DN $3500 demand

[Grave Digger]

Your theory does make sense......the only downside I see is the amount of info they really have. If they have ones email address, do they have ones Nic on a Sat Forum Site? If one was dumb enough to ever post they were down on N*P* port xxxxx I would think one would have to take this into consideration in ones decision to pay or fight. I'm sure they would have copies of all threads that say Post if you are up or down....... May be their Ace in the Hole.

yes they have the site nics, and webforum posts can and will be used against you in court,

thats why i have been saying for YEARS (even before IKS started) watch what you say on sites like this,

people who go around posting things like "Excellent UFC fight last night! Thanks NFPS!" are complete idiots, give your head a shake and think about what your saying, sometimes saying nothing is better,

but i guess empty heads make the most noise

[hondoharry]

http://lawmeme.research.yale.edu/modules.php?name=Newsfile=printsid=925

Exactly. They will provide info to law enforcement but not to a private corporation like DN or Nagra in a civil matter without a court order. DN HAD to have a court order to get Wuf's customers' names, home addresses, bank info, IP's and transactions. A court order is also needed for ISP logs. No problem for Hagan, Boyle, etc.

[struckrk]

Personally I think a better defense is could they prove that you used the code? You have to 'read between the lines' on that demand letter and they are actually stipulating that you used the code, not that the code ever worked or didn't work. To me that is the angle I would pursue. Who cares if the code could have, should have, or would have worked....the real issue at hand is did I use the code. Same line of defense for burglary tools. So you got a ski mask and leather gloves and a screwdriver in your trunk....can those be used for criminal activity....sure they can. But can they prove that you actually used them for that?

Don't get caught up in their circular maze of idiocy guys. By fighting the defense of did these work or can you make them work you are feeding right into their hands. You need to make them prove that you actually used these codes for nefarious purposes. I'll say it again for the 102nd time: Receiving some codes through Paypal does not a pirate make. Its a long stretch to what they are trying to prove here boys.

I agree with your logic however the judgements keep coming and the cost of fighting it exceeds the settlement amount.

[sodusme]

Exactly. They will provide info to law enforcement but not to a private corporation like DN or Nagra in a civil matter without a court order. DN HAD to have a court order to get Wuf's customers' names, home addresses, bank info, IP's and transactions. A court order is also needed for ISP logs. No problem for Hagan, Boyle, etc.

Not necessarily....

http://lawmeme.research.yale.edu/modules.php?name=Newsfile=printsid=925

Without a subpoena, eBay will provide the following information regarding an eBay user to law enforcement:

Full Name, User ID, Email Address, Street Address, State, City, Zip Code, Phone Number, Country, Company, Password, Secondary Phone, Gender, Personal or Business, Shipping information (Name, Street Address, City, State, Zip)

In addition eBay will provide the following transaction information:

Bidding History on an Item, Other Items for Sale, Feedback about a user, Bidding history of a user, Prices paid for items, Feedback rating, and Chat Room/Bulletin Board (!).

Now for the i.p.'s and bank info. it looks like they would have needed a subpoena....possibly. But I'm sure they have involved some LEA by now. Most likely the feds. Since the transactions occurred across state lines. So out of the 5 pieces of info. only 2 of them really require a subpoena....and we don't even know if they required a subpoena.

[hondoharry]

Ok, that's EBay for mdse sales. PayPal for money transfers is not exactly the same. They may not have the same policy. And who knows about ISP's internal policies. I still don't think PayPal or ISP's will give personal info or logs to a private company or person in a civil disagreement without a court order. They may be bad, but not that bad. With a court order they have to comply, no choice. Sort of like Wuf, no? When they got you by the b*lls.

[cheff]

Everyone is missing the point , They have records of purchase and that's all they need under DCMA. So all this about ISP's or if you even used the code is void.

[sodusme]

Everyone is missing the point , They have records of purchase and that's all they need under DCMA. So all this about ISP's or if you even used the code is void.

No not under the DMCA law they are citing. I actually posted this back on page 12 but I'll c/p it again.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201

Digital Millennium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C § 1201(a)(1) is quoted in the letter which is the following paragraph and sub-paragaphs.

(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).

(C) During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine —

(i) the availability for use of copyrighted works;

(ii) the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;

(iii) the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;

(iv) the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and

(v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.

(D) The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.

(E) Neither the exception under subparagraph (B) from the applicability of the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A), nor any determination made in a rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), may be used as a defense in any action to enforce any provision of this title other than this paragraph.

Now the paragraph that ACTUALLY applies to their lawsuit is found in:

Digital Millennium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C § 1201(a)(2)

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

There is a very distinct difference in those two paragraphs. The first one is eluding to the fact that circumvention has been achieved....period the end. While the second (2) paragraph involves penalties for trafficking in or otherwise using and/or possessing a technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that has only limited usability and is primarily designed for copyright infringement.

So I ask you read those closely and than tell me which one more closely relates to what actually happened here. Given the fact that we know they CANNOT possibly prove theft beyond a reasonable doubt.

[BanHammer]

Ok, that's EBay for mdse sales. PayPal for money transfers is not exactly the same. They may not have the same policy. And who knows about ISP's internal policies. I still don't think PayPal or ISP's will give personal info or logs to a private company or person in a civil disagreement without a court order. They may be bad, but not that bad. With a court order they have to comply, no choice. Sort of like Wuf, no? When they got you by the b*lls.

any policy that eBay has set would most certainly apply to PayPal, since eBay owns PayPal.

[dishuser]

any policy that eBay has set would most certainly apply to PayPal, since eBay owns PayPal.

I already said that...lol

[BanHammer]

I already said that...lol

my bad.. lol

[hondoharry]

any policy that eBay has set would most certainly apply to PayPal, since eBay owns PayPal.

Not necessarily. Banks have much different policies than stores even if owned by the same parent. Bottom line is DN/Nagra can get end user personal info from PayPal, Ebay, ISP's, Wuf and any other entity with a court order which is no problem in these types of cases. From PayPal they got all the IP addresses the user has logged in from as shown in a posted PP report from another case.

[Grave Digger]

Everyone is missing the point , They have records of purchase and that's all they need under DCMA.

no, that is not true,

there is no law stating these codes are illegal to buy and sell,

[hondoharry]

no, that is not true,

there is no law stating these codes are illegal to buy and sell,

I wouldn't be too sure of that.

[sodusme]

I wouldn't be too sure of that.

Read my post #277.

It depends what article or paragraph they are suring you under from the DMCA. They are IMO suing under the wrong paragraph. They cannot (I used the term beyond reasonable doubt earlier and that is wrong) prove piracy actually took place with a preponderance of the evidence. Now on the other hand they can prove that you trafficked in a device that has limited use.

This is why I don't understand why all the attorneys are saying "Pay up". This would be something a child could defend against with the proper know how.

[MarvinGardens]

This is why I don't understand why all the attorneys are saying "Pay up".

I have trouble understanding all this legal mumbo jumbo.

Res Ipsa Loquitur