Letter now Court case

[iq180]

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.

yes this is true but if the server had one legal use, then the code was to be used for that one legal use, so the DMCA would
not apply.

[1boxman]

yes this is true but if the server had one legal use, then the code was to be used for that one legal use, so the DMCA would
not apply.

I doubt the server for weather was the same one .

Being that hub was able to get the weather ...(like kbox did ) would be for the sale of the hardware .
I see what you are saying ..But having a connection at the same server ..differently not good .

[1boxman]

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

He was a spokesman for viewsat ? or for the so called third party bins ?

I have said this before ..If they use wuf to testify against the plaintiffs ..question would..whether they have enough ..Being it is civil they may not need to prove it was used .

[fifties]

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..

There we go again, confusing criminal with civil. Different courts, different standards.

He was a spokesman for viewsat ? or for the so called third party bins ?

I have said this before ..If they use wuf to testify against the plaintiffs ..question would..whether they have enough ..Being it is civil they may not need to prove it was used .

AFA TDG, he was a promoter for Viewsat, and the primary legal thrust against him was for his posting of bins on the various "FTA" forums. IDK if anyone remembers, but DN used forum counters showing the number of downloads of each bin, for their calculation of their "damages". The judgment was over 50 million, BTW. It was at his trial, in fact, that a judge ruled the decryption bins were illegal. Before that, they were never ID'd as such.

Why would they need Wuf to testify, BTW? They already have proof that the codes were purchased, and would also have any email correspondence between his buyers and himself. I don't see where any testimony from him could further harm the defendants, by aiding DN.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

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".

If the find he had or bought a receiver ( leaving out that he said he didn't ) in your opinion would they still need to show logs to establish proof that the defendant did in fact pulled the trigger. ?

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.

We don't know what circumstantial evidence they have or could get along the way. Yes I believe buying a subscription to codes that have only one purpose shows intent. I believe the codes would fall under the description below from the DMCA. I believe buying the codes is more damaging than buying an unlooper.

they are primarily designed or produced to circumvent;
they have only limited commercially significant purpose or use other
than to circumvent;

GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I doubt the server for weather was the same one .

Being that hub was able to get the weather ...(like kbox did ) would be for the sale of the hardware .
I see what you are saying ..But having a connection at the same server ..differently not good .

The one with the weather was debunked in court with an expert testifying. I have to look it up as don't remember exactly but something to do with how it worked or that it didn't work or couldn't work.




GS2

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

There we go again, confusing criminal with civil. Different courts, different standards.



AFA TDG, he was a promoter for Viewsat, and the primary legal thrust against him was for his posting of bins on the various "FTA" forums. IDK if anyone remembers, but DN used forum counters showing the number of downloads of each bin, for their calculation of their "damages". The judgment was over 50 million, BTW. It was at his trial, in fact, that a judge ruled the decryption bins were illegal. Before that, they were never ID'd as such.

Why would they need Wuf to testify, BTW? They already have proof that the codes were purchased, and would also have any email correspondence between his buyers and himself. I don't see where any testimony from him could further harm the defendants, by aiding DN.

It didn't come up before for lack of trial with posting bins and it doesn't mean it was legal before that ruling. I think with reading the DMCA and case law it would be more clear that it was always illegal from the DMCA and rulings in 2000 by Judge Kaplan. Posters before of code or software were found liable. Even posting a link on a site to software on another site was ruled as a violation.




GS2

[kutter]

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.

I think your anaology is flawed, the codes he purchased are illegal, bullets are not

Yes it's true, this is not a criminal case, but these civil suits are based on the breaching of a criminal statute. In criminal law it's a crime to "attempt" to commit a crime. This is no different, if it's a crime, it's a crime. However, the penalties (fines or jail time) for "attempt" are limited to 1/2 the maximum penalties for that particular crime. So maybe this is a reasonable defense, even if it fails, it could limit the judgement. However, I still think the defendant is admitting guilt, by even offering that defense.

Like you said though, it's all just speculation.

[1boxman]

There we go again, confusing criminal with civil. Different courts, different standards.



AFA TDG, he was a promoter for Viewsat, and the primary legal thrust against him was for his posting of bins on the various "FTA" forums. IDK if anyone remembers, but DN used forum counters showing the number of downloads of each bin, for their calculation of their "damages". The judgment was over 50 million, BTW. It was at his trial, in fact, that a judge ruled the decryption bins were illegal. Before that, they were never ID'd as such.

Why would they need Wuf to testify, BTW? They already have proof that the codes were purchased, and would also have any email correspondence between his buyers and himself. I don't see where any testimony from him could further harm the defendants, by aiding DN.

Yes remember how they convicted him on posts and counts . There where so many skokes for the vs gang other than JJ but that is another story ..not to get off topic here

[1boxman]

The one with the weather was debunked in court with an expert testifying. I have to look it up as don't remember exactly but something to do with how it worked or that it didn't work or couldn't work.




GS2

MM...didn't see where they associated the wf (weather forecast ) with the last bit of veiwsat or stopped the sale ...I know the ihub did with sonicview .

[hondoharry]

The weather map actually worked on the Nfusion. Didn't seem to help Ramkissmyass from getting busted and going to jail in Toronto though.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

MM...didn't see where they associated the wf (weather forecast ) with the last bit of veiwsat or stopped the sale ...I know the ihub did with sonicview .

The one I read was with Sonicview. Don't know if it was brought up in court with others.



GS2

[DualTest]

The weather map actually worked on the Nfusion. Didn't seem to help Ramkissmyass from getting busted and going to jail in Toronto though.

The was for destroy evidence, if I remember correctly. Destroying the iks server it was believed.

[JCO]

The was for destroy evidence, if I remember correctly. Destroying the iks server it was believed.

Loosing his laptop and not handing over his hard drives from the fixed PC's as well.

[hondoharry]

Loosing his laptop and not handing over his hard drives from the fixed PC's as well.

Imagine that. Superhero going to jail.