DN $3500 demand

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

seems neither one of you challenged the issue when I told fifties I would email Faudlin Pierre the attorney for Fredrick Dames with regards to his case and the decision without prejudice.

Feel free to post a copy of the emails you have sent. Not sure why you think some lawyer is going to answer an email from a non client without some retainer agreement.


I welcome any weapon that legally could be used but it needs to have merit. You strike me as a person who has no court or lawyer experience and takes your emotional feelings about Big Corporations having power, money, greed or whatever as having some influence on the court system and laws when it comes to applying them.


I never heard of a reserve demand letter to cancel a demand letter. What would the demand reverse letter say. ? If you don't stop sending demand letters we are going to sue you for x amount based on what ? that the original demand letter sent cause harm and injury somehow ? its extortion or that the demand letter is citing the wrong section of the DMCA ? but where do you get that from other than the opinion of sudusme. The section they cite seems to be fine ( 1201(1)(a) ) as its one that would apply to end users and the other one ( 1202(2)(a) ) is more geared to sellers, dealers.

1201(1)(a)


(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.


1201(2)(a)


(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

GS2

[chip douglas]

This is a dead issue now that its been shown that d!shnet has woufman's computer info showing your ip address, the channel your watching and at what time. Hardly anything that you can defend against.

[TTL 10]

This is a dead issue now that its been shown that d!shnet has woufman's computer info showing your ip address, the channel your watching and at what time. Hardly anything that you can defend against.

They don't have the chan / time info since he was just a reseller. What they got from him was the p$ des/username/ip/port and your email address. And then paypal probably provided the contact info.

Dishnet has no idea what (if anything at all) you watched. The entire demand letter is based on purchasing something, not necessarily using it.

The only way they would definitely know that you actually watched something was if the actual IKS server relays or origin servers were compromised. And this is assuming you're connected directly. Using a vpn to connect would be a good idea.

[alex70olds]

They don't have the chan / time info since he was just a reseller. What they got from him was the p$ des/username/ip/port and your email address. And then paypal probably provided the contact info.

Dishnet has no idea what (if anything at all) you watched. The entire demand letter is based on purchasing something, not necessarily using it.

The only way they would definitely know that you actually watched something was if the actual IKS server relays or origin servers were compromised. And this is assuming you're connected directly. Using a vpn to connect would be a good idea.

Welcome to Fix.

How do you know for a fact that wuf reseller panel did not have access to what IP, Cannel being watched etc? I would hope you would be only posting with 100% certainty, because I can tell you, your wrong, some resellers did have panels that gave then that information.

[TTL 10]

^ Basing it on the exhibits shown in the court documents. Why would resellers be given access to panels with IP / chans watched? Seems very dumb.

[alex70olds]

^ Basing it on the exhibits shown in the court documents. Why would resellers be given access to panels with IP / chans watched? Seems very dumb.

Yes, very dumb. Attached is an example of what some panels include. It was posted by thebeav, but his resellers do not have it. Nobody in the wuff cases has made it to the discovery phase yet, so we really don't know everything they have.

beav.jpg

[1boxman]

Throw in there too.. I have seen some severs hacked too .. info is out there. Plus they wont tell you everything until court .

[DerZ]

3 simple little letters... V-P-N. With all the recent court cases regarding sat testing, copyright infringement and of course all the recent discoveries with the USA spying on folks left and right, you really never know who is watching. Personally I treat my VPN with a higher regard then I do AntiVirus...

Back in the 90's we all surfed the internet with out having firewalls or antivirus software running, yet these days its just complete stupidity to do such a thing! The same thought should be applied for VPN's when surfing the web, downloading, testing ect.. The cyber world landscape is changing, lets try to keep up with it :P

[Hannibalector]

Feel free to post a copy of the emails you have sent. Not sure why you think some lawyer is going to answer an email from a non client without some retainer agreement.


I welcome any weapon that legally could be used but it needs to have merit. You strike me as a person who has no court or lawyer experience and takes your emotional feelings about Big Corporations having power, money, greed or whatever as having some influence on the court system and laws when it comes to applying them.


I never heard of a reserve demand letter to cancel a demand letter. What would the demand reverse letter say. ? If you don't stop sending demand letters we are going to sue you for x amount based on what ? that the original demand letter sent cause harm and injury somehow ? its extortion or that the demand letter is citing the wrong section of the DMCA ? but where do you get that from other than the opinion of sudusme. The section they cite seems to be fine ( 1201(1)(a) ) as its one that would apply to end users and the other one ( 1202(2)(a) ) is more geared to sellers, dealers.








GS2

maybe I asked him politely how the weather was in Florida, crack the ice sorta thing, get the ball rolling in a nice casual manner.

one person is aware of the 1st email response I received, believe me I thought the same as you and 1boxman through the question and answer

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

maybe I asked him politely how the weather was in Florida, crack the ice sorta thing, get the ball rolling in a nice casual manner.

one person is aware of the 1st email response I received, believe me I thought the same as you and 1boxman through the question and answer

How is this person aware. Is it because you told the person you got a response. Why not post the response. I want to know was there anything in this so called response that addressed demand letters and the law. Surely if there was you would have posted it.


Not to be negative but I don't think your going to get the ball rolling on some legal issue because your polite or acted in a nice casual manner. That is why I feel you have not had any experience with lawyers. Some lawyer might answer you, might answer thinking your a potential client but is not going to go into details on some legal issue/concern as an email pen pal. You want to get the ball rolling on that send them money. I am not putting down the effort just throwing in some reality. Some lawyers send bills that include their time to read your emails.



GS2

[sodusme]

Feel free to post a copy of the emails you have sent. Not sure why you think some lawyer is going to answer an email from a non client without some retainer agreement.


I welcome any weapon that legally could be used but it needs to have merit. You strike me as a person who has no court or lawyer experience and takes your emotional feelings about Big Corporations having power, money, greed or whatever as having some influence on the court system and laws when it comes to applying them.


I never heard of a reserve demand letter to cancel a demand letter. What would the demand reverse letter say. ? If you don't stop sending demand letters we are going to sue you for x amount based on what ? that the original demand letter sent cause harm and injury somehow ? its extortion or that the demand letter is citing the wrong section of the DMCA ? but where do you get that from other than the opinion of sudusme. The section they cite seems to be fine ( 1201(1)(a) ) as its one that would apply to end users and the other one ( 1202(2)(a) ) is more geared to sellers, dealers.








GS2

Section (1201)(1)(a) only applies if they can "prove" the case. Now I know you will say "But they have proven every case up until now". Now whether they have channels watched and so forth from this reseller panel remains to be seen. Maybe someone that actually has access to NFPS reseller panel can clear that up but if they do then all bets are off. Now the reason I say "prove" the case is because they could have proven section (1201)(2)(b) with just the knowledge of the fact that the defendant is in possession of a "code". But even that has loopholes. There was one member on these boards that stated he purchased the codes for a relative. So I have to ask you? Is he guilty under section (a) or (b)? No of course he isn't guilty under section (a). Now while he might be considered guilty under section (b) of being in possession of a "device" that has limited use he is not guilty under section (a). For the simple fact that even with a reseller panel and i.p.'s and channels watched there would be NO evidence of him having used said code. Therefore there would be no circumvention of technology that could have possibly taken place concerning his case.

But the simple fact remains that until which time you are in court (barring that they do not have channels watched from a reseller panel or forum posts) there is no way to prove section (1201)(1)(a) of the DMCA. While section (b) is a given before the ink was dry on the demand letter. So why go with section (a)? Why not just sue under the proper section of "possession"? Now I know you say one is for end users and one is for dealers I don't think that is entirely accurate. They are going to sue under ANY section they can get relief under. I don't believe the legislators had in mind one section pertaining to one type of criminal (YES I realize this is not criminal) while another section pertained to another.

Here is a court case against MS for misuse and misinterpretation of the DMCA section (1201)(1)(a):

When correctly interpreted, section 1201(a) prohibits something else altogether: digital trespass upon intellectual property by outsiders who have no authority to “unlock” a copyrighted work without “breaking into” the work through circumvention.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2011/06/20/microsoft-misusing-copyright-law-in-xbox-antitrust-lawsuit-group-says/

Now if you read the correct interpretation of that section I still say (without channels viewed and forum posts) there is no way in hell to "prove" that. Now I know past history proves me wrong as they are getting judgement after judgement, but just because they are getting judgements doesn't make it "right".

[ChillyWilly]

Section (1201)(1)(a) only applies if they can "prove" the case. Now I know you will say "But they have proven every case up until now". Now whether they have channels watched and so forth from this reseller panel remains to be seen. Maybe someone that actually has access to NFPS reseller panel can clear that up but if they do then all bets are off. Now the reason I say "prove" the case is because they could have proven section (1201)(2)(b) with just the knowledge of the fact that the defendant is in possession of a "code". But even that has loopholes. There was one member on these boards that stated he purchased the codes for a relative. So I have to ask you? Is he guilty under section (a) or (b)? No of course he isn't guilty under section (a). Now while he might be considered guilty under section (b) of being in possession of a "device" that has limited use he is not guilty under section (a). For the simple fact that even with a reseller panel and i.p.'s and channels watched there would be NO evidence of him having used said code. Therefore there would be no circumvention of technology that could have possibly taken place concerning his case.

But the simple fact remains that until which time you are in court (barring that they do not have channels watched from a reseller panel or forum posts) there is no way to prove section (1201)(1)(a) of the DMCA. While section (b) is a given before the ink was dry on the demand letter. So why go with section (a)? Why not just sue under the proper section of "possession"? Now I know you say one is for end users and one is for dealers I don't think that is entirely accurate. They are going to sue under ANY section they can get relief under. I don't believe the legislators had in mind one section pertaining to one type of criminal (YES I realize this is not criminal) while another section pertained to another.

Here is a court case against MS for misuse and misinterpretation of the DMCA section (1201)(1)(a):

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2011/06/20/microsoft-misusing-copyright-law-in-xbox-antitrust-lawsuit-group-says/

Now if you read the correct interpretation of that section I still say (without channels viewed and forum posts) there is no way in hell to "prove" that. Now I know past history proves me wrong as they are getting judgement after judgement, but just because they are getting judgements doesn't make it "right".

I believe some where in the federal statutes it states "any action taken in furtherance of a crime is to be considered evidence of commission of that crime". An example would be the get-away driver in a bank robbery, he would be as guilty as the rest. The point being that proof of purchase of an iks code could and would be considered "furtherance". but jmo

[sodusme]

I believe some where in the federal statutes it states "any action taken in furtherance of a crime is to be considered evidence of commission of that crime". An example would be the get-away driver in a bank robbery, he would be as guilty as the rest. The point being that proof of purchase of an iks code could and would be considered "furtherance". but jmo

One could argue though that the MS vs Datel case parallels this case in that it is very similar. Basically the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) and their attorneys are arguing that section 1201 of the DMCA doesn't provide relief under "copyright infringement" based on the "use" or even "possession" of an item that permits the misuse of a copyrighted work.

"Letting Xbox owners use a third-party memory card does not put Microsoft at risk of copyright infringement,"

https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2011/06/16

Its an interesting defense and I am inclined to side with them. Which also begs the question if using a "third party", "hacked" controller for MS could be viewed as acceptable why not is using a "third party", "hacked" firmware acceptable use to receive DN programming? I know the argument touches on "subscribers" of the XBox so perhaps people that also subscribed to DN would be viewed differently? So the basic premise is "how can you steal something you are paying for"? I see where the EFF attorneys are going with this in that the word "circumvent" in its literal meaning is to "go around or bypass" which conveys meaning of "not paying" or "eluding" payment.

EFF explains that the DMCA was aimed at preventing access to copyrighted material by non-paying customers

I can guarantee MS has more money to throw around then DN so if they can be called into question on their interpretation of the DMCA so can DN/Nagra.

[kboom]

This is all so true, however it depends on how deep your pockets are.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Section (1201)(1)(a) only applies if they can "prove" the case. Now I know you will say "But they have proven every case up until now". Now whether they have channels watched and so forth from this reseller panel remains to be seen. Maybe someone that actually has access to NFPS reseller panel can clear that up but if they do then all bets are off. Now the reason I say "prove" the case is because they could have proven section (1201)(2)(b) with just the knowledge of the fact that the defendant is in possession of a "code". But even that has loopholes. There was one member on these boards that stated he purchased the codes for a relative. So I have to ask you? Is he guilty under section (a) or (b)? No of course he isn't guilty under section (a). Now while he might be considered guilty under section (b) of being in possession of a "device" that has limited use he is not guilty under section (a). For the simple fact that even with a reseller panel and i.p.'s and channels watched there would be NO evidence of him having used said code. Therefore there would be no circumvention of technology that could have possibly taken place concerning his case.

But the simple fact remains that until which time you are in court (barring that they do not have channels watched from a reseller panel or forum posts) there is no way to prove section (1201)(1)(a) of the DMCA. While section (b) is a given before the ink was dry on the demand letter. So why go with section (a)? Why not just sue under the proper section of "possession"? Now I know you say one is for end users and one is for dealers I don't think that is entirely accurate. They are going to sue under ANY section they can get relief under. I don't believe the legislators had in mind one section pertaining to one type of criminal (YES I realize this is not criminal) while another section pertained to another.

Here is a court case against MS for misuse and misinterpretation of the DMCA section (1201)(1)(a):

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2011/06/20/microsoft-misusing-copyright-law-in-xbox-antitrust-lawsuit-group-says/

Now if you read the correct interpretation of that section I still say (without channels viewed and forum posts) there is no way in hell to "prove" that. Now I know past history proves me wrong as they are getting judgement after judgement, but just because they are getting judgements doesn't make it "right".

There is no such thing stated that it only applies if you can prove the case. No section in law is based on only if you can prove it that it can be alleged. A case goes to court and the court decides if the defendant is guilty or not.


Its perfectly acceptable to allege that infraction as far as I am concern. If they are not successful than you as defendant will win.



GS2