|
<http://www.wumarkus.com/forums/dtv/files/Snow-v-DTV.pdf>
Essentially, DTV is being sued for DMCA violations. In essence, the plaintiff's
website has a disclaimer and terms of service that basically bar DTV from accessing
it without permission. The plaintiff claims that DTV illegally accessed information
there.
I would love to see DTV get their balls sacked, but some of these Federal judges
seem to sport wood whenever DTV breaks out some of the Harvard educated attorneys
they got on their payroll.
Anyone think this lawsuit has a prayer of resulting in any real damages being
awarded against DaveTV???
|
| |
| |
<http://www.wumarkus.com/forums/dtv/files/Snow-v-DTV.pdf>
Essentially, DTV is being sued for DMCA violations. In essence, the
plaintiff's
website has a disclaimer and terms of service that basically bar DTV from
accessing
it without permission. The plaintiff claims that DTV illegally accessed
information
there.
I would love to see DTV get their balls sacked, but some of these Federal
judges
seem to sport wood whenever DTV breaks out some of the Harvard educated
attorneys
they got on their payroll.
Anyone think this lawsuit has a prayer of resulting in any real damages
being
awarded against DaveTV???
Well, EQ leaking posts and data from that and WuMarkus to DTV and helping
DTV get moles in there (like EQ isn't a DTV mole/plant himself LOL) i bet
nothing happens... but yet again EQ is in the middle.
he just can't leave well enough alone... just wait til they find out in
court who and what - his balls will be hanging.
~NortH~
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:10:04 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
<http://www.wumarkus.com/forums/dtv/files/Snow-v-DTV.pdf>
Essentially, DTV is being sued for DMCA violations. In essence, the plaintiff's
website has a disclaimer and terms of service that basically bar DTV from accessing
it without permission. The plaintiff claims that DTV illegally accessed information
there.
I would love to see DTV get their balls sacked, but some of these Federal judges
seem to sport wood whenever DTV breaks out some of the Harvard educated attorneys
they got on their payroll.
Anyone think this lawsuit has a prayer of resulting in any real damages being
awarded against DaveTV???
This is nice! I wonder if they have DTV IP addresses in their logs.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:05:37 -0400, kryppy <kryppy@gmail.cc> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:10:04 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
This is nice! I wonder if they have DTV IP addresses in their logs.
My understanding is this -- it's pretty obvious if you read the complaint above.
Yes. The plaintiff, Wahoo, examinted the webserver logfiles (hosted at <www.globat.com>)
and the some of the people accessing it had IPs pointed to the offices of DirecTV
<http://www.directv.com>, Stump Storey Callahan Dietrich & Spears <http://www.google.com/local?q=stump+storey+callahan&hl=en&lr=&sa=G&near=Orlando,+FL&latlng=28538055,-81379444,5860476197256038659&radius=0.000000&dm=large>,
and Yarmuth Wilson & Calfo <http://www.yarmuth.com>.
This is a clear violation of 18 USC 2701 (actually MULTIPLE violations), and
if it was willfull and intentional, then PUNITIVE damages can be assessed.
You can hit DTV, and their scum sucking attorneys all day long with $1,000
statuatory damages/incident and DTV will laugh as they gladly write out a check.
However, if they can be slapped with severe PUNITIVE damages, DTV will not
be laughing so hard.
It was be true justice if part of the damages awarded would be to force DTV
to put up on the HackHU website's End User Case section a PDF of the judgment
against them.
What is also nice is since Wahoo is using the DMCA against DirecTV, he can
use all of the tricks DTV had used in the past against them.
It looks a pretty clear cut victory for me, unless just off the wall happens
(evidence was forged).
|
| |
| |
http://www.wumarkus.com/forums/dtv/files/Snow-v-DTV.pdf
It looks a pretty clear cut victory for me
I've heard EQ say that exact same thing about his own case. My
suggestion: Don't hold your breath. It's not that clear cut.
Oh, sure, the main page says all that. But that's not the problem.
DTV's "out" may indeed be that these "contracts" can't be enforced.
That's where DTV will start -- when they stop laughing.
You can be sure that they'll just won't fold like a house of cards.
DTV has deep pockets and backbone to back it up. They no doubt
consulted their own legal staff before proceeding.
It will be fun to see how this plays out. It could have some very
far reaching implications should the plaintiff prevail.
Hey, you can always hope. Anything's possible. Pigs may indeed
sing and elephants just might fly! It COULD happen!
|
| |
| |
|
