Slashdot Mirror
DirecTV Sues Anyone Who Bought Smartcard Reader?
MImeKillEr writes "The Register is reporting that DirecTV is suing anyone known to have purchased a smartcard programmer, regardless of whether or not they're actually using the device to enable stealing their programming. They're sending out letters & when people call to clear up the confusion, DirecTV is demanding a $3500 settlement as well as the programming device. They've filed 9000 federal lawsuits against alleged pirates thus far. They're obtaining lists of who purchased the devices during raids against the sites that offer them for sale."
I don't know all the details, but I know that they tried to sue my uncle a couple of months ago for that, apparently he made a call to his lawyer and a couple of weeks later they had dropped the suit.
I don't know all the details but if it is the same thing as it sounds, then I don't think people have a lot to worry about.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
They are gonna have a hard time when they send a notice to the address I had my card & reader shipped to:
COD
John Smith
UPS Customer Counter - Hold for Pickup
(my local UPS counter addy)
Anyone who everr orderd a test card, set, etc., with a real addy and credit card is a moron.
Actually, there is NO difference what so ever between the two.
Reader=Programmer
Programmer=Reader
A smartcard reader/programmer is nothing more than a voltage converter attached to a serial port.
The act of sending a command to the ISO card to get a response is the same as programming it. You either ask for a value in return, or you store a value in a specific location. The protocol method is the same in both cases.
There is no "high voltage" eeprom line to enable programming it (in this case at least)
The big difference is a DUMB ISO programmer (where the data lines are controlled by the PC) and a smart programmer where they have protocols embedded in the hardware ISO programmer to conform to ISO protocol standards. That's a different case all together...
A class action has already been tried and thrown out .From the article:
To California lawyer Jeffrey Wilens, DirecTV's whole end-user campaign smells of extortion. Wilens filed a class action suit in Los Angeles last year accusing the company of exactly that. "Realizing that they don't have a legal position, they're just trying to use heavy-handed tactics to intimidate people, just like the record industry is going to be doing in the very near future," says Wilens. "At least the record industry will target people who `did it', instead of `could have done it.'"
But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charles McCoy disagreed, and in April dismissed the suit, ruling that DirecTV's demand letters were sent in connection with litigation, and were therefore legally privileged. The judge also awarded attorney's fees to DirecTV, putting Wilens' seven plaintiffs on the hook for a total of nearly $100,000 in law firm billables.
This sounds like one of those cases where paying cash for 'grey' goods is a smart move.
no it's not.
I have 2 smartcard programmers. Cince I have a side business of home automation I still support a few customers who use the old smartcard technology for home access. (The newer ones have moved to Ibuttons, more secure, better,cheaper,etc...)
So DirectTV can kiss my shiny metal ass. They are NOT getting my programmers.
I am sick of asshat companies like this trying to blanket cover everyone with X device as evil.
What about the computer security professionals or open source developers writing the smartcard parts of the linux login systems? what about the thousands of other people who have perfectly legitimate uses for a stack of blank smartcards and a programmer?
Direct TV... go to hell.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
http://www.legal-rights.org is the best source of information if you are a target of a DTV tort letter or potentially sued by DTV.
DTV sent out thousands of letters asking for the end user to settle out of court for $3500.00. If you ignore the letter, DTV sues you for $10,000.00 and gets a default judgement if you ignore that. Your best bet is to educate yourself (legal-rights.org, excellent place to start) and consult an attorney. A list of experienced attorneys is listed at legal-rights.org who have specifically dealt with these cases.
I think we'd all enjoy a nice cold beverage. -David Letterman
A friend of mine was targeted by this lawsuit,
I have placed scans of the 9 page pre-filing
that Directv sent him.
This is really a bad move, I'm hoping someone with some money to burn fights it since it's a DMCA issue.
http://www.chicago2600.net/directv/
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
Some are fighting because DirecTV wants an admission of guilt, and some are fighting because they have ordered so much stuff, DirecTV's 'settlement' offer is still in the millions of dollars. Last, a few are fighting because they have the money (Dellionaires) and are fighting on priciple alone. However, for most people, simply paying the $3500 and walking away makes a lot more sense than fighting.
For the record, all of these lawsuits have been thrown out in California, and thrown out in such a way that they cannot be resubmitted by DirecTV. Apparently, the judge was offended by the audacity of the lack of evidence. The people who settled prior to the ruling have filed a class action lawsuit against DTV. One man has won his court case in Michigan (I think that's where) and all the other cases are still pending or have been settled out of court.
-------------------------------------------------
But since this is a common misconception:
It actually won't interfere, criminal and civil court are seperate. You can clog up the civil court system with frivilous lawsuits, but the criminal system remains seperate.
If the device was not used to facilitate an illegal activity, then its libel/slander
I don't believe you're correct. The definiton of libel is:
1a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
b. The act of presenting such material to the public.
2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.
Slander:
1. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone
DirecTV doesn't seem to have committed either crime. However this might be considered malicious prosecution:
Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. While similar to the tort of abuse of process it is the misuse of a prior legal process (civil or criminal) that is dismissed in favor of the victim that was brought without probable cause with intentional malice by the defendant.
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
We got one at work a while back, with a view to using them as a simple way of storing data for prepopulating and entry form for an application.
And yes - the same kit could be used for Satellite TV cards.
The proper course of action is to let them take you to court, then contest it on the basis that they have to prove that you have used the equipment to 'steal' their service.
IMHO. if they can't pay for their service through advertising, they're onto a loser, since it is almost always cheaper to circumvent protection measures than it is to pay exorbitant subscription fees.
Leeches.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Did you read the article? A group of 7 people filed a suit against them claiming extortion. The judge ruled in favor of DirecTV and awarded DirecTV $100,000 in lawyers fees. Not only did these people get screwed out of $3500 each, they got screwed out of another $14000 each trying to fight the company.
I don't know if there is a US law that is complimentary, but in California, there is a law against filing too many frivolous lawsuits called the "vexatious litigant" law. If you are designated a vexatious litigant, you have to get a judge's permission before filing a lawsuit. If you file a lawsuit without a judges permission you are considered in contempt of court and are sent to jail immediately. EFF?
DTV uses other lies to "extort" money out of their legitimate subscribers as well.
A friend of mine got laid off for a few months, and couldn't pay her DTV bill for the 4 legit boxes she had purchased and used in her home. When she got back to work and decided to have her service restored, she called DTV and the customer service rep. told her she'd have to pay $20 each for new smart cards (times 4 boxes) before they'd restore her service. She informed them all of those boxes were working *before* they cut her off, what changed? Once she got hostile with the rep. he admitted she really didn't need new cards and turned her service back on. I wondered then how many other folks paid the $20 per card just to get service back? (Note this was in addition to the "reconnect fee" she did have to pay.)
according to dictionary.com barratry is defined as:
The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones.
has nothing to do wiht the follow-through, just the instigation of groundless lawsuits
I reject your reality
They wanted her to get new P4 cards, which are unhackable. Her older HU (football player) cards are hackable, so they'd rather not have those reactivated.
Just FYI, the sites that sell hacking equipment for DirecTV sell "glitchers" and "unloopers". They are devices that work as standard ISO smartcard readers, as well as standard ISO programmers. Nothing wrong there. In fact, many of the sites sell standard programmers for those that want to tinker with it. But to hack a DirecTV card, you need the "glitching" function. Basically, the glitcher will initiate communication with the DirecTV card. It then tells the card it wants to write to the card's memory. At this point, the card goes through a security algorithm. Since no one has found the right keys to hack the DirecTV cards, the glitcher simply cuts it's own power and throws the clock out of phase. It then supplies the normal 5V again. This all happens very quickly, so the security steps are simply skipped. It's obvious that this device is used to circumvent the card's secuirty, hence it's illegal to purchase, own, and use. Convenient for DirecTV, since they don't even have to prove you're stealing their signal. Simply buying one is a crime.
Federal rules of civil procedure, Rule 11
(b) Representations to Court.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
People are too intimidated by lawsuits, and it's a crime that they let companies like DirectTV bully them into forking over a few grand. Of course, it's also pretty awful that to defend themselves against this kind of thing would probably cost $10k+...
In that particular case, the article also notes, the judge ruled that because the letters were sent in connection with litigation, they were subject to legal privilege. The case is currently being appealed. With one exception, the article doesn't note whether the people concerned did anything like writing to DirecTV before taking them to court in the class action suit.
Incidentally, for anyone else who didn't RTFA, there are also mentions of several innocent users who have successfully fought this, amusingly including a guy whom the judge decided was an unlikely culprit, given that he didn't even own a satellite dish.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"They wanted her to get new P4 cards, which are unhackable.
Ahem. Excuse me? I think you meant Not yet hacked in the public domain... The history of this hobby will show you that a new hack doesn't usually show it's face on the scene until there is some sort of significant problem with the current hack. When "Black Sunday" occurred back in 2001, all those former H card users were fodder for the sale of the new HU hack. As it turned out, the H card was revived with the advent of the bootloader, but the HU hack was out. Kind of conveinent that it showed up right when people needed it most, eh?
Currently, the HU hack is safe, more or less. Nothing major seems to be on the horizon, and there is no "write-once" area on the HU as there was on the H, thus no "Black Sunday;" well, at least not via that same method. The only real threat to the HU hack currently is the HU swap out: customers receiving P4 cards to replace their HU cards. Once DTV believes that they have sucessfully replaced the majority of their customers' cards with P4's, they flip the switch and start removing HU authorizations packets from the stream. After that, the HU is a nice ice-scraper, more or less. And amazingly, mark my words, the P4 will miraculously be hacked! What luck!! Get a clue guys, its already done; its just a closely held secret until the masses need it most. Supply and demand folks.
Only after the HU runs into a problem will the P4 hack become public. It's just a matter of time. Thus, your statement regarding the P4 being unhackable... Yeah, just like the H was claimed to be when it replaced the F card, and just like the HU was claimed to be when it replaced the H card. Bollocks sir, pure bollocks.
+ G to tha Izzo, A to tha Tizee, Talking Giz-oat, Ya'll Bettah Feel Me... +
Not quite (at least in the US). You generally cannot avoid defaming someone simply by couching a statement in the form of an opinion. You have to look at the substance of the statement. Is it pure opinion or does it attempt to relay factual assertions apart from opinion? Generally, evaluative opinions will be protected (e.g. "I think you are an ugly person"). There are also deductive opinions (i.e. opinions that imply misconduct based on true information that is publicly available). These are also generally not actionable. Opinions will generally be actionable if they imply the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion.
So, stating that you think someone is a thief because they are known to own a device that is used primarily for illicit purposes is probably protected.
But simply stating "I think you are a child molester" without anything more (i.e. any known true facts that might support this opinion) could easily be the basis for a defamation claim.
This is a very gross generalization and will vary among jurisdictions.