Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

What property? Do sky have evidence these people ever used the service beyond accounts saying they paid for it?

They don't need to prove it.

It's civil case, they just need to show that it's likely these people bought dodgy box service from a confirmed dodgy box seller.

After that any judge will come to the conclusion that they were used to watch illegal streaming.

I mean, who would buy such a service and not use it?

People are really trying to come up with stupid scenarios to try and figure out how Sky are barking up the wrong tree here.

Sky would also have to prove that the buyer knowingly bought an illegal service. They could just claim they thought they were buying a legitimate tv package.

It's like buying a bike which you later discover was stolen.

There's no smoking gun.

The smoking gun is that you and others paid a dodgy box seller a certain amount of money on Revolute.

It's probably the same amount of money, and you probably paid it multiple times at the same time of year.

That's all they need to convince a judge.

Read the post I was replying to which was originally referencing a post simply saying "posession of stolen goods" which is a criminal offense not a civil matter.

For sky to go after them for that it would require definitive evidence that they indeed used the service.

This is what it says in a search about the threshold for conviction in a civil case in Ireland

In Ireland, the threshold for winning a civil case is the balance of probabilities. This means the person making the claim must provide enough evidence to prove it is more likely than not that the wrongdoing occurred, rather than proving it "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in criminal cases.

So there is evidence that you paid a know dodgy box seller a certain amount of money, and there also may be evidence that you paid that know dodgy box seller that certain amount of money on multiple occasions at the same time every year, and there also may be evidence that others paid that know dodgy box seller the same amount of money multiple years in a row.

Now what is your defense?

1. I paid him by mistake.

On multiple years without looking for it back?

2. It was for something else

What was it for? What other business dealings do you have with this know dodgy box seller ?

3. I didn't use the service

Why didn't you use it after you paid for it ?.

4. I didn't watch Sky on it.

Doesn't matter, you had the capability of watching Sky on it so in all probability you did.

5. I didn't know it was illegal

Really?.

You see how all of the above fail to get past the "more than likely wrongdoing occurred"

It will be a civil case slam dunk because they have evidence of payments to the dodgy box seller and they have already sent out cease and disest letters.

Not every seller that has been caught has that paper trail, and even with this guy they only sent the letters to a subset of people they had information about.

A very tenuous case even by civil standards in my view.

How is it very tenous?

They have a paper trail that you bought from a know dodgy box seller (probably multiple times at the same time each year and in a similar pattern to others).

You ignored a cease and disest letter.

That looks "more than likely wrongdoing occurred".

I didn't see any mention of the letters sent by Sky being sent by registered post, which is very telling.

Just because you didn't see mention of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

This is a scare tactic by Sky, but that doesn't mean they are stupid and have not covered all their legal bases should the need arise to bring things all the way.

If it was me id ask the prosecution to hand me their phone and I'd give it back to them with a live match playing in it, no money changing hands. You pay for the organised and user friendly epg of all the streams in the world. Ownership of this list does not infer that all the streams are payment streams. Many are free to air, for people without cable tv or an aerial. If you're still on copper wire Internet in the sticks, VM or Sky streamed mediate boxes are not much use, but a low bit rate stream might just allow you to watch RTE or UTV or some sport from a foreign provider. This has sfa to do with Sky. Tell the judge you're not giving up watching the national broadcaster, but I'll ignore the epg entry that says Sky sport, that I never used anyway.

Yea Billy big balls here showing Sky and there legal team a thing or two.

If you did that the next thing you would be doing is going to the bank to find a loan to pay the settlement and the legal fees against you.