DN $3500 demand

[sodusme]

you make it sound so easy..maybe you should get a letter and see how you do..The lawyers i know around here where honest with me ..they said if there was a case they would go with it... but i guess you the expert lawyer on here !!!!

What do you live in a cave or something? How many attorneys did you call? I can guarantee if I did get a letter I could get an attorney to fight this and if I couldn't you bet your @ss they'd see my smilin' face show up in court.

The reason I'm questioning this is attorneys and 'honest' aren't usually used in the same sentence. Its been my experience that attorneys will sell you the sun, the moon and the stars and deliver none of it. So even if there was NOT a case why would an attorney not take it? He's got your money what does he care if he loses the case?

This is why I'm saying your post makes no sense. Sounds like you're more the expert towel thrower and so are the attorneys you called.

[kboom]

Well I guess to prove your point you could call up one your so called attorneys and show him a copy of the letter and then give us the happy answer. BS back and forth does nothing for anybody. It's all in your court......

[hondoharry]

Its a simple defense: Sirs your demand letter and resulting lawsuit are hinging on a DMCA clause (17 U.S.C § 1201(a)(1) that cannot be proven for the following reasons: You do not have any evidence that there was any circumvention of a copyright protected system.

The demand letter has no legal standing in court. It's simply an offer to settle out of court. They can mention one clause in the letter and bring up any other ones and any other evidence in trial.

[sodusme]

Well I guess to prove your point you could call up one your so called attorneys and show him a copy of the letter and then give us the happy answer. BS back and forth does nothing for anybody. It's all in your court......

Now what good would that possibly do? Think about it....attorneys are licensed to practice in certain states only. So unless you wanna move your happy @ss to Michigan (or Indiana as a lot of them in the area do litigation in Indiana)....I guess you're screwed.

All you guys spouting off with "They'll never accept that", "That will never work", "You should just pay it and toe the line" probably didn't even get letters. Fear mongering goes a long way on these boards.

The demand letter has no legal standing in court. It's simply an offer to settle out of court. They can mention one clause in the letter and bring up any other ones and any other evidence in trial.

So than you are paying this money under false pretenses? You are paying it with respect to litigation being sought under a certain DMCA clause and as I said its a DMCA clause that CANNOT be proven. I don't have the time nor the energy to pour over these actual court cases but I would bet that they are suing under this exact DMCA clause. Look it up if you have the time. I'm curious.

In fact n/m I'll do it....

[sodusme]

Yup just as I thought....look up "COUNT 1" of Kailas Magi's documents.

Circumventing an Access Control Measure in Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) (that's (a)(1) ONLY that they are suing under.

28. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs 1-27.
29. Defendant circumvented the DISH Network security system in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) by the acts set forth above, including obtaining NagraStar’s control words from the IKS server and using the control words to view DISH Network’s satellite transmissions of television programming.
30. The DISH Network security system is a technological measure that effectively controls access to, copying, and distribution of copyrighted works. Defendant’s actions that constitute violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) were performed without permission, consent, or authorization of DISH Network or any owner of copyrighted programming broadcast on the DISH Network platform.
31. Defendant violated 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) willfully and for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
32. Defendant knew or should have known his actions were illegal and prohibited. Such violations have and will continue to cause damage to Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial. Unless restrained and enjoined by the Court, Defendant will continue to violate 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1).

No where in these allegations are they referencing ANY other clause of 17 U.S.C § 1201 EXCEPT (a)(1)

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

Now we know from reading on the governments copyright site that that clause says the following:

(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.

Furthermore we know the clause that COULD actually be proven is the following:

(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.

[kboom]

Ok that is fine but where does it state that his dismissal is b/c of this? By the way I paid mine. It was the cheapest way to go. But curious to see how others have worked out. As of yet haven't seen any wins that have stated your thoughts. Have there actually been any wins?

[sodusme]

Ok that is fine but where does it state that his dismissal is b/c of this? By the way I paid mine. It was the cheapest way to go. But curious to see how others have worked out. As of yet haven't seen any wins that have stated your thoughts. Have there actually been any wins?

It doesn't....

But I was trying to remember didn't Alex (or someone else can't remember) post something about a case being dismissed or thrown out because of the 'control words being un-encrypted' allegation and that was grounds for dismissal or something? Because of the fact that the control words were already un-encrypted before they reached the defendants receiver? I think I'm remembering this correctly but maybe not.

I can't remember all the particulars but it seems to me I read something about that?

[alex70olds]

Ok that is fine but where does it state that his dismissal is b/c of this? By the way I paid mine. It was the cheapest way to go. But curious to see how others have worked out. As of yet haven't seen any wins that have stated your thoughts. Have there actually been any wins?

No

You can not, and will not win, unless you are truely a case of mistaken identity.

Their pockets are too deep. They will subponea your ISP if they have too. This is Civil, and not Criminal. Sorry, at one time I thought their would be better news out of the Magi case.

[alex70olds]

It doesn't....

But I was trying to remember didn't Alex (or someone else can't remember) post something about a case being dismissed or thrown out because of the 'control words being un-encrypted' allegation and that was grounds for dismissal or something? Because of the fact that the control words were already un-encrypted before they reached the defendants receiver? I think I'm remembering this correctly but maybe not.

I can't remember all the particulars but it seems to me I read something about that?

That was the attorney HL sent the email to.

[sodusme]

That was the attorney HL sent the email to.

OK couldn't remember it....

I still say they can't possibly prove that you circumvented anything. They would need ISP logs for that. But not every ISP keeps logs forever. Its my understanding that they are purged after some time frame.

In fact here is a blog with retention periods for major ISP's in America (and a couple Canadian ones). WOW Verizon....18 months? Damn....LOL

http://torrentfreak.com/how-long-does-your-isp-store-ip-address-logs-120629/

Now can they prove that you 'trafficked' in an item that has limited use? Yes they most certainly can. But that is not what they are alleging here. You can't go into court alleging one thing and than when that is shot down switch gears and say "Well your honor we would also like to allege the following"....LOL

I say the best defense is to know ALL the ins and outs of how IKS actually works because its apparent they do not or they would have it shut down by now.

[1boxman]

Ok that is fine but where does it state that his dismissal is b/c of this? By the way I paid mine. It was the cheapest way to go. But curious to see how others have worked out. As of yet haven't seen any wins that have stated your thoughts. Have there actually been any wins?

I do not think you can win ..other than try and protect yourself for the future .Like said it is civil court .

Other scenario ..if they sent out a second letter ..Say if someone had multi codes .
This would be the worse . I see no reason why they could not do this .

[alex70olds]

OK couldn't remember it....

I still say they can't possibly prove that you circumvented anything. They would need ISP logs for that. But not every ISP keeps logs forever. Its my understanding that they are purged after some time frame.

In fact here is a blog with retention periods for major ISP's in America (and a couple Canadian ones). WOW Verizon....18 months? Damn....LOL

http://torrentfreak.com/how-long-does-your-isp-store-ip-address-logs-120629/

Now can they prove that you 'trafficked' in an item that has limited use? Yes they most certainly can. But that is not what they are alleging here. You can't go into court alleging one thing and than when that is shot down switch gears and say "Well your honor we would also like to allege the following"....LOL
I say the best defense is to know ALL the ins and outs of how IKS actually works because its apparent they do not or they would have it shut down by now.

They certainly can file an amended complaint at any time they wish.

Also, they have started going after those that have the "seeder" accounts. I suspect that is one of the reasons for limited channels.

[sodusme]

They certainly can file an amended complaint at any time they wish.

Also, they have started going after those that have the "seeder" accounts. I suspect that is one of the reasons for limited channels.

Oh I was certain there were ways to either 'amend' or refile another suit entirely....

I just was saying that you have to stick to the 'allegations' at hand when in court. You can't jump all over the board and start making accusations that have not been documented in the lawsuit. No judge (or defense attorney for that matter) will put up with that.

[alex70olds]

Oh I was certain there were ways to either 'amend' or refile another suit entirely....

I just was saying that you have to stick to the 'allegations' at hand when in court. You can't jump all over the board and start making accusations that have not been documented in the lawsuit. No judge (or defense attorney for that matter) will put up with that.

Procedure for filing an amended complaint.

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT AMENDED COMPLAINTS
A. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the filing of amended and supplemental pleadings.
According to Rule 15(a):
A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before
a responsive pleading is served or, it the pleading is one to which no responsive
pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the
party may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served. Otherwise a party
may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the
adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. A party shall
plead in response to an amended pleading within the time remaining for response to
the original pleading or within 10 days after service of the amended pleading,
whichever period may be longer, unless the court otherwise orders.
Please note that an amended complaint completely replaces your original complaint and you therefore
must include all of the necessary allegations in the amended complaint.

[sodusme]

Procedure for filing an amended complaint.

Justice?!?! They have the audacity to call this justice?

GMAB!!!!