DN $3500 demand

[dishtrasher]

No jury trial demanded by dn in this lawsuits.

[Gunsmoke2 - GS2]

Well here is what I have found on Google concerning DTV and their scam of lawsuits as well. They weren't entirely successful as they went after people buying unloopers and were called on the carpet since some of those guys were network engineers using unloopers to program smart cards:

http://piratecardblues.com/DTV%20v.%20Deskin.pdf

Now of course these cases vary in that unloopers differ from IKS codes. But to say that DTV was 100% successful is not accurate. They did lose some cases.

You can review it all here at

http://www.piratecardblues.com/

It should also be noted that attorney Gary Ruff from this site says very explicitly that article: 47 U.S.C. § 605 can be defended against. I can't/won't c/p the paragraph since he also states that none of his webpage is to be reproduced in any form.

He also goes on to point out that DN usually pursues litigation pursuant to: 47 U.S.C. § 605 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act § 1201(a)(1)(A) and 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1). I find it very interesting that in these cases they are only seeking relief under 1201(a)(1) of the DMCA and not 1201(a)(2)? I'll also note that 47 U.S.C. § 605 deals with the retransmission or transmission and/or reception of radio signals and again just like section 1201 of the DMCA is written as if actual "circumvention" has taken place.

Also regarding a jury you as the defendant have the right to pick jurors along with your attorney. Your attorney will tell you how he wants to "stack" the jury. In other words what demographic he wants to go for: older people, younger people, women, men etc. We had discussed how he wanted to stack the jury in my criminal case I faced a number of years ago before I plea bargained. We were shooting for younger males since it was a fleeing and eluding case and he viewed them as being more lenient in their decision making.

DTV did lose cases relative to section 2520A & 2512(1)(b) claims. Not sure why the lawyer says DN usually brings 1201(a)(1)(A) and 1201(a)(2) because in the end user cases with DA and Wul it has only been 1201(a)(1)


When it comes to dealers they use both 1201(a)(1)(A) and 1201(a)(2)



GS2

[sodusme]

No jury trial demanded by dn in this lawsuits.

I thought it was always your right as a defendant to demand a jury trial whether civil or criminal?

DTV did lose cases relative to section 2520A & 2512(1)(b) claims. Not sure why the lawyer says DN usually brings 1201(a)(1)(A) and 1201(a)(2) because in the end user cases with DA and Wul it has only been 1201(a)(1)


When it comes to dealers they use both 1201(a)(1)(A) and 1201(a)(2)



GS2

I have not followed the dealer letters so I just assumed it was a "cookie cutter" letter sent out to all. That would explain why it seemed to me to be referencing the wrong article of the DMCA. Its possible he is eluding to the fact that maybe it should be article 1201(a)(2) for an end user? This might be a tip to his defense strategy?

[dishtrasher]

sodusme you are right in federal court either party can demand jury trial in civil

[NoName]

OK but the whole reasoning is buying a code is not illegal in and of itself. Like another poster said that is only one part of the equation. To be guilty of "signal circumvention" they need to prove the code was used for theft. They cannot prove that with the evidence they have. I say this because I highly doubt they have any ISP records. They are getting you into court under the guise of you being guilty of "buying" a code, however there is no statute (not the DCMA one they are citing anyways) that allows for a charge like that. I know Alex said they were charging wrong doing under a different article of copyright law and I haven't reviewed that. In order for you to be guilty under the DMCA (1201)(1)(a) there has to have been "circumvention" taking place. At least under that statute of the DMCA they are suing under. Had they sued you under article (1201)(2)(a) of the DMCA then all bets are off as mere possession of a code is enough to find you guilty under that article.

Its kind of like the "burglary tools" charge. I'm sure everyone has a screwdriver and/or bolt cutters in their trunk or possibly both. Technically those are "burglary tools" but you would need more evidence to prove it. Now if you can add a sky mask or gloves in the trunk then OK now we have a possibility of burglary tools. These codes can be reasoned as the same type of thing. In and of themselves they are nothing. But if you start adding forum posts and PM's well then OK now we are getting somewhere. By themselves they are nothing just as a pair of bolt cutters would be nothing.

As it relates to pos transaction, I guess there is a difference between the d.a. ppl that got busted and wuff's ppl

During D.A's checkout, it made specific references to provider packages and it was a very specific checkout system. In that case, there was no way a person could buy a D.A. code and claim that it was not used with the "intention" on sat piracy. With Wuf's its different because there weren't any specific checkouts involved. Just donations sent to a paypal.

So I see where you are coming from with your post; makes sense

[ftastudent2]

If it was 'certified' which it should have been to assure delivery and your parents signed for it then its good as trash. It has to be signed for by the recipient....unless you live at your parents house which you have already said you don't. There is no guarantee that you will ever see the letter by your parents signing for it. That is why it is sent 'certified' and that is why I say its as good as trash. Your parents could lose the letter, they could have a disagreement with you and not forward it to you, they could be forgetful and not even remember signing for the letter depending on their age, and so on and so forth.


I won't tell you what I would do as I'm not the average bear and I don't expect other people to follow my lead. But I do have a website that might help you:

http://www.piratecardblues.com/

If you read this guys article (he IS an attorney and I'm not) he seems to know what he's talking about. I think he even offers legal help/advice for like $49.00 Paypal. For that small amount you can't lose seeing what he has to say and who knows it might get the wolves off you.



No its not a 'fact' stop trying to scare the guy there is no guarantee which ever way he goes will cost anymore money then another way. You need to read some of the cases that Alex posted. Just because you are served a demand letter (which he legally wasn't since his parents signed for it) doesn't mean you are going to be sued, it also doesn't mean that you will automatically have to pay 10K.

Seems like a good idea if your problem is with DTV but no mention of the problem we are discussing. Just my 2 cents but probably best to make it go away the way dick wants. Limit your liability as fast as possible. You won't know all that they know unless a trial commences and by then its too late.

[clarkBENT]

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 38:

(a) Right Preserved. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution—or as provided by a federal statute—is preserved to the parties inviolate.

(b) Demand. On any issue triable of right by a jury, a party may demand a jury trial by:

(1) serving the other parties with a written demand—which may be included in a pleading—no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served; and

(2) filing the demand in accordance with Rule 5(d).

(c) Specifying Issues. In its demand, a party may specify the issues that it wishes to have tried by a jury; otherwise, it is considered to have demanded a jury trial on all the issues so triable. If the party has demanded a jury trial on only some issues, any other party may—within 14 days after being served with the demand or within a shorter time ordered by the court—serve a demand for a jury trial on any other or all factual issues triable by jury.

(d) Waiver; Withdrawal. A party waives a jury trial unless its demand is properly served and filed. A proper demand may be withdrawn only if the parties consent.

(e) Admiralty and Maritime Claims. These rules do not create a right to a jury trial on issues in a claim that is an admiralty or maritime claim under Rule 9(h).


Demand a jury trial - DN requires a unanimous verdict in order to prevail at trial (in Federal Court).

No jury trial demanded by dn in this lawsuits.