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."
-- 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
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..."
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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