Letter now Court case

[fifties]

Originally Posted by fifties
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.

That's a good question, in that purchase of the codes, along with proof that he had the equipment to utilize them, might be enough.

I just can't say. It may depend on the particular judge hearing the case, or there may be something in law to either support or deny the value of that combined evidence.

Logs of course would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is not required in the civil court venue.

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.
GS2

I would agree that ownership of the codes is more damaging than buying actual hardware that could be used for something else, and in this regard, we can't really compare the DN litigation to what Dave's complaints were.
I would also agree that their purchase does show intent, no question, and their existence could be construed as a violation of the DMCA.
With all that said, I think a good defense hinges on the defendant casting a doubt as to whether he actually used the codes or not. W/O the plaintiff showing proof of ownership of a receiver, this would seem to be a definite defensive advantage.

As you have posted previously, the plaintiff's attorney will depose him, and may be able to trip him up when taking the deposition, unless he pays his own lawyer to be there, running up the $.

[zero]

12345678910

[ftaalltheway]

This is a court case against a end user by the name of KAILAS MAGI. Not wuffman.
It clearly states that the said defendant purchased codes from wuff in page one.
Guess Nagra are going after those that are ignoring their letters after all.

couldnt dixon also be considered an enduser??
sure he sold dons (reseller) but 99% certainty HE connected to
various p$s too imho
so why arent we seeing info on HIS accountability and accused by
nag/dn via same letters magi and others got under HIS acct
?? unless of course he WAS
served and payed up but THAT would have to be a mutually agreed
amount (settlement) since HIS would be in the thousands, right?? curious

[fifties]

couldnt dixon also be considered an enduser??
sure he sold dons (reseller) but 99% certainty HE connected to
various p$s too imho
so why arent we seeing info on HIS accountability and accused by
nag/dn via same letters magi and others got under HIS acct
?? unless of course he WAS
served and payed up but THAT would have to be a mutually agreed
amount (settlement) since HIS would be in the thousands, right?? curious

Now you aren't suggesting that he cooperated with DN and gave up his customer records in exchange for not being prosecuted by them as an end-user himself, are you? Nawww.....

[sodusme]

I didn't read through this whole thing but my contention still is prove it.

The codes themselves mean nothing. You need a receiver, a dongle, a dish, and an internet connection to be able to steal television with these codes. Without each and every one of those variables in place there is no way DN/Nagra can proof theft. Unless the judges are now ruling on 'intent' which would be B.S. if that is the case. Of course lots of court cases are ruled on 'intent' that really shouldn't be. Like the buying of 'drugs' that are not drugs from an undercover agent. Or the soliciting of a 'prostitute' that isn't really a prostitute but is an undercover agent. Or the guy who goes to meet an 'underage' girl from the 'net and instead she is an undercover agent. Too many crimes in this country are being decided on 'intent'. Then when you get in front of the judge they present it as "You attempted to buy drugs from an undercover agent". No you didn't 'cause there were never any real drugs in play. Or "You attempted to solicit a prostitute". No you didn't 'cause there was never any real prostitute in play only an undercover agent. Or "You attempted to meet a 13 yo girl you met online". No you didn't cause again there was never really a 13 yo girl in play it was only an undercover agent the whole time.

Pretty soon anything you do will be critiqued as 'intent'.

[fifties]

Sod old boy, all of your examples are criminal court fodder. I don't think the same standards would be held to in civil...

[sodusme]

Sod old boy, all of your examples are criminal court fodder. I don't think the same standards would be held to in civil...

Just an example fifties, just an example.

Evidently you don't need real strong 'evidence' as they don't have real strong evidence. I know that in a civil case you have to prove your case with a preponderance of the evidence or in other words 51% to 49%. But yeah I was simply comparing that they (meaning DN/Nagra) are going on 'intent' because they have no ironclad evidence that theft actually occurred. So they have to be drawing the conclusion that your 'intent' was to use these codes to steal television since they cannot actually prove that you stole it. They can only surmise by the meager evidence they have compiled.

[JCO]

Are you guys saying that the glove may not fit..LOL

Sod old boy, all of your examples are criminal court fodder. I don't think the same standards would be held to in civil...

Just an example fifties, just an example.

Evidently you don't need real strong 'evidence' as they don't have real strong evidence. I know that in a civil case you have to prove your case with a preponderance of the evidence or in other words 51% to 49%. But yeah I was simply comparing that they (meaning DN/Nagra) are going on 'intent' because they have no ironclad evidence that theft actually occurred. So they have to be drawing the conclusion that your 'intent' was to use these codes to steal television since they cannot actually prove that you stole it. They can only surmise by the meager evidence they have compiled.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

I didn't read through this whole thing but my contention still is prove it.

The codes themselves mean nothing. You need a receiver, a dongle, a dish, and an internet connection to be able to steal television with these codes. Without each and every one of those variables in place there is no way DN/Nagra can proof theft. Unless the judges are now ruling on 'intent' which would be B.S. if that is the case. Of course lots of court cases are ruled on 'intent' that really shouldn't be. Like the buying of 'drugs' that are not drugs from an undercover agent. Or the soliciting of a 'prostitute' that isn't really a prostitute but is an undercover agent. Or the guy who goes to meet an 'underage' girl from the 'net and instead she is an undercover agent. Too many crimes in this country are being decided on 'intent'. Then when you get in front of the judge they present it as "You attempted to buy drugs from an undercover agent". No you didn't 'cause there were never any real drugs in play. Or "You attempted to solicit a prostitute". No you didn't 'cause there was never any real prostitute in play only an undercover agent. Or "You attempted to meet a 13 yo girl you met online". No you didn't cause again there was never really a 13 yo girl in play it was only an undercover agent the whole time.

Pretty soon anything you do will be critiqued as 'intent'.

I think if you thought the girl was 13 than your intent was to meet a girl at 13. That fact you were fooled doesn't change the intent.



GS2

[JCO]

I think if you thought the girl was 13 than your intent was to meet a girl at 13. That fact you were fooled doesn't change the intent.



GS2

We all know women always lie about their age.. She was 30 but said she was 13...LOL

[sodusme]

I think if you thought the girl was 13 than your intent was to meet a girl at 13. That fact you were fooled doesn't change the intent.



GS2

Unless of course you had changed your mind upon meeting the 'girl'.

So let me ask you if someone thought of meeting a 13 yo girl on the 'net then that is a crime then I assume? Forget that they may or may not have acted on it but lets just say it crossed their mind so they should be convicted then if their 'intent' was to meet a 13 yo? My contention is if the actual crime (the meeting of a real, live, honest to goodness 13 yo with the intent of having sex) never manifested....then where is the crime? The same holds true here....where is the actual crime? Show me proof of the crime and not just some codes, emails, paypal records. Now please don't read into this and think I am supporting this type of behavior I'm merely using it as an example. The same would apply if you meet an undercover agent to buy drugs and there are no real, live, honest to goodness drugs in the equation....then where is the crime?

At any case it was just an example of how many, many crimes in this country are now decided on 'intent' and wrongfully so IMO. These court cases of copyright infringement are no different. At this point they can only go on what they thought you were going to do with these codes as they have no proof you actually used them.

[Ineedanewusersname]

But I am dyslexic. I thought she was 31.

I think if you thought the girl was 13 than your intent was to meet a girl at 13. That fact you were fooled doesn't change the intent.



GS2

[dishuser]

bla bla bla
if you don't think you're screwed you're an idiot
enjoy spending 5 k to fight less...duh

[alex70olds]

bla bla bla
if you don't think you're screwed you're an idiot
enjoy spending 5 k to fight less...duh

LMAO Me thinks a certain service/site are getting smacked pretty hard right now. Courts, ECM's like they know all their subs, etc.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Unless of course you had changed your mind upon meeting the 'girl'.

So let me ask you if someone thought of meeting a 13 yo girl on the 'net then that is a crime then I assume? Forget that they may or may not have acted on it but lets just say it crossed their mind so they should be convicted then if their 'intent' was to meet a 13 yo? My contention is if the actual crime (the meeting of a real, live, honest to goodness 13 yo with the intent of having sex) never manifested....then where is the crime? The same holds true here....where is the actual crime? Show me proof of the crime and not just some codes, emails, paypal records. Now please don't read into this and think I am supporting this type of behavior I'm merely using it as an example. The same would apply if you meet an undercover agent to buy drugs and there are no real, live, honest to goodness drugs in the equation....then where is the crime?

At any case it was just an example of how many, many crimes in this country are now decided on 'intent' and wrongfully so IMO. These court cases of copyright infringement are no different. At this point they can only go on what they thought you were going to do with these codes as they have no proof you actually used them.

Meeting a 13 old by itself is not a crime but under your description of meeting a 13 year old and it turned out to be an under cover would make one think there was some not very good intent going on. Under cover like that usually mean it was something going on that was not very kosher. It usually means the under cover is trying to catch you at doing something so you could be charged with a crime. It might seem like its not fair but if done right it is acceptable. You can legally be caught that way.


Now not saying you would not have defenses as you probably would and than a judge or jury will decide.





GS2