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."
Guess I better not call them.
Best Windows Freeware
This sounds like one of those cases where paying cash for 'grey' goods is a smart move. Unless they have some other means of tracking smartcard owners? Not that I have, want or need a smartcard reader or DirecTV for that matter (there is little enough on telly to warrant much more than basic cable for the occassional sporting event). It'll be interesting to watch who pays up, who fights it in court and just whether any of this activity will dampen the desire for smartcard readers. Cheers, Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
-- Laura
Of course it can wait. No Senators get paid off when a murderer goes to jail. But if a company makes money, then everyone* profits!
*Your definition of everyone may vary from that of the US Senate and Large Corporations
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
That's like making it illegal to buy a knife because someone killed another person with it.
No, I think it's more like suing everyone who's ever bought a knife because somebody got stabbed.
This works because lawyers are expensive. To the average person, the legal fees required to fight it are greater than the settlement.
So, in effect, what DirecTV is saying is "Give us $3500 or we will sue you." It doesn't matter if they have a case or not. They get $3500 or you pay more in legal fees.
Actually, this is more like Tony Soprano's business model than anything.
...it appears that abuse and extortion are what our legal system is all about. Its not about justice, its about who has the deeper pockets.
"Send lawyers, guns and money..."
There's a huge flaw in your analogy, because there's only one real use for cocaine: getting high. (Well, okay, two uses, because you can also sell cocaine to someone else, but that's beside the point.)
But a smartcard programmer could have other uses as well, both legal and illegal, and not all of them make a person financially liable to DirecTV.
--rhad
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
The article made a good point: the people buying this stuff wanted to get good deals. It's not illegal to own one of these (presumably), so there's no problem buying it from some crazy site if the price is right. That doesn't make them stupid, just frugal.
Selling a product for a certain use does not dictate how it will be used. Nor does it limit how it will be used. We don't need DirectTV policing our potential for crime in this way.
Crystal Meth: Would you ingest somthing made from a poisonous gas and an explosive metal? You do it every day -- Salt!
Isn't it "nice" to be living in the US while seeing a steadily increasing move towards arresting/detaining/suing people who "might" commit a crime, instead of actually waiting until they commit it?
And you don't even have to threaten to do so anymore. All you need to do is have the ethnicity/equipment/political affiliation that labels you as someone who "could" commit a crime.
I have an MP3 player at home and MP3's on my PC, so I *MUST* be downloading copyrighted music.
I have a CD Burner in my laptop, so I *MUST* be copying software.
I am not a Republican, so I *MUST* be engaging in sedicious activity.
And alot of people/politicians/companies seem to be jumping on the through crime/preventive detention/suing before the fact bandwagon these days.
Scary indeed.
I don't care if things are 'advertised' as being illegal. If I buy a crowbar because someone says it can be used to break windows and steal cars, and I use it to tear down a wall I don't want in my house, is that illegal? Perhaps a used crowbar is more in my price range, or that crowbar costs less than one down at the hardware store. It doesn't matter how it's advertised, it matters how I use it. Note: I didn't say "how I intend to use it".
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Clearly these suits are not designed to go to court; they are designed to get people to turn themselves in and get these devices off the street. US$3500 is too cheap for anybody who really is guilty by intent to take it to court. And the "guilty" probably are the majority of the people who bought from those sites.
Of course the problem is those who are innocent. Courts have shown in the past that if you buy a device like this with the intent to perform a crime, then you are guilty even if you didn't carry through on that crime. And as the sites advertised as such, showing that was your intent is much easier.
However there are very legitimate uses for these devices, just as the article shows, and innocent people will get caught up in this. Just because the site may advertise this device as being useful for cracking DirecTV, I may very well buy it for other purposes if the price was cheap. Think about someone selling hardened-steel axes for $5.00 with the advert "You can chop down your neighbor's door with this!"...but at $5.00 I would probably buy one to cut my firewood. If it's not inherently an illegal device (which smartcard programmers are not) and my intended use was not illegal then I did nothing wrong. My intented use doesn't have to match that of the advertiser.
Until this point I've actually respected DirecTV's anti-piracy approach; mainly by counter-hacking and outsmarting the illegal crackers. But now they are going to snare a lot of innocent folks in an expensive legal trap, and setting a bad example for other corporations to try. The innocent should be able to beat this without too much effort, but it will sadly cost them a lot of money and time to prove their innocence.
Sosa "doesn't care" because he's a doctor and he'd lose a lot more than $3500 in the time it'd take him to fight this (and be unlikely to recover those costs even if he did win). He said it himself, he's got a family to look after. Now if it was me, I'd send them a letter saying "See you in court", because I have nothing to lose. Compared to Dr. Sosa, my time is virtually worthless. I couldn't afford a lawyer, but I'd be willing to bet a judge would see it my way if I prepared a clear presentation explaining what I'd been using the device for (assuming I wasn't a pirate that is!). DirecTV would have NO proof I was using it to steal their signal, after all (since I wasn't).
Call me naive, or what?
Freedom: "I won't!"
A letter asserting that you have stolen sattelite tv because you own a smart card programmer potentially fits several of the items you list because:
1) Owning a smart card programmer absolutley does NOT mean that you stole a signal any more than owning a car is indisputable proof that you are a drunk driver, so the letters that have been sent to people do contain false statements.
2) Being accused of a felony IS damaging to a persons reputation.
If you have a legal use for such a product you shouldn't buy it from someone who is specifically advertising it as being illegal.
I don't care if things are 'advertised' as being illegal. If I buy a crowbar because someone says it can be used to break windows and steal cars, and I use it to tear down a wall I don't want in my house, is that illegal?
IANAL, which nobody seems to remember to mention anymore. 's pretty important; I could be blatantly misunderstanding something here, as it's clear that at least a quarter of the remainder of the discussion is.
This argument loses a lot of steam when you attempt to complete the metaphor. What legitimate purpose did these decoders serve? The argument might better be made using a device which is contextually generally for the Dark Side; a slim jim, electric lockpick, or tumbler breaking tools might be a better choice. The locksmith, the AAA guy, and the police officer have good reasons to have these things. The dude in the fake ninja getup in the industrial slums has a germane bit of explaining to do.
What I'm wondering is how DTV can sue for descramblers. Traditionally they've been legal, because once the end-user buys the device, it's theirs, and they may do with it as they please. Same as Mod Chips, flash cards for game platforms, VCRs / PVRs / tapedecks / DVD burners / CD burners, third party debuggers, etc. There's nothing wrong with it until you do something wrong with it.
Is the hardware leased? Is there some kind of end-user contract? Does one of the new laws (DMCA, SSSPCA, USPSKFC, whatever) change the way this is seen in court? Help me understand what they're actually accusing of, in specific, rather than topically.
I can very easily see the argument for a suit against the manufacturers of the item - priove black box reengineering, etc - but Compaq started a clone market with this sort of behavior. And besides, if Compaq *had* been in the wrong, since when would it be the user's fault for buying a device that at the time was legal?
Or, there's the TV Piracy suggestion. Two words: prove it. That's the only claim here that I understand, and it's not certain. You can't sue for maybe.
There are dozens of laws against using the legal system to cow the populace; more clueful slashdotters will bring them up (I've already seen barratry, extortion, and I'm expecting conspiracy or collusion or whatever they perenially accuse airlines of in price fixing soon...) It seems that, in the light that DirecTV has little actual wrongdoing in hand, there ought to be a class action or something similar in rebuttal.
Then again, apparently they've been overturned already, so I've obviously missed some serious detail. Guh?
StoneCypher is Full of BS
No, YOU jackass. The limb you went off on broke. You don't know what you're talking about.
The products sold on those sites are quite superior to regular smart card programmers and are CHEAPER!
Your usual smart card writer suppliers know that most people buying these are buying them using their companies budget so they make the markup higher.
It makes sense (well did until DTV started this crap) to buy from those pirate websites.
Hell some DTV sites (advancedlearningsystems.com) sell actual professional smartcard programmers cheaper than the manufacturer. They buy in bulk and sell individually at cost for their members.
However it can only damage your reputation if it is public. The threatening letter is sent specifically to you by the party who is accusing you (or a duely authorized agent in their name) - it is not apublic declaration.
:)
Now, if they published these letters on their website, or released the names of all the people that they were accusing to the local paper, that would fit.
Basically...if I ring your doorbell and when you answer I tell you "I think you are a souless satan worshipping ballbag" thats nothing (well maybe harrassment or tresspassing if I don't leave when you tell me to).
but if I go to your neibors door and when he answers I tell him you are a soulless satan worshipping ballbag...thats slander.
If I take an ad out in the paper and tell the readershoip that you are a soulless satan worshipping ballbag... thats libel.
See?
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
"There is no question that the items in question are pirate devices."
Yes there is. The device is used for legitimate purposes. If DirecTV wants to eliminate the doubt, they should use a proprietary technology or card design. They use an open standard that is in use in other industries and then wonder when people can get their hands on equipment to steal it? That is (somewhat) like using philips head screws to secure your home and then not expecting anyone to have a philips head screwdriver.
Lovely slashbot crying. Everyone is suddenly a legitimate smart card hacker and not a thief. Sure. Whatever.
There you are dead on.
Chuck
Ok, how about this analogy. Duffel bags are a popular item for bank robbers to stash the stolen money in. I'm interested in purchasing a duffel bag for my own non-bank-robbing purposes (and what I use it for is none of your business or anyone else's but my own). So, I go online to look for a good deal and the site I find advertises the duffel bags as "GREAT ASSETS FOR BANK ROBBERY!!!". I buy the bag, I get sued by a bank?
How the site advertises the duffel backs doesn't have a damn thing to do with the legitimacy of my purchase. As long as I stay within the law what I do with my duffel bag is my own business and I'll be damned if I'll let some stupid bank pry their way into my affairs after making assumptions about my purpose. If I rob a bank, then prosecute me. But, until someone breaks the law corporations should have no right to sue, threaten, or otherwise harass consumers.
They are accusing 8700 people and settling for $3500 a piece, which rounds out to $30,450,000 if they get everybody to fold. So people get out of it, but some people end up paying more. Their business model is working. From the article:
...Hughes Electronics reported strong second quarter results, with $2.4 million in revenue, driven by DirecTV's subscriber growth.
Now consider this. If they only get half of the amount they are seeking, $15,225,000, that's still more than five times that quarters reported earnings of $2.4 million.
Just some food for squat.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
2) Being accused of a felony IS damaging to a persons reputation
surely it's not if the company doesn't tell anyone else who it is accusing? as you can't injusre someone's reputation by telling them something in private..
Either that, or Sosa HAS been using it to steal services, and that's why he doesn't want to fight.
Oh, crap. That's exactly what DirecTV wants us to think, isn't it? They'll assume (and convince us to assume) that everyone who settled is a thief. Armed with 'proof' that all these people stole their services, DirecTV now lobbies Congress for DMCA2 or SSSCA or FTCA (Fuck the Consumer Act, why beat around the bush now?) and gets it passed.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
It helps to know that no reputable lawyer will ever guarantee that they will win. So, the question is not "can you win" - it's "can you afford to lose".
There are two outcomes:
1) DirectTV loses, pays the costs, says to it's lawyers, "Bad show, guys", and moves on.
2) The individual loses, is now in the hole his fees, plus their fees (say $20,000 on an individual case) and mortgages his house. Wife and kids are at a minimum unhappy, and worst case they are homeless.
DirectTV can afford to lose, the individual can't, DIrectTV knows this, so it isn't exactly a level playing field. Level playing fields are not guaranteed - only access to the court system is.
Note also that the class action suit was not really based on the merits of DirectTVs case - they accused DirectTV of extortion.
Defending yourself against baseless lawsuits is very expensive and time-consuming. Those who were not stealing sattellite TV signals had their lives greatly disturbed. DirecTV suing a large group of people with no basis other than posession of a device that could possibly be used to steal signals is nothing but abuse of the legal system and I hope they get taken to task for such tactics.
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
So, you feel the system is working if any company can bring suit against everyone who could have gotten free service?
Yes, I guess that makes sense. Think of the wonderful future in store for us. One where eveyone has a few days a year scheduled in court to prove they aren't breaking the law. And if you can't prove it, I guess it's just your bad luck.
Which is why it seems like the system is working here.
That is the type of attitude that bothers me. Since you love the system so much I hope they sue you. You can accrue the thousands upon thousands of dollars in lawyers fees it takes to prove you are innocent and have no need in paying the $3,500 fine.
But defending a case costs money, and critics of DirecTV's campaign say that people have been paying the $3,500 settlement, guilty or innocent, simply because they can't afford a lawyer.
Nice working system you support!
The company won't say how many cases it's dropped, but Zakarian and Apgood both say they've negotiated dismissals. In every case, though, the innocent defendant is left holding the bag for their attorney fees.
I am happy to know you are so supportive of this type of action!
I am happy to know you support large companies blindly suing everyone without investigative work.
I am happy to know you support large companies intentionally sending out letters that incurage people, who might have done nothing wrong, to pay a fine or pay hefty court costs to defend themselves!
I am happy to know you support the little guys getting squashed so that DirecTV can gain a few extra dollars.
I personally thing it is horrible and have set my sights on never using DirectTV but then again I actually care about those people who are trampled by DirectTV.
So the trick would be (if you get one of these letters) to ignore it and wait for them to file suit against you.
...?
The suit is in the public record, so then it's libel (assuming you really are innocent).
If enough people have the cojones to ignore the threats, then DirectTV will have to show it's cards or STFU.
Actually, it still comes back to barratry, I think. Like another poster said, this is no different than someone suing you for drunk driving because they have a record of you buying a car. The one doesn't imply the other. And, even if I were a drunk driver, they can't search me based on the fact that I bought a car.
Okay, the analogy is getting weak, but doesn't this all boil down to just legal intimidation
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
People have no business owning soldering irons, an electrical engineer has a good reason to own one, but anyone else caught with one has a germane bit of explaining to do.
...
This flies in the face of the point I was trying to make. The reason a crowbar is a bad metaphor is that it's got many legitimate purposes. So does a soldering iron.
What the hell are you doing that's not theft with a goddamn DirecTV-specific decoder box?
The thing is, smart cards have plenty of legitimate uses beyond DTV boxes, and DTV is using an industry standard smart card format. If they were using a proprietary format, and these smart card programmers had to be specifically designed for DTV smart cards, I would agree with you. Since they're using an industry standard format, however, it's really no different than going after everyone who owns a crowbar or a soldering iron.
This strikes me as a watered down version of the sarcastic response gun control advocates make to the suggestion that the average citizen has a right to own an assault rifle.
According to the Bill of Rights, and the intentions of those who wrote it, the average citizen DOES have the right to own an assault rifle, even if assault rifles aren't mentioned directly. The purpose of the Right to Bear Arms is not for hunting, or even to protect oneself from criminals; it is to protect oneself from an abusive or overbearing government.
I should probably mention that I'm not a member of the NRA, nor do I even own so much as a squirtgun, but I am a firm beleiver in the founding principles of this nation.
OT, but something you should think about.
I mean, christ's sake, you can't even have some simple martial weapons, like nunchaku, which are important for spiritual practices for a good many people.
Completely OT now, but now that I've actually had some training with nunchaku (or jul bong, if you're Korean) I think that law is pretty funny. You're allowed to have them for martial arts practice or demonstration, or on your way to or from practice or demonstration, or if you are a martial arts instructor, or in the privacy of your own home. What it boils down to is that you're only allowed to have them if you know how to use them. The really funny part of that is, as is obvious to anyone who has used them, if you don't know what you're doing you're really only dangerous to yourself.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
On one hand, I despise litigation like this.
On the other hand, I wish all the people who take broadcast decoding for granted would go to hell.
You see, I would never go to the trouble of using a device to decode scrambled broadcast signals. It's just not the sort of contraption that interests me. I tend to do without entertainment rather than meet such a barrier to its consumption. It's in the same category of "not going to the theatre because the parking lot is too full."
But this DTV thing goes much further than that.
You see, I know PLENTY of people who use a clandestine tv receiver. I've watched them gloat over their cards as if they had found a Willie Mays rookie card in an attic or something. I've seen them setup all kinds of PC contraptions to fake the receiver. Sure, I run in a circle of nerds, students, blacksmiths, musicians, and accountants, so my experience is somewhat skewed -- but still, I've never met ANYBODY who actually pays retail for DTV, yet I know all kinds of people who do the whole card-hacking trick.
From my limited sample, I've deduced that a large number of people get their signals for free.
Because I know this, I would never, ever, buy the service. Wouldn't even consider it. I don't care what it costs. Knowing that a large number of people get it free, and take getting it free for granted, is enough to stop me from any consideration of buying it. As far as doing the card thing, I could care less. If I were going to put that much effort into anything, it would be toward my music gear, not my TV. I'd do without TV first.
So in a way, part of me hopes the plaintiff prevails. I'd be a lot happier if they could come up with a technical solution that works -- because I know the legal solution never will.
Seriously. If I didn't have knowledge that the service was commonly gotten for free, I might take notice of the product. Might even consider buying it. But not in the current situation.
Even if it's worth the price, I'd not voluntarily enter into something that makes me feel like a chump.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Let's see. Guns are designed to kill things, but everyone has a legal right to own one.
Actually no. Guns are designed to fire projectiles out of a barrel at high velocity. Guns can fire many forms of non-lethal forms of munitions like rubber or spongy bullets. The question is intent and action. If I kill, injure or threaten for non legitimate purposes such as self defence, then throw the book at me. If I use the weapon in self defence, for hunting, sport shooting at a gun club or any ligitimate reason defined under law, you cannot criminally or civially try me since I have not commited a crime.
However, buying a smartcard reader means you were going to steal TV programming, and the consequences are more severe. I don't get it.
So does that mean if you own a computer with a cdrom that you should be tried for intelectual property infringement? You could rip the cd and distribute the music. Well if you have not actually committed IP infringment, then no. The point is you cannot be tried for commiting a crime that you have not commited yet. Smartcard readers are becoming more and more standard in devices. To modify what the readers see you need a programmer. Smartcard programmers are multi purpose devices just as a CD-RW are. What gets put on them is what makes things illegal or not.
does prior restraint fit into all this? I don't know the first thing about law but this concise explanation seems to indicate so.
Prior restraint is a description of a law that tries to impose sanctions on an activity to fetter it before it happens. There is one law in this case that could be applied here: DMCA. In general as DMCA is used more to procecute people who use technologies for fair use, it will eventually be either be striken from the books or ruled unconstitutional(theres always hoping).
As for the rest of the essay it is highly critical of prior restraint as afront to liberty as indicate by :
The inexorable consequences of prior restraint, where employed outside the bounds of the doctrine of limited government, are simply an unwise and needless loss of liberty.
Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
Were I in your shoes, I'd do everything I could to find a lawyer who fits the criteria and slap an extortion and harrassment counter suit, naming damages in the $100 million range. Then refuse to settle.
If you can't find a lawyer who meets the above criteria, contact CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews or some other national news outlet to see if they'd be interested in running your story.
Once it hits TV, lawyers will crawl out of the woodwork to help just for the noteriety.
Good luck!
There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...