cases, which this is not.

Of course we are all just speculating at this point. If we see several court cases emerge, a pattern may be developed, determining if purchase by itself with no corroborating additional evidence, is sufficient to tilt the justice scale.

I would like to think that a somewhat more convincing set of circumstances exists, before a plaintiff can get awarded a money judgment.

Posts discussing setup in a forum, PM's discussing usage of the code, proof of the ownership of a satellite receiver, and/or proof of the existence of a satellite dish, and of course logs obtained from the ISP showing multiple connections to the server IP would seem not all that hard to get, and IMHO at least one should be required, to support the notion that the defendant followed through and actually did purloin DN's signal.

Just because there is proof that one bought bullets, doesn't prove that he either has a gun, or fired any.


Well, the Viewsat Weather Forecaster scheme apparently didn't work, so why would this be any different?

And it really doesn't matter about where the server is located, as much as the country of residence of it's owner(s), given that they would be bound by their countries laws.

did you ever see the weather on the weather forecaster, all they need is one legal use for the server, just one.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

"If" is a small word, with a large consequence, my friend.

Yes, "if" they had other correspondence verifying obvious usage, there's no question the defendant is toast...IF.

Lacking that, we are again looking at the purchase of a code as the only alleged evidence of signal theft and violation of the DMCA. I am now saying that it's "alleged" because that's exactly what it is...Evidence has to be used to prove a point, and this one item used by itself would pose a somewhat specious conclusion. You tend to think that it's enough to tip the scales 51%...I don't.

So than your saying if they find incriminating emails or messages that they don't need the server logs ? It appeared to me that you have been saying no server logs to show a connection than no case so not sure where you stand on this. The evidence is the purchase of the codes from an illegal service. That alone in my opinion is compelling.Though I am speculating there will be more evidence and think the defendant is going to have a hard time explaining why he bought those codes.

You are missing a primary point here; because it can lead to illegal doings is a very motivational reason to in fact "put it away"...More so than if it were completely legal.

I don't see your speculation of putting away as a primary point. I see the primary point being the defendant spent money to subscribe to an illegal service that only has one purpose but to received signals from the plaintiff unlawfully.

I don't think so.

All DN's stooges are doing, in your example, is showing the court how the theft of service operation works, by posing as customers.

Their actions reflect not a whit on what the defendant did or didn't do, AFA using or not using the service. Yes, he bought a code, then states that he got cold feet...Prove that he used it...

The testimony from their investigator saying what he was able to do has been done several times in other cases. That testimony is for the court to show it was able to be done. As far as proving that the defendant used it circumstantial evidence can be accepted by courts with regards to useage.



GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I do not think he alleged on being a salesman only ..was more for involvement on sites .

But wuf is not on trial (being that he rolled over his info )..more the people he dealt with .

His involvment on sites was to promote the Viewsat products for sale acting as their spokesperson. Yes Wuf is not on trail but he could possibly be used as a support witness for the plaintiff if he cooperated. That is why I asked if he was sued.



GS2

[fifties]

did you ever see the weather on the weather forecaster, all they need is one legal use for the server, just one.

I never had a WF dongle, so never connected to their server to see if weather forecasts were there.

Apparently however, since no other IKS service that I've heard of uses that tactic, it doesn't seem to be a viable "excuse".

So than your saying if they find incriminating emails or messages that they don't need the server logs ? It appeared to me that you have been saying no server logs to show a connection than no case so not sure where you stand on this. The evidence is the purchase of the codes from an illegal service. That alone in my opinion is compelling.Though I am speculating there will be more evidence and think the defendant is going to have a hard time explaining why he bought those codes.

You have brought up the specter of incriminating posts at "FTA" and IKS server forums, AWA damaging emails or PM's, acknowledging usage, by the defendant.

I can agree that those would most likely seal the deal for DN, W/O the need for ISP logs, showing connection to the server. Now without those items, then I would say the logs would need to be shown, to establish proof that the defendant did in fact, "pull the trigger".

I don't see your speculation of putting away as a primary point. I see the primary point being the defendant spent money to subscribe to an illegal service that only has one purpose but to received signals from the plaintiff unlawfully.

The point was that a person would be more likely to have second thoughts, and put away an item of questionable legality, than one of which legality was no concern.

The testimony from their investigator saying what he was able to do has been done several times in other cases. That testimony is for the court to show it was able to be done. As far as proving that the defendant used it circumstantial evidence can be accepted by courts with regards to useage.

And your (their) circumstantial evidence is simply and only proof that the defendant bought the code.

Nothing showing that he used it, or even had the equipment necessary to make it work.
No records displaying a discussion of any problems with it, how to set it up, what channels would be available, how long it was good for, what IP to use to connect to.

Your contention is that his purchase displayed an initial intent, and that should be good enough to garner a judgment against him.

Mine is that this isn't a criminal court felony case, where mere intent might be enough, but a relatively low level civil action, where just a little more would need to be proven by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff; he bought the code
Defendant; I never used it
50/50 so far.
The plaintiff would need to push it over the edge, even ever so slightly, with another tidbit of evidence.

[iq180]

ok fifties, remember when DTV sent out the demand letters for the unloopers/programers/ then one case went to court and they
proved that it did have some legal use and that was the end of that, now if the server had a legal use then would that not be the same thing, they could not use the isp or server logs in court or the fact that you did buy a code.

[fifties]

The fact that these and the Dave cases both concern possible hacking of a satellite signal is about their only similarity.

There is no question that the server, and by extension the codes to access it, are in violation of the DMCA, and would therefore be deemed illegal.

The question might be, did the individual who purchased the code actually use it, or is the fact that he bought it sufficient for a judgment against him.

[JCO]

The fact that these and the Dave cases both concern possible hacking of a satellite signal is about their only similarity.

There is no question that the server, and by extension the codes to access it, are in violation of the DMCA, and would therefore be deemed illegal.


The question might be, did the individual who purchased the code actually use it, or is the fact that he bought it sufficient for a judgment against him.

Umm so a non tobacco smoker could be imprisoned for buying or owning rolling papers...
What else would he use them for other than rolling up a doobie..